We are all against child pornography, right? Society deems people who send or receive [or possess] kiddie porn to be so evil and beneath contempt that we have laws punishing them with long prison terms, regardless of circumstances. The statutory scheme imposes (here in Michigan and in many other places) strict criminal liability for possession of any depiction of "sexually explicit conduct" involving a child (defined as a person under 18).

Ditto, federal law.

What is "sexually explicit conduct"?

Obviously, it includes all those things suggested by common sense. But additionally, the federal and state child pornography laws inject an element of nonsense, by defining "sexually explicit conduct" as including including:

graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

You think I'm kidding, right?

Unfortunately, I'm not. The only reason I wrote this blog post was that the issue was staring at me this morning as I tried to drink my morning coffee, and I couldn't ignore it:

It started as a summertime joke by a Pinckney Community High School freshman, a push on the "send" button of a camera cell phone delivering a nude photo of herself to a couple of her girlfriends.

But once school started, the picture apparently was circulated to a couple of hundred other students in the school and to some in neighboring schools. Livingston County sheriff's investigators and the county prosecutor's office say they are reviewing whether to file pornography charges against those who disseminated the image or still may have it.

Investigators say they believe the girl intended for only two or three friends to see the picture, which shows explicit nudity and includes her face.

"I have no comment!" the 14-year-old's mother sobbed into the phone when contacted by the Free Press on Wednesday.

The girl didn't think through the repercussions, said Jeanne Reck of Hamburg Township, the mother of one of the girl's good friends.

"Kids do stupid things," Reck said. "But for it to go through the entire school like these girls let it out, they really wanted to do damage to her. It's a tough situation."

Principal Jim Darga found an anonymous note and a copy of the picture on his desk Oct. 7. Pinckney Community Schools Superintendent Dan Danosky said the Sheriff's Department was contacted and officials turned over phones confiscated during a school investigation.

Detective Lt. Todd Luzod said the department's investigation actually began in September after a teacher mentioned the photo to an officer who was visiting the school. The county Sheriff's Department has just under a dozen cell phones and is asking students who received the photo to turn over their cell phones or, at least, delete it.

"They could just erase it," Livingston County Prosecutor David Morse said Wednesday, comparing the photo to unsolicited junk mail. "You can't prohibit something from coming to you in the mail. But it's what you do with it once you receive it."

Those who keep the photo or send it along to others are committing a crime, Morse said.

The Sheriff's Department has a deputy trained in computer forensics gathering evidence from the confiscated phones for Morse's review.

He said cell phones that were confiscated with the picture will not be returned unless the owner pays for a computer forensics expert to verify the photo has been erased from the phone's memory permanently.

"They're out a phone, yes. We won't and can't give them back because it contains illegal material," Morse said, acknowledging the prohibitive cost of having an expert clear the phone. "It would be cheaper to buy a new phone."

But if the laws say it is, the laws need to be changed.

"Sexually explicit acts" should be defined as acts, not as nudity.

It's not as if there weren't warnings about the consequences of criminalizing child nudity. Back in 2000, Salon.com piece (titled "Is this child pornography? -- American photo labs are arresting parents as child pornographers for taking pictures of their kids in the bath") analyzed a number of these cases, and concluded:

there is no way to differentiate -- legally -- between a family snapshot of a naked child and child pornography.

Sounds like this girl was involved with the creation and distribution of child porn...that is a crime the last time I checked. It is not just some "joke" or "mistake."

She even attended the Homecoming Dance? Hello - parents? Ever hear of grounding your kid? Make her accountable for her actions - which are causing trouble for a couple hundred others? And I agree with NYPD15thSquad - charges should be filed against the girl. I bet if a male student had taken a pic of his penis charges would have been filed by now.

Since a bunch of boys will most likely become registered sex offenders over this, will the girl who originally sent the picture of herself be charged with manufacturing and distributing child pornography? Or will she be portrayed as the poor "victim"? Any bets?

Fortunately, the government has not criminalized either the nude pictures -- or the sexually explicit pictures -- I have taken of Coco. (Although I was accused of dog pornography, charges were never filed. Coco is over 18 in dog years.)

Actually I'm not sure my attempt at "doggie porn" humor works (even though a dog is a rat is a pig is a boy), because while I can laugh derisively at the idiocy of zero tolerance puritan zeal, there are real victims involved here.

Parents and child victims. Not of the "kiddie porn," but of the law.

I said "the law is an ass" in imitation of Dickens, but now I'm realizing that might be taken as suggestive or immoral.

So I'll just say the law is sick.

NOTICE TO COMMENTERS: Anyone who might want to leave a comment, be careful with the word "porn" because the anti-spam feature will not allow comments with that word. However, if you substitute a zero -- "0" for the letter "O" -- it should go through.

(I say this because I've gotten emails before about the problem, and there's not much I can do about it.)