Everyone would love clear definitions on all of this, but I doubt that we'll get it.
Some say plain old nudity is now under it, but I don't think so. What about the 16yo nude model featured in a photo hanging in an art gallery? Considering stuff like that is legal, it makes no sense to require ID's to make sure they are 18.
Then there is the "lascivious exhibition of the genitals" label. Is it possible that the non-sexual nude photos in a porn set could fall under this? If you take a candid photo of someone skinny dipping for instance, that is 100% innocent. It's "here is a photo of someone skinny dipping, doesn't that look fun?" However the nude still non-sexual photos at the start of a porn set are basically saying, "here is a photo of my sexy naked body, you got a boner yet?" I can see how that could be labeled lascivious exhibition. So does it come down to intent, or what we actually see in the photo? I would think what the photo depicts, but you never know.
The Republicans are going to have a difficult time pandering to their base over the next two years. They can't do it in congress, so the president will have to do it through areas he has control over... such as the DoJ.
Bookmarks