There's the possibility that this may be all smoke and mirrors; currently in the western world there still isn't a universal agreement on what constitutes child pornography and what doesn't, and law (USA included) employs a very vague and general definition of "child pornography" that leaves too much room to interpretation and leaves many unsolved questions.
I don't want to turn this into a paper but the point is that Law states that any depiction of a minor's nudity or a minor in sexual situations can be considered child pornography and, while at first this seems perfectly agreeable, in reality the matter is more complicated and nuanced and problems arise in borderline cases like:
1) medical material that include images of undressed minors
2) artistic depictions of underage figures
3) fetishist pornographic material with young actors posing as minors e.g. "schoolgirl" or "milf with teenager" videos; (particularly debated because in the pornographic world often are illicitly employed real underage actors)
4) animated pornography depicting young-looking people aka the famous "lolita" trope (one of the most disputed because it doesn't involve real minors)
5) receiving sexual messages or videos by someone who is under the age of 18
Not fully knowing the circumastances it's hard to say, but since Waddy came out of it pretty easily it's likely that he may fall into one of the limit cases.
|