In 2014, the Supreme Judicial Courtroom of Massachusetts located that particular images of nude children, culled from ethnographic and nudist publications, weren't lascivious exhibitions and consequently weren't pornographic; the court docket requested dropping of charges in opposition to a prisoner who had been located in possession on the photogr

Watching a child undress or use the toilet, normally with no child's expertise (called voyeurism or currently being a "Peeping Tom").The court docket dominated that non-nude Visible depictions can qualify as lascivious exhibitions and this design would not render the statute unconstitutionally overbroad.[34]These instances weren't recorded, and we