based on the totality of the circumstances, whether an unsuspecting viewer would consider the depiction to be an actual individual under the age of eighteen engaging in sexual activity.” Id. As an additional safeguard against arbitrary prosecutions, the government must satisfy the element of scienter before it can obtain a valid conviction under the CPPA. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 2252A (West Supp.1999). In any CPPA prosecution, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual “knowingly” produced, distributed, or possessed sexually explicit material and that the material depicts a person who appeared to the pornographer to be under the age of eighteen. See Id. See also United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64, 78, 115 S.Ct. 464, 130 L.Ed.2d 372 (1994) (<HOLDING>). “Thus, a defendant who honestly believes that
holding that a statement of fact relating to the plaintiffs age was not direct evidence of age discrimination because the relevance of the comment is provided by inference holding that the appropriate sanction was to require the defendant to disclose the nature of the agreement with the witness holding that the courts analysis should focus on the nature of the abuse injuries inflicted and the effect of both holding that the term knowingly under  2252a applies to both the nature of the material and the age of the children depicted holding that the scienter requirement extends to both the sexually explicit nature of the material and to the age of the performers