I did not say that nude little boys are the equivalent of the Coppertone girl . . . the point is that child nudity is along a continuum from art or harmless family snaps to frank pornography, but if you put it within a prosecutor's discretion to use child nudity as evidence of molestation, ALL nudity will become evidence of molestation, no matter how innocent its original intent.
While you may be convinced that ol' Michael is factually guilty (and I don't disagree with you, I think it's very likely), the safeguards are there to prevent prosecutors from using you and me to get another notch in their gun. If DAs are allowed to take your pics of your babies in the bathtub before a jury as evidence of molestation, some of them will do so with glee, just to get a conviction.
No way I'm taking on a lawyer, I didn't even go to college, but I do think you have to use common sense in what is the difference between a family picture of a baby in a bathtub compared to a line of naked preteen boys bent over with their bottoms to the camera. I don't think all nudity will become evidence of molestation, if common sense were used.
But I know, we aren't talking about right and wrong here, we're talking about the law.