On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 3:41 AM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2008/12/10 Ronald Chmara <ron(a)opus1.com>om>:
On Dec 9, 2008, at 4:19 PM, Anthony wrote:
> The definition of lewdness may not be
obvious, but that doesn't
> mean that we
> aren't capable of coming up with a good one to use within the
> context of the
> law. I'd like to hear your definition, especially with regard to
> what type
> of exhibitionist acts a parent can legally convince his young
> daughter to
> perform.
I take it you've never raised children.
When they're young, convincing them to actually put on *any clothes*
is a problem at times.
Really. (Ages 3-6 is a blast, but it can be a tad embarrassing at times)
Anthony has kids in this range, so perhaps his were better behaved ;-)
0 and 2, actually, but there's a big difference between a child running
around naked at home and a young girl posing nude for an album cover. The
claim that "nudity" is the only criterion for "child porn" is a
strawman, or
at least, it's not the claim I'm making. Someone from one of those "other
sites" emailed me a link to an image on Wikipedia of a bunch of naked boys
jumping into a lake (I think that's what it was, I didn't look at it very
long), and I commented that such an image clearly was *not* child
pornography (though I do still think it's inappropriate for the Wikipedia
article on [[boy]]).