A lot of art has since been hidden away. Both due to these laws forcing them to be so and due to risk of art being misinterpreted .. or did I already say that.

I remember a newspaper photo of a young girl in Vietnam, I think her village had been bombed, her family killed, she was a refugee, she had nothing, no clothes, but this photo represented the desperate state of many people in Vietnam of the time. In those times, such a picture was freely used in newspapers and television to represent what was happening. This was an expression of desperation and told of a story of what war does to *real* people that said so much in just a simple photo. Such a photo would not be allowed now. But this photo was a form of art. The photo itself told a deep story. This was not about nudity or pornography.

Do not get me wrong, I am not pro underage pornography, but when art is used to represent something to speak a special message. uh .. art is something many people would not understand so I will not even attempt to try. But I do not generally like the concept of children being used .. but has been used so effectively in art to tell a story, perhaps of innocence or of the pains and struggles of the young as they grow into society or a multi-million other potential meanings. This is totally different to the concept of child pornography where young ignorant children are 'forced' or coerced into the pornography scene. Such photos are intended for sexual stimulation whereas Art is not unless it is obviously set to be so. Nudity in art does not represent sexual stimulation unless the artist intended it to be so. If a person who views art with any nudity sees it as sexually stimulating then they may even see a drawing of two kittens playfully wrestling as being sexually stimulating/intended. (duh what century was I born in)