What do you make of this part of the summary: "To the extent that § 1466A applies to non-obscene material produced without the use of an actual minor, it would be unconstitutional under Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition." (emphasis mine)

The Wikipedia page for that case seems to show that it is protected, precisely because outlawing it would restrict legitimate and artistic free speech. There are a huge range of artistic media depicting minors that prohibiting it would then censor.

It seems to me that the court has actual found in favor of such works being protected speech, regardless of what any of us might feel on the matter.