Originally Posted by Speakeasy

I guess this is where one of my main problems arises. "Intent" is almost always a judgment call that is hard to prove correct or not. I seems a bit odd that you can have two people with a hard drive filled with children in bathing suits and only one of them will get in trouble (one being a photographer for kid's clothing catalogs and one being a random guy living in a trailer). And yes, people do get prosecuted for having pictures of kids totally clothed, as long as the judge believes that the pictures may have been used for sexual gratification (see how many "if's" there are? Too many to lock someone up, in my opinion).

If someone has a bunch of pictures of children actually engaging in sex acts, their breaking of the law is pretty clear. But, there is a fuzzy line when it comes to the 'other side' of child pornography, where the things aren't so clear, as I mentioned above. I believe there should be quite a big difference between having pictures of an 8 year old in a bikini and having a picture of an 8 year old being sexually molested. In the eyes of the law, it seems like the differences between the two are getting smaller and smaller.

I'm in no way saying that child pornography laws should be done away with. What I am saying, is that a little more thought and oversight needs to go into the creation and policing of child pornography laws. It seems that the crime is so despicable, that no one really cares how questionable the laws become.