The second Toronto Star link, about the former convicted German sexual offender turned child karate instructor in Romania who filmed his students half-naked and later (on request from Azov Films) made them pose fully naked until some parents caught wind of his doings, and Azov Films' general use of a legal cover, made me think about the legality.

I think abuse and exploitation doesn't just derive from the content of pictures, but the way they are used. Even if the sellers only turn misappropriated pictures from family albums and paparazzi shots taken at nudist strands into erotic merchandise, the paedophile buyers must realise that there was no way the children or their parents would have consented legally to such use and would indeed be shocked to find their pictures spreading on internet sites and private collections. It's worse when the children are made to undress and pose for the specific purpose to make such merchandise, and again the buyer cannot deny awareness that such pictures won't be shot just by accident. This makes Edathy1s defence very cynical. If current legal definitions in Germany or anywhere else don't cover this as illegal (which I wasn't convinced about), then, the same way current concepts of limits on sexual behaviour came to be in a shift, it must be made illegal, even if drawing a line is difficult; rather than allowing paedophiles to retain a legal front to continue their abuse.

However, this is the end of the debate for me, because I don't have the stomach to dwell into the precise legal definitions and past legal enforcement practice which is needed to further analyse what is and should or could remain legal or illegal.

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}