Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking. Login or Take a Tour!
I was unaware of the exact criteria that the law has for child pornography before this incident, but apparently it's the Dost Test[1]. I think that's what people are referring to when they argue that 'otherwise innocuous images' are child porn.
The types of images I'm talking about fail the Dost Test, though. For example, some people were arguing that a picture of a child playing on the beach is child porn "in certain contexts" and "if someone jacks off to it." I'm talking about family photo album style pictures in which the subject is not being harmed or intentionally sexualized in any way. That, to me, is a stupid and reckless misuse of a term that refers to a serious crime, and diluting that term to the point where literally any picture of a child is pornography "given context" does nothing to stop the production of actual of child porn.