Quote:


I want to make one point clear......Childsupermodels.com has no nudity, and has not been called "child porn." It has individual 'Model Sites' with sets of the models in provocative clothing and poses. It would not take any sane person more than five seconds to come to the conclusion that these sites are sexually exploiting these children, even though they have 'parental consent.' The photos speak for themselves and their message is crystal clear. they also offer 'videos' of the "modleing" sessions, and some of the sites make the offer to 'hire' the models for private sessions.




So which statutes are they alleged to have violated?

And before we fall into the perennial trap of misquoting Potter Stuart, the exact quote is "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that. " Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184

And, FWIW, the "motion picture involved" wasn't even a porno.