That the consumation of the intended act is a factual impossibility has not bothered the courts here in Illinois. A good friend of mine was denied cert by the Illinois Supreme Court after the Appellate Court for the 1st District (Chicago, Cook County, the Appellant’s name was Blumenthal if you want to look up the published opinion) didn’t buy any of the arguments regarding impossibility, or that the statute criminalised mere speech. Before they created (about 6 years ago??, maybe a little longer) an internet/phone Indecent solicitation of a child statute in Illinois, the police used to have to actually have a bogus meeting, to show there was an physical act beyond the conversation. They don’t have to do that any more in Illinois. They still do in most cases however, because of problems proving who was on the computer for the convesations.

In his brief my pal argued that someone might enjoy having conversations with men pretending to be kids for fun, with no criminal intent, just because the defendant liked to talk to cops. The federal virtual porn statute had been struck at about the same time he appealed this, so it didn’t seem like such a bizare argument at the time.