[pokey00]

I mean, are you really going to argue that the sole fact that the kids' genitals weren't entirely visible makes it not child pornography? Despite the fact that it was children being 'clothed', posed, and filmed purposefully in a way meant to sexually arouse pedophiles? Thank god the law didn't specify that genitals must be shown for it to qualify as pornography.

Do you think the adults filming and directing this stopped there? Those kids were eventually raped and that's probably on film too. The slippery slope isn't a fallacy when the stats back it up.

On top of that- letter of the law and spirit of the law... letter of the law doesn't mention the necessity of visible genitalia ... spirit of the law, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that if you ask every legislator that voted for the law and the president that signed the law if it was intended that something like this qualified as child pornography within the definition of the law, they'd agree wholeheartedly. And that intent matters quite a bit.

The controversy exists because people with 0 context took the "oh that sounds gross but not illegal" stance and made dumb public statements about it that they then had to go back on.