This one is fairly easy to knock down. A photograph of this nature would fail the “prurient interest” standard as laid down by the Roth court and confirmed by the Miller Test regarding community standards. Sending a picture such as this in an e-mail to family and friends with a subject along the lines of “Look at what my kid can do!” is vastly different than the same content with the subject of “Free Lolita Pr0n Inside!” being sent to all and sundry.

The trouble is that, for this analysis to be confirmed, some poor family has to be dragged into court and accused of being child pornographers because they had the audacity to send their aunt Mabel a JPG of their daughter having her first big-girl bath. It would have been simpler to strike down this law under the Arthur/Roth/Miller guidelines and have them go back to the drawing board.

At the same time, the language of the law does seem pretty vague,, and thus tempting overreach. One man's suppositions can be another man's realistic assessment of consequences, while neither can have proof.

I'm thinking of pictures of naked babies being e-mailed to family members.