/lit/ - Literature

>>12682739
"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a legal term and it doesn't cover any image you can provide. For an image to be paedophilic "beyond a reasonable doubt" it would have to involve penetration or actual lewd nudity. It's true a lot of people have been arrested (this was more common in before digital) for taking purely innocent photos of their own children naked but that was a sad case of moral hysteria run mad and just a sad example of Americas descent into a police state. Every image or text of a child can be read to "tease" paedophilia when you have a sick mind.