[richlevy]

It was restitution, not a fine. A fine is paid to the government, restitution is paid to the victim.

The only problem with this is the concept of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea. With obvious sexual images of very young children, intent and damages are clear.

Cases where it isn't are:

1) Non-sexual nude pictures of children.

2) Cases where the 'victim' committed fraud. Traci Lords appeared in Playboy when she was 17 because she produced false documentation.

3) Mens Rea - Pictures in which someone reasonably believes that the subject is 18 or older. The assumption when visiting a mainstream porn site is that as a business, they have taken steps to insure that their models are 18 or older. Even sites advertising 'teen' could be assumed by their customers to be presenting adult models posing as underage subjects. Court rulings on this are confusing to me, but I'm not a lawyer. Judging by the number of people arrested and charged with doing 'research', it might be that when it comes to pressing charges against customers, the burden of proof is on the customer to prove that the models are of age.

The whole area is very confusing. Add in underage actors/actresses working in controversial non-porn movies like 'The Tin Drum' and 'Pretty Baby', and the whole thing gets confusing.