sure it's unusual it's utah looking into the camera was the criteria the court used to decide the child is posed the comparisons are factual not a biased point of view i personally agree with you i think it's nonsensical myself but you are arguing with the wrong person the court decides what is child pornography not me take it up with them by the way the photo was not erotica like you assumed it to be it was an ordinary nudist photograph yes i have seen this court case and hundreds of others just like it but i will never admit that i have seen the actual photograph during the hearings at the state courthouse on the corner of state street and south in salt lake city where the trax train stop is at in the free fare zone even though i implied i may have seen it in order for me to know that it is in fact a benign nudist photograph just like how the court described it