This chapter builds on the discussion in Chapter 3 by comparing the laws criminalising fictional child pornography (‘FCP’) in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In doing so, it examines how the courts have interpreted the relevant laws and the criticisms raised in the literature about the scope of these laws. The analysis is important in that, instead of taking the law at face value, it delves deeper by exploring the purpose of extending the law to capture FCP, and by drawing parallels with the legislation in different jurisdictions, it provides a fuller understanding of the laws. The chapter first considers what general observations can be made about ‘typical’ offenders prosecuted for possessing FCP. It then critically analyses the themes emerging from the laws in the Western countries examined. These include the contentious phrase ‘appears to be’ used in the legislation, the reasons for interpreting the child abuse material legislation to include fictional characters, and the obscenity requirement incorporated in the relevant laws in most jurisdictions. The chapter then considers how the criminalisation of FCP interferes with fundamental individual freedoms. Finally, it questions whether the purpose of the law is to prevent harm or protect morality.