Judge rules nudity isn't necessary to be considered pornography

A federal judge has ruled that nudity isn't necessary for photographs of scantily clad children to be considered pornographic. U.S. District Judge Tena Campbell rejected the arguments of Charles Granere and Matthew Duhamel, who are both charged with transportation, receipt and possession of child pornography in connection with operating a Web site that showed images of young girls in suggestive poses.

Federal agents estimated between 2,000 to 3,000 people paid $22 a month to access photos on the Web site. Granere and Duhamel sought to have the case against them thrown out, arguing that the models on their Web site, mainly 9- and 10-year-old girls, were not nude. According to charging documents, one photo of a 9-year-old girl shows her dressed in "black stiletto pumps, a black lace thong, black bra, and black jacket" sitting on a dining room table.

In court Friday, attorney Richard Mauro argued that nudity must be a requirement to consider an image pornographic. Mauro pointed to works of art and advertising as examples. "Where would Fredericks' of Hollywood be without their ads?" noted Campbell, accepting his point. Assistant U.S. District Attorney Karin Fojtik said Congress made it clear that nudity does not have to be present to consider something pornographic.

source: Article 'Judge rules nudity isn't necessary to be considered pornography'; www.heraldextra.com/content/view/195773/4/; Daily Herarld; 9 October 2006