OC no one is disputing that child pornography does depict child abuse. All I am saying is that the law does not define child pornography exclusively to the visual depiction of pre-pubescent children either naked or nearly naked, when they are engaged in sex acts with an adult or not. You have narrowed the definition of the legal term of child pornography to make your argument so that no one in the world would dispute it. That is not the case. The law defines any visual representation of someone under 18, in most cases, either naked or engaging in sexual activities.
As you stated you think that child pornography should be regulated by the law. And you posted as evidence a legal authority. So you have to look at the law, so again my question based on the law of the land, should a young teen couple in NC be arrested, prosecuted and put on a sexual registry, because they sent naked pictures of each other to each other?