Since when did the female form become so objectified that the notion of viewing it in a bra became pornographic?
When prosecutors, like George Skumaniack of Pennsylvania, waste taxpayer dollars to uphold the patriarchal and outdated notion that exposure of flesh lends itself to sexual deviancy, violence and other social maladies worthy of intervention and prevention, it's time to reevaluate the system. Child pornography laws were implemented as a means of protecting underage children from predatorial sexual attacks -- NOT to lamb baste children and young people who are willingly exposing themselves.
Sure, we ought to find some method of making clear the potential negative implications and outcomes of such behavior. However, I believe our tax dollars would be better spent on education and prevention of real crime than by trying to make an example of teenagers being teenagers. Education, parenting, communication and acceptance of and reverence for our bodies is the key to assuaging potential dangers with regard to sexting -- NOT overtaxing an already stressed legal system with such flippancy.
Thank goodness for the good sense of the federal judge who disallowed these proceedings. At least someone's thinking clearly.