Here's a nice flawed argument:
Quote:
Assistant U.S. District Attorney Karin Fojtik said Congress made it clear that nudity does not have to be present to consider something pornographic.
“The big difference is these are children,” Fojtik said.
|
So not only the legality, but also the definition of pornography changes according to the subjects involved? That's bizarre...
I don't like those NN sites, but this decision just doesn't seem to make sense.
Quote:
|
According to charging documents, one photo of a 9-year-old girl shows her dressed in “black stiletto pumps, a black lace thong, black bra, and black jacket” sitting on a dining room table.
|
If that's kiddy porn, then magazines like Maxim and FHM are "normal porn". So are most movies, for that matter, and television series.