>>123231025>>123231075US laws on drawn porn of that nature are an extremely legally gray area:
US vs Handley (2008) ruled that original drawings depicting minors are not equatable with child pornography. The court dismissed the child pornography charges against Handley, a comic collector whose collection included a number of imported Japanese comics with loli content, but held up an obscenity charge which Handley pled out on rather than risk an easily offended jury convicting him on it. Conversely, US v Dean (2010) ruled a much broader definition of child pornography that would have included drawings, however the particular case involved a man who had spent a decade sexually abusing his stepdaughter and producing and distributing videos of it, so the courts' definition was incidental to the facts of the case. Both decisions were in different circuits (Handley was in the 8th circuit, Dean in the 11th) and there's been no Supreme Court cases at all relating to the issue so it's still very much an open question.
Obscenity laws vary wildly from state to state - both in terms of what is considered obscene and whether the laws are actively enforced. In general though, there is little - if any - enforcement of obscenity charges against digital possession or web distribution except in circumstances where the material is not original but reproduced from actual child pornography.
Short version - Vee probably isn't likely to have any trouble in court, though she's not likely to have success finding legitimate work.
