That's that whole point isn't it? If they aren't exempt from being considered child porn, then they have to be able to show proof of age in the form of ID.

You can't have one without the other since if you accept  they can be underage, then they have to be able to be of legal age at some point. If you concede that they can't show proof of age then they can't be considered underage or child porn at any point.

You would think any lawyer worth their salt could prove that if the procecution tries to prove child porn that they can show that proof of age is possible and if refuted on that point that it refutes the whole assumption.

What is still up for debate seems to be with the solutions that have been decided upon, are the problems what they have been telling the members? Since their seems to be a big difference in what they say the problem is and what effect of the solutions are.

Click to get a printed and bound copy plus T-shirts, mugs and hats