> He claims any potential harm in his case is just as attenuated and vague as Free Speech Coalition. Because no harm was done, he should have the same right as

> He claims any potential harm in his case is just as attenuated and vague as Free Speech Coalition. Because no harm was done, he should have the same right as any adult to take voluntary photographs of his own body. We do not find this argument persuasive. Given how persuasive this argument is, I am a bit surprised that the court was not persuaded. I understand that Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition has some distinguishing factors, like the fact that the depictions in question were clearly distinguishable from records of a crime (on account of them not being photographic images of actual minors). This is a messy and complicated business, it seems like there needs to be a legislative solution since the supreme court can not find what most people consider a just outcome in an interpretation of the statute.