Sam Korn wrote:
On 4/7/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
So it's not whether the *public* would perceive it to be child porn-- it's whether *Ryan Delaney* would perceive it to be child porn.
Please give a definition under which it is *not* child porn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography#Definitions
The definition of "child pornography" differs from country to country. Most prohibit visual depictions of sexual activities involving actual children under a specified age. Some countries go further and prohibit all depictions of nudity of minors, whether or not the minor is depicted in an erotic pose or as engaging in a sex act. The broader prohibitions have led to controversy over pictures that are considered to have artistic merit; works by several prominent photographers, including Sally Mann and Jock Sturges, have been challenged as child pornography and sometimes banned. Still, in some countries, naturist magazines with depictions of nude children do not fall under the definition of child pornography, and are easily available.
Some countries prohibit visual depictions even when no actual children were involved in the making of the image. Such depictions may including paintings, drawings, or computer-generated images. (See "Simulated child pornography" below.) In some countries, not only visual depictions but, also, written works may fall within the definition of child pornography.
The minimum legal age for a depicted person varies from country to country. Some countries set one age for "hardcore" pornography and another for "softcore" pornography.
Most countries' laws provide an exception for materials that have artistic merit. Some prominent examples of this principle are Romeo and Juliet (the play and films), and Lolita (the novel and films). Subsequently, "lolita" has become a common codeword for child pornography, legal or not.