The possession of child pornography is an aggravating factor for child sex abuse cases, raising the offense from a second- to a first-degree felony. It also increases the possible penalty for offenders from 15 years in prison to a life sentence.

---

"Simple nudity is not enough. A picture of your naked baby is not child pornography."

—Paula Houston, Utah's porn czar

---

The fact is, unlike adult pornography — which, as long as it doesn't rise to the level of obscenity, is legal — child pornography is not protected by the First Amendment.

"It's contraband to even have it," Houston said.

But that doesn't make prosecution of child pornography slam-dunk simple.

"Age is one thing that's questionable, whether or not (the children in the photographs) are actually minors. If you can establish age, then it's against the law," Houston said.

And if the pictures feature women of legal age who simply look young? Many defense attorneys, such as Orem attorney Andrew McCullough, maintain those images are constitutionally protected.

McCullough represents a man charged in Carbon County's 7th District Court with seven felony counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, the state's equivalent of possession of child pornography. The man is accused of photographing underage girls nude or partially nude, as well as downloading pornographic images from the Internet.

McCullough said six photos involving four different models did not constitute child pornography because the "children" in the photos were not minors. Additional research, including logging onto the Web sites to gather information from those who posted the images, was necessary to prove the women were old enough to consent to the photos.

Although the 19-year-old women looked underage, the photos did not rise to the level of child pornography and prosecutors were forced to dismiss the charges relating to the six photos, McCullough said. The man still faces charges relating to the other photos.

The other standard child pornography has to meet in order to be prosecutable, Houston said, is that images contain sexual content.

"Again, we're not talking about an obscenity standard here, but the pictures do have to have some sexual context," she said. "Simple nudity is not enough. A picture of your naked baby is not child pornography."

The Utah Supreme Court is currently considering a case that focuses on that very point.

Gary Davis Peterson pleaded no contest last year to one count of sexual exploitation of a minor for downloading photos of young nude girls from the Internet.

His attorney, Neil A. Kaplan, argued that the law under which Peterson was charged is unconstitutional because it is too broad.