| >> | No. 122789 The catch to those arguments is the definition of "sexually explicit conduct". A child engaged in a sexual act: masturbation, touching of the genitals. oral sex including a dog licking her genitals, rubbing her breasts, spreading her ass
or pussy, using anything to sexually stimulate herself or another person involved at all in anything that could be classed as sexual,
can be deemed sexually explicit and therefore child porn.
OR
A picture of a naked child may constitute illegal child pornography if it is sufficiently sexually suggestive. This is the major stumbling block. If a judge decides the image is sexually suggestive, TO THEM, then a simple nude image becomes child porn. Here is the catch in a catch, if the judge finds the image sexually suggestive does that not mean they find the naked image of the child sexually attractive? Would that not make the judge a closet pedo? But some states have ruled a clothed model can be deemed sufficiently sexually suggestive based on the type of pose or clothes worn. For example, a judge could deem a camel toe as sexually suggestive. Or see-through clothing as sexually suggestive.
You are at the mercy of the Police, DA and judge when it comes to what you define as legal when they decide what charges you face.
|
