Re: welcome

Thanks for the warning. I won't make likes to those pictures here. I'd even hoped to make my Innocent Images Project as a completely different site from CP Explosion.

Your question is one I'd addressed very early on in 'Premises of a Rational CP Policy'. I'll cut & paste it here, but to formatting might look dumb.

***************************************************
The current working definition of child porn in the USA is both absurd and hopelessly vague. I believe that any rational policy for dealing with child porn must incorporate the following principles

1. If an activity is itself legal, then photos or video of that act, made with the consent of the participants or their legal representatives, must also be legal. One of the great absurdities in the child porn hysteria is the fact that two seventeen year olds can legally have sex with each other, yet if they setup a video camera across the room to record the action they have just become child pornographers. Children take baths. Pictures of children taking baths should therefore be legal. See this Salon essay for examples parents being harassed or arrested for innocent bath tub photos.
2. If an original photo or video is itself legal, then manipulations or edits of those images must also be legal. The idea that a photo could be legal, but that an edited version of that same photo could be child porn is ridiculous, but in the eyes of the government it is true.
***************************************************

The Salon essay is old but still around. It's http://archive.salon.com/mwt/feature/2000/01/31/kincaid/index.html

I categorized that post as of mine as work in progress which it really is. Someday I'll expand it.

CP Explosion

The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently. - Friedrich Nietzsche, The Dawn, Sec. 297