No.

I am telling you how US law works. I was intimately familiar since the child porn laws were abused to harass websites that had / have nothing to do with child porn.

In US law, unless something recently changed, posting even a clothed picture of a minor to a sex themed sub where people make sex themed comments was considered child porn.

Unless it has been changed even posting adults that appear to be minors or pictures of adult women with a cut out of a minors face put over them was considered child porn.

If you are going to claim something is untrue at least look into it a tiny little bit.

This hasn't updated in forever but here.

http://www.cyber-rights.org/reports/uscases.htm

The bill originally introduced by Senator Hatch, was included in part of a broad spending Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997 which was signed into law by President Clinton. It had passed the US Senate on September 30, 1996 just hours before the midnight deadline for the start of fiscal year 1997.

It has been amended with a Hatch-Bidden substitute but there has been only small changes. The new legislation expands the definition of child pornography. Section 3 of the 1996 Act, adds a new subsection to 18 U.S.C. 2256(8) which now defines child pornography as:

"any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, , video, picture, drawing or computer or computer-generated image or picture, which is produced by electronic, mechanical or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where:

(1) its production involved the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct, or; (2) such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; (3) such visual depiction has been created, adapted or modified to appear that an 'identifiable minor’ is engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or (4) it is advertised, distributed, promoted or presented in such a manner as to convey the impression that it is a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct." The term `identifiable minor’ would be identified in 18 U.S .C. 2256(9) to mean a minor who is capable of being recognised as an actual person by, for example, his face or other distinguishing feature or physical characteristic, although a prosecutor would not be required to prove the minor’s actual identity.

The new 18 U.S.C. 2252A sets mandatory prison sentences of at least 15 years for production and distribution of child pornography. The act also includes and makes subject to the same provison, the receivers of child pornography. 5 years for possession offences and life imprisonment for repear offenders convicted of sexual abuse of a minor.

The US Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 which bans computer-generated sexual images of children and porn featuring adults who are depicted as minors was upheld by a federal judge on the 12th of August 1997. Rejecting arguments by sex film distributors and the American Civil Liberties Union, U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti said the new law protects children from sexual exploitation without violating freedom of speech.

"Even if no children are involved in the production of sexually explicit materials, the devastating ... effect that such materials have on society and the well-being of children merits the regulation of such images," Conti wrote in the first court ruling on the law’s validity.

And for other info.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.68a&full=true#9.68A.050