"Gordon Burditt" wrote in message ...
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.
...
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.

I believe that the Supreme Court ruled in the last several years
that even photos of clothed children could be considered child
pornography if the images seem to focus excessively on the groin
area. But the SC ruled last year that simulated images are
protected, I suppose it would cover the cartoon images you describe.
This led to an outcry that perverts would soon be generating tons
of computer-simulated pornography depicting fake children engaged
in sex (I have yet to hear of any encounters of such porn).

I still can't figure out what the pervs see in kiddie porn. I
occasionally stumble across an image posted to adult binaries
newsgroups and they are not the least bit stimulating. Less
sexually stimulating than looking at a goldfish, in my opinion.
These people are freaks and need to be locked up. I do, however,
realize there is a difference between child pornography and
images featuring under-18 adolescents who are otherwise sexually
mature. Nevertheless, the laws explicitly state that such
minors are jailbait, though someone shouldn't be blamed if they
inadvertently possess such an image believing the subject to be
over 18.