"Most sane people will know child porn, or any porn, when they see it. Whomever wrote that old law evidently was not sane enough to know it when they saw it ;) " What? Sometimes I think people read a bit much into things. The law was poorly worded, and used language that was considered too general. It was broadly worded in an effort to make it easier for prosecutors to convict criminals. The lawmakers involved were not INTENDING to outlaw naked baby butts and Romeo and Juliet. They were not trying to piss on anyone's parade. What they were trying to do, was to legislate something that is very difficult to legislate. Good lord, think about it... do you believe that our government is so out to get YOU that they decided to outlaw Romeo and Juliet? Have you ever read a 340 - page legislative docket? Or seen the sheer volume and language required to get a law passed? There was nothing Machhiavellian in the passage of the law. It was made with good intentions, but poor wording... that's it. The reason our system is set up the way it is, is because no matter what the lawmakers intend someone, somewhere will always take it to the extreme. Whether it's the granting of a right ( rights are government granted, btw ) or the restriction of a liberty, someone, somewhere, will try to abuse the language of the law as opposed to the spirit of the law. That's why we have the courts. Do not presume that lawmakers intended this law to restrict your rights... The only error was in overlooking that others might try to use it to do so. Regards, Paul We now return you to your regularly scheduled arguments about whether or not a naked faery is child pornography. Only at rosity will people attempt to determine the legal status of fantasy creatures... sigh