Un posteur suit le même raisonnement que moi dans ce sujet : on commence par ça, puis les dessins à la main, puis les écrits, puis la même chose pas pour les enfants, sans compter la manière floue dont est définie une image pornographique. Petit quote
Citation
This means that an image can both simultaneously be not child porn (a mom takes a picture of her daughter naked on the beach) and child porn (a pedo is aroused after downloading a copy of it).
You could outlaw ALL nude images and prosecute parents for pictures of kids in the bath, but i'm not sure that's a good solution.
But even if you did, then you would have to point out the several ongoing cases in the US involving clothed kids dancing or posing, which are being tried under child porn laws, despite the kid's parents having signed a waiver and agreed to the photos.
So you could outlaw that, but then, how do you determine what is child porn?
At which point does a studio portrait become porn? And considering that PRODUCING child porn carries sentences on the order of 20 years plus lifetime registration, you better make that line damn clear.
Or you could just use the world "intent" and make sure it's nice and fuzzy so you can basically prosecute anyone who makes you feel squeamish, which is what happens now.