|
I believe the way they get away with it is because there is a fine line between nudity and pornography. Pornography is any act implying sexual actions/implications, while nudity, is simply that.
Examples:
If a mom takes a picture of their naked 3 year old daughter/son/asexual child taking a bath, that is nudity.
And on the extreme of pornography, if you photograph/video two 17 year olds having intercourse, then that is child pornography- because by law they are children, and in a sexual act/implying a sexual act.
The problem arises when you get close to the fine line. Is a naked asexual baby that happens to have their legs spread open considered nudity or child pornography? It all really depends on who's looking at it I suppose, which is why there's a fine line.
Cheers,
Matt
|