Replies

Not when that child is presented in a sexual/adult manner. Kid in a bathing suit, with adult hairstyle and makeup, in a sexually explicit pose is exploitation. It may not qualify legally as porn, but the purpose it serves is the same: To produce a feeling of sexual excitement while viewing a child in a sexual situation.
So what are we to legislate against? Sexual arousal? Kids dressing up as adults?

There are sickos who get a charge out of wearing diapers and looking at feet. Do we outlaw Depends undergarments and shoe catalogs, too? You'll never be able to remove everything that gives some weirdo an thrill. Giving government the power to arrest people for posting photos of clothed children is just begging for some serious abuse of official power.
+++
I wasn't actually arguing in favor of legislation...I was just commenting on the difference in context between the way kids are portrayed on those websites and what I think you were referring to re: seeing a kid in a bathing suit and thinking "Porn!". If I knew a way to draw a legal distinction I'd be in favor of it, but unfortunately I don't think there is one that wouldn't lead to the abuse of power you mention above.

Sure there is. Foley laid it out. If the kids are working for Gap or something legitimate, it's fine. If they're only selling pictures of themselves or videotapes of themselves, it's illegal.

It may not qualify legally as porn, but the purpose it serves is the same: To produce a feeling of sexual excitement while viewing a child in a sexual situation.

Really? And what normal person is going to be sexually aroused by a 12 year old?