Oh I looked up the case, Sternn. Let me share it with you (
since this will be your first time seeing it).
United States vs. Stephen A. Knox
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...ase&no=940734P
It's a child pornography case, for one. It applied to the language used in Child Pornography laws. Maybe this line needed more emphasis, "
The Supreme Court allows the states and Congress greater leeway to regulate and proscribe pornography that depicts minors as distinguished from adults since the harmful effects suffered by a child are palpably more severe." Secondly, it's only dealing with video tapes, not pictures. If you had a picture, the child would need to have her legs spread and her fingers showcasing her genitals. Otherwise clothing manufacturers who sell children's bathing suits and underware would be arrested for child pornography.
"
Thus, we conclude that a "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area" of a minor necessarily requires only that the material depict some "sexually explicit conduct" by the minor subject which appeals to the lascivious interest of the intended audience. Applying this standard in the present case, it is readily apparent that the tapes in evidence violate the statute. In several sequences, the minor subjects, clad only in very tight leotards, panties, or bathing suits, were shown specifically spreading or extending their legs to make their genital and pubic region entirely visible to the viewer. In some of these poses, the child subject was shown dancing or gyrating in a fashion indicative of adult sexual relations. Nearly all of these scenes were shot in an outdoor playground or park setting where children are normally found. Although none of these factors is alone dispositive, the totality of these factors lead us to conclude that the minor subjects were engaged in conduct--namely, the exhibition of their genitals or pubic area--which would appeal to the lascivious interest of an audience of **********."
The term, "
sexually explicit, is defined
in Child Pornography laws as the, "
lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area." The Supreme Court found that to mean clothed regions too. However, those laws apply only to people that are photographed/videotaped under 18. That wording isn't used in laws that apply to adults.
Hence the title of Gonzales' proposal being dubbed, "
Child Pornography and Obscenity Prevention Amendments of 2006."
I think what you're looking for is the "
Harmful to Minors" regulations on pornography.
"
The term "harmful to minors'' means any picture, image, graphic image file, or other visual depiction that --
(A) taken as a whole and with respect to minors, appeals to a prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excretion;
(B) depicts, describes, or represents, in a patently offensive way with respect to what is suitable for minors, an actual or simulated sexual act or sexual contact, actual or simulated normal or perverted sexual acts, or a lewd exhibition of the genitals; and
(C) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value as to minors."
So no, your Victoria's Secret bullshit still doesn't fly. Please insert another quarter and try again.