I thought a Florida judge ruled on a case maybe in 03 that porn had to involve touching and that picture of just a naked person was not considered porn.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,261224,00.html
The only reason I know of this is because I was visiting in FLorida at the time and seen it on the news.
The appeals court panel found that the promoting, or pandering, provision of the PROTECT Act of 2003 was overbroad and impermissibly vague. "Non-commercial, non-inciteful promotion of illegal child pornography, even if repugnant, is protected speech under the First Amendment," the Atlanta-based court said.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,261224,00.html
The only reason I know of this is because I was visiting in FLorida at the time and seen it on the news.