Quote:
Originally Posted by solletica
If someone classified a picture as "children in sexually suggestive positions", the first thing I would ask him is why he found it sexually suggestive.
Bottom line: there is no general agreement as to what is sexually suggestive.
Random pics of kids at a local park can be sexually suggestive to some people.
Whereas pics of someone's genitals can be totally unpornographic (and repulsive) to some people (including me!)
The fact remains that because those who are inclined to be aroused sexually by pics of kids have diverse sexual tastes (like anyone else), just about any pic of child can be classified as porn, because it will likely be sexually suggestive to at least one person,
i. e. banning all real-life kiddie porn means banning virtually all child photography.
|
You're absolutely correct in the fact that what is lewd and not lewd varies widely from person to person. What one judge may consider fine, another judge may consider to be sexual suggestive.
I believe I already stated that they need a more refined and narrow definition of what constitutes child pornography.
However, I would
like to believe that 'borderline' pictures would not even be bothered with, as it would be a waste of time due to the chance of the charges being thrown out (but our government does love wasting time and money). I would hope they'd focus more on people possessing pictures that are unquestionably child pornography.