From time to time, adults are charged with possessing child pornography when they are found to have photographs showing simple child nudity. Most often, this involves parents who have taken innocent pictures of their children in the bathtub.
Naturists are particularly prone to police interference simply because they practice family nudity.
It is important that the boundary between innocent photographs and child pornography be defined. The 1 st Circuit Court of Appeals made a contribution to this definition. They also seized a single photograph that the defendant had downloaded from the Internet. The Court of Appeals ruled that the photograph was not pornographic, and that the defendant's sentence should not be extended. The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard arguments over whether a local government's ban on public nudity is constitutional when its target actually appears to be nude dancing.