Quote:
Originally posted by kmanrox
i am interpreting this decision on the logic of, 'how many times has brook shields' been nude, underage in a hollywood movie film, and that canot be considered CP.... i think they are saying that the whole situation as a whole must be taken into consideration before someone can be liable. ie 'Young Lolitas Erotic Beach Review' with 2yo girls in G-strings posing suggestively would be 'wrong', especially shot by a total amateur without any real photographic accomplishments or legit laurels..
|
Once again, if we liked every use of free speech, there'd be no need for a First Amendment. It's impossible to draft a CP law that would not be interpreted by some tightass supercops to also cover, for example, the *Lolita* movie which came out several years ago, or very artistic renderings of nude children (e.g., pictures of cherubs painted on cathedral ceilings).
If you're going to ban EVERYTHING a pedo might find enjoyable, you can start with clothed pictures of children in the Sunday paper.