If u r a nudist and take a family photo with ur kids is that child ***********. I don't think that's fair
laxprincess laxprincess
16-17, F
5 Responses Aug 23, 2014

Do you know that sounds sickening

According to Department of Justice's Citizen's Guide: "Notably, the legal definition of sexually explicit conduct does not require that an image depict a child engaging in sexual activity. A picture of a naked child may constitute illegal child *********** if it is sufficiently sexually suggestive. Additionally, the age of consent for sexual activity in a given state is irrelevant; any depiction of a minor under 18 years of age engaging in sexually explicit conduct is illegal."
However as said the exacts do somewhat depend on jurisdication, certainly on country, and case-handlers. For example UK has fairly interesting typography recommendation where "indicative, nudist and erotica" child-nudes are specifically recommended to be excluded from prosecution, while conversely even a picture of fully clothed child fall under lowest sentencing level if the posing is suggestive. Notably this means many (in)famous advertisements seem to be prosecutable child-*********** in UK.

Parents take pictures of their nude kids all the time (while bathing etc.).It only takes a pervert/paedophile to twist the picture.

Actually, they probably don't go to school, work or shopping in the nude either, so it's hard to argue they *couldn't* take family photos clothed; there's no saying the kids would even agree with the nudist lifestyle if they had any say on it.
But as MrPlank notes, there are many more situations where it issue is lot more fuzzy... For starters, under most jurisdications I guess a kid taking nude selfie (snapchat anyone?) is technically a child-pornographer - even without a pun intended...

Not even close to the same. There are cultures where family baths are common, and NOT sexual or abusive in any way.