On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 3:41 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/12/10 Ronald Chmara ron@opus1.com:
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]]).