I didn't say there was. I was just pointing out a salient fact that seems to be lost on just about everyone who's reporting on this situation.
I think the media is also trying to point out (and Drudge did too) that the child protection legislation made no distinction between "age of consent" and minors.
Then again, you cannot photograph someone engaging in sex under 18 although there are plenty of states where you can legally engage in sex with someone under 18 (as long as you don't photograph it).
The law is an ass. Romero & Juliet (now also Romeo & Romeo) exceptions in many states laws permit someone who is OVER the age of consent to have sex with someone who is under the age of consent so long as they are "nearly" legal.
I don't know of any state that goes soft on charging clerks and bartenders who sell alcohol and cigarettes to people who are ALMOST able to buy.