Just read Whorley, the cartoon porn case. It doesn't stand for the proposition that cartoon child porn is outside the scope of the First Amendment. The statute in Whorley applied to simulated child porn only if it was otherwise obscene (i.e., only to child porn that was, by definition, unprotected for reasons other than the depicted age of the cartoons).

Steve,

My post above addresses this, but you could be convicted under the PROTECT Act only if the porn BOTH (1) involves Lisa/Bart/Maggie AND (2) is obscene or lacks serious artistic, literary, etc. value. So if Bart is anal fisting Maggie, you might be in trouble. But if Bart is doing her missionary, I bet you're fine under the statute and, in any event, constitutionally protected.

There are books from the 70s that have tons of naked underage girls. I think you can still legally buy them, because they're artistic.

WARNING, don't click these if you are logged on to Amazon!

Lol yep: http://www.amazon.com/Age-Innocence-...1479588&sr=1-1

Holy crap some of the other links to that are scary: http://www.amazon.com/At-Twelve-Port...ref=pd_sim_b_1

****, I just realized now Amazon is going to freaking start suggesting underage girl books. Ugh.

I work in Digital Forensics and even scarier there was a similar case in a Southeastern US state in '09 where someone was arrested for the same type of images (Simpsons, Family Guy etc.) even after investigators determined that they were from the banner ads of a tube site.

i've found that a foolproof method for finding out is whether or not you get arrested within 24 hours

Link

This guy was the photographer for picture day at my elementary school back in the day.

Sorry I missed this before.

Keep in mind that my area of expertise (if you even want to call it that) is on what the sites can get in trouble for and the legalities regarding their content, not what happens to an end viewer.

<talking out of my butt>If a picture of child porn just showed up, and you saw it, I do not believe you are necessarily liable. The internet is an annoying place, and too many sites have pops and pop unders and whatever else and it is was too easy for you to accidentally see something illegal if someone wants to shove it at you. There has to be some intent involved, like if your google search included lolita, school girls or some such.

If you check here you can see that essentially the oregon supreme court took it one step further to possession or paying for it being against the law, not viewing it. However, even that article says that it varies from state to state.</talking out of my butt>

There is a case right now where someone on trial for possession and manufacturing of child pornography has been given his child porn as evidence in jail while awaiting trial as he is acting as his own attorney.

Not sure what the big deal is. He has the right to review the evidence against him. The video has already been made, it's not hurting the minor if he views it a bunch more times while sitting in jail.

Sure it is... the thought that the person who raped you now gets to replay the videos over and over, most likely to his enjoyment. Insult to injury.

There have been cases where a doctor testifies his best judgement using the Tanner Scale.

**** someone already did that. I was about to say most obvious joke, hiding it in a spoiler come on now.

Fine then

As someone who went to a mostly black school in 7th grade and was kind of a late developer - I can say I hope there's different variations of that scale based on race. I took swimming class and had to shower with what looked to me like grown men.

Dylan Ryder is a hottie