On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 15:59:23 GMT, "gl" <noname@anywhere.com> wrote:
I understand your desire to convince yourself of the legality of all
this. But you seemed you to conveniently leave out one very important
part of the legislation you cited.
You left out the part about "lewd and lascivious". Case law has
already shown that the term "lewd and lascivious" can apply to
non-nude photos.
The other part you left out is "age inappropriate clothing and
settings".
Lingerie has been legally shown to be inappropriate for young girls.
Do I agree with that definition? HELL NO!
But you do a disservice to others when you cherry-pick pieces of
legislation that support your view while ignoring those points that
refute it.
|
|