On 3 Jul 2003, Gordon Burditt wrote:

The laws vary, but generally they define child pornography as pictures
of children nude or engaged in sexual conduct. I inadvertently saw
a nude child picture some asshole included unmarked in his Kazaa
collection.

This, I think, includes the possibility that I could be arrested
for having a nude picture of *MYSELF* as a baby (and when I was a
baby in the 50s I don't think such baby pictures were considered
particularly unusual or shocking, including the baby-on-a-bear-skin-rug.
Offhand I don't know where that scrapbook is, or whether there are
any actual nude pictures in it.

I considered it to be kiddy porn and sent him a message
saying so (I promptly erased the file and sterilized my hard drive).
Some woman was even arrested recently after a Wal-Mart employee saw
a picture of a 2yo child sitting naked in a kiddy pool. So my
contention is that any images of a child in a state of nudity can
be considered child pornography.

Not only that, I believe that you can be arrested for pictures of
naked CARTOON children, regardless of the actual age of the cartoons.
If the cartoons portray them as children, even if they look like
they qualified for Social Security 50 years ago, it's still kiddie
porn.

The SC knocked that one down a year ago:

Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition

"The Supreme Court struck down a congressional ban on virtual child
pornography today, ruling that the First Amendment protects pornography or
other sexual images that only appear to depict real children engaged in
sex."

http://www.freedomforum.org/template...cumentID=16075