I never thought that nude photos constituted pornography unless they focused on the sex organs or portryaed actual sex acts. Then I heard that Jock Sturgis and Sally Mann books have been pulled off the shelves in bookstores for being considered child pornography or being obscene. I have seen their work, and while I know they included nudity of children, the photos did not meet any reasonable definition of pornography. I realize that nearly any nude picture of a child can be stimulating to a pedophile, but I also know that ads for kids' summer clothing have been found in the posession of pedophiles. My point is, when do we start calling something pornographic? And I state here that any person who finds the Jock Sturgis or Sally Mann photos to be obscene must be secretly sexually stimulated. To me they are artistic nude photographs that capture beauty and that is all.