Originally posted by KrisK10D It's not a subjective definition. It's a very clear one. As I said in my first post, pornography must be a depiction of a sexual act. If you want me to be more specific, I can.
The images I have seen, and I'm limited to what's been reported by our ever impartial news media, are not! I agree with Dale's waitress. This curfufall is not because the model is naked. It's because the model is naked & only 13. If it can be considered pornography then every other nude image ever produced must also be considered pornography.
Yep, a defence laywer in reference to these images said:
"My advice to clients would be that it's simply an age issue … Everyone takes happy snaps of their naked babies, but teenage girls taken between 10 and 16, it would be in the realm of pornography, especially if it was open for public display."
Female b/w 10 and 16 = realm of pornography. Any male or female nude subject outside those ages is by default "not in the realm of pornography"?
Now if the photographer was female would the reaction be the same?
If the subject was male would the reaction be the same?
I'll make the point that the presumption is guilt because the subject is both female and between 10 and 16.