I understand that the laws have to be broad to help prevent loopholes, but the two links I posted are pretty clear-cut. Neither of them is a case of child pornography at all. Perhaps indecent exposure, but thats really the extent of it. If it can be found that the images were posted on behalf of someone other than the subjects, then charge those people.

Obviously a can of worms can be opened here due to the actions of those minors. People who would be in potential violation of child pornography laws would be the recipients of those images. For example, adults downloading them on MySpace. BUt there's a difference between chancing upon something and making/keeping/distributing/promoting a collection.

There's also the fact that crime of child pornography is a pretty serious offense and could irreparably damage the minors involved. Having your name on a national sex offenders list is probably not going to look very good in the future and there's not likely going to be an opportunity to explain the circumstances to potential employers.



The laws between the US and Canada are generally pretty different. I assume child porn laws are similar enough though, and i know they're quite strict globally, not just in Canada and the US. But let's assume they're identical on this subject. It's not the law that's really the problem here, but the actions of those who are supposed to be interpreting and upholding it. Some dumb-ass stuff happens here all the time. Our prime minster is a complete and utter joke. But I don't recall something as unbelievable as what I'm reading now in recent times.

Might as well start charging the minors on their way in and out of school based on how they dress.

One of those quotes from the story said this was a wake up cal to parents. Yeah, I think most parents know that society and children are pretty racy right now. But the wake-up call is an alarm saying that the prosecutors in your municipality is completely out to lunch.