Question about child pornography

[Big Wiggly Style]

I believe I read somewhere that federal law states that it is prohibited to possess a picture/video of a minor engaging in any sexual act.

Is this true?

Because, it got me thinking, if the law is that one cannot possess nude pictures at all of minors, then why aren't parents who post pictures of their infant children nude arrested?

I'm honestly very curious about this.

[oakvale]

What's the confusion? You state yourself that the law prohibits possession of material showing minors engaging in sexual acts. Being nude is not inherently a sexual act.

[Big Wiggly Style]

What's the confusion? You state yourself that the law prohibits possession of material showing minors engaging in sexual acts. Being nude is not inherently a sexual act.

I'm not sure if that's the law though.

[True Federalist]

From the Federal child porn law itself:

(2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), "sexually
explicit conduct" means actual or simulated -
        (i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
        (ii) bestiality;
        (iii) masturbation;
        (iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
        (v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

    (B) For purposes of subparagraph (8)(B) of this section, "sexually explicit conduct" means -

        (i) graphic sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, or lascivious simulated
sexual intercourse where the genitals, breast, or pubic area of any person is exhibited;
        (ii) graphic or lascivious simulated;
            (I) bestiality;
            (II) masturbation; or
            (III) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or

        (iii) graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

So no, the typical picture of a nude infant doing typically cute infant acts does not cross the line into child pornography in the United States.

For that matter, neither does an otherwise typical family photo taken at a nudist colony.

[dead0man]

Indeed.  The biggest problem with these laws is when the 14 year old dumbass takes a picture of her own boobs and then gets busted for having child porn on her computer.  It doesn't happen a lot, but it does happen.  I'd rather not Google for a link (for obvious reasons), but feel free if you're curious.

[True Federalist]

Indeed.  The biggest problem with these laws is when the 14 year old dumbass takes a picture of her own boobs and then gets busted for having child porn on her computer.  It doesn't happen a lot, but it does happen.  I'd rather not Google for a link (for obvious reasons), but feel free if you're curious.

That's because at that point, one can argue over whether the photo is "lascivious".  In many contexts, a close-cropped photo of a female showing only her breasts would meet that definition for most people.

[shua]

It's whatever the court wants it to be.

[Big Wiggly Style]

So technically, enforcement of the law varies?

[The Mikado]

Indeed.  The biggest problem with these laws is when the 14 year old dumbass takes a picture of her own boobs and then gets busted for having child porn on her computer.  It doesn't happen a lot, but it does happen.  I'd rather not Google for a link (for obvious reasons), but feel free if you're curious.

To be fair, the same thing occurs with underage men.

There was a case not too long ago about a predator who got pics of underage teenage boys, contacted them and threatened to leak the pics, and got them to masturbate etc. for him on webcam, and was allegedly blackmailing dozens of teenage boys in this manner.

[So the Heroes Fall]

For that matter, neither does an otherwise typical family photo taken at a nudist colony.

Which while indisputably true has generated some controversy in opening up an arguable loophole, some nudist resorts sell DVDs of filmed day to day activities featuring minors engaged in activities that are completely non-sexual but are obviously being bought by people who aren't just curious about nudism. Of course I'd consider this a far less offensive practice than child beauty pageants.

[J. J.]

For that matter, neither does an otherwise typical family photo taken at a nudist colony.

Which while indisputably true has generated some controversy in opening up an arguable loophole, some nudist resorts sell DVDs of filmed day to day activities featuring minors engaged in activities that are completely non-sexual but are obviously being bought by people who aren't just curious about nudism. Of course I'd consider this a far less offensive practice than child beauty pageants.

I wouldn't consider either pornography, and I have do have photos of neighbor's absolutely adorable granddaughter going to her kindergarten prom.

[Big Wiggly Style]

So basically it depends on the context of the situation?

[shua]

So basically it depends on the context of the situation?

It depends on a lot of things. From the context in which the picture is taken or presented, to the person accused, to what else the law enforcement officers are dealing with, to whether the DA is up for reelection.  Think of the inconsistency of going after pot possession, and add to that a huge element of subjectivity.

[Big Wiggly Style]

I see.