>Again, why were those illegal and not the examples I gave? "Artistic value" is not a criteria of the Dost test. Why they were posted isn't either. Probably be

>Again, why were those illegal and not the examples I gave? "Artistic value" is not a criteria of the Dost test. Why they were posted isn't either. Probably because the photograph wasn't meant to elicit a sexual response, nor were her genitals the focal point of the photograph. >If those subreddits were illegal, then so are: many magazines, Wikipedia, Facebook (where a lot of them come), Google (try a search for 'jailbait' images), a huge number of movies, various TV shows and more. Erm, no. No they're not. >The only reason you gave (artistic value) is irrelevant to their legality, according to the test. From the Dost test article: >>Not all of the criteria need to be met, nor are other criteria necessarily excluded in this test. >I very much doubt you could tell what most of 11600+ people said. I could tell the general attitude of the subreddit from the majority of the comments posted. This isn't hard. When you go into /r/trees, you understand they are pro-marijuana. Maybe not all 100% subscribers feel that way, but that doesn't matter. So saying "Well you can't know what all the subscribers think!" is completely meaningless. >But in any case, if I derive sexual gratification from your posts, do they become obscene? No. >I brought them as examples which are relevant to the point being discussed - whether the images are illegal or not. And taking photos from a child's account and posting them all over the Internet are illegal.