Only to find a knock on the door from the fuzz. Usually law enforcement doesn't go after the small time collector or it would be like busting pot smokers. I've seen the LEO facilities where they can see someone downloading images in realtime. You see these images are catalogued and have hash markings that make them as obvious as painting yourself blaze orange and walking naked down the street. The penalties are also pretty draconian and include being civilly sued. So, not only do you face the humiltation of arrest, conviction, being sentenced, registering as a sex offender, you are also looking at a bill of up to US$150k per image!
I mentioned in my previous post on this topic that:
Depictions of even a clothed child can violate law (E.g.,18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(2), (4) and 2256(2)(E)) if they constitute "lascivious" exhibitions of the genitalia or pubic area. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has defined "lascivious" as "tending to excite lust; lewd; indecent; obscene; sexual impurity; tending to deprave the morals in respect to sexual relations."Could this picture of Brittany Murphy be considered child pornography since the subject doesn't really even need to be a child either? Better yet, I've posted this picture of Alice Liddell: is it chiild pornography using the definition? Sure, Carroll produced more juicy pics which I am not going to post here, but you can see if you are so inclined (or even if you are just curious). I mean Plate III could be within the definition of child pornography. Although, has the statute of limitations passed given these images are 150 years old?
So, my question is are the depictions such that they are "tending to excite lust". Although, that is a pretty vague concept. Is a picture of child in a long flannel granny nightgown sitting with her legs spread child pornography even if you can't see anything? What exactly excites lust. Could this picture excite lust? I mean her pose seems a bit coquettish to me.
For those not in the know, Rev. Charles Dodgson, AKA Lewis Carroll, took pictures of nude little girls. I'll post the Alice pic here even though that is pretty racy as well, but not as racy as the one of Evelyn Hatch. We can't say too much about this portion of his work since approximately 60% of his original photographic portfolio is now missing. Although one can speculate Could some "lucky" collector who happens to turn up these pictures be in for some serious legal headaches?
I have to admit to seriously speculating on Dodgson's paedophila given that his relationship with Alice Liddell was "expunged". The family burned the letters and Dodgson "deleted" his diary entries for that period. Leaving us with a picture that could earn the good Reverend a stint in choky from suspicious minds.
I will also add in the painting Making a Train by Seymour Joseph Guy which could fit the definition of child pornography. Especially since the blurb mentions "The commingling of sexual allure and girlish innocence was prevalent in Guy's era, as seen in photographs by Lewis Carroll and Julia Margaret Cameron." Personally, I found the fact that one can stare at naked women all days in an art museum, yet get in trouble for girlie magazines to be a bit of hypocracy. In this case, one can stare at a "salacious" picture of a little girl in a museum.
So, technically the Alice Liddell pic could be "kiddie porn" although we again wish for John Mortimer to help straighten out this mess. Although, I think he would be proud of my record in this regard to toot my own horn. But where does the line get drawn between art and pornography, a dangerous collector and just some idiot who thought he could get away at looking at kiddie porn? Does the law need to be so draconian for someone who possesses an image or two who isn't the threat that is posed by the relative who turns molestation into an cottage industry?
Don't forget that the book Show Me! has been considered child pornography. So, watch out if you have a copy lying about your house!