Police picked up Pee-Wee Herman, actor Paul Reubens, after he exposed himself in the South Trail Cinema. Although masked behind long hair and a goatee, police recognized the actor and the press soon picked up the story. CBS quickly yanked “Pee-Wee's Playhouse” off the air and all of the related merchandise was cleared from store shelves.

The quirky Reubens made only one more appearance as the beloved Pee-Wee. At the MTV Music Video Awards later that year, he received a standing ovation and asked the crowds if they had, "heard any good jokes lately?” Although Pee-Wee Herman was retired, Paul Reubens was still acting. After appearing in "Blow," "Murphy Brown," "Ally McBeal," and hosting "You Don't Know Jack," things seemed to be going well for Reubens. That is, until the sex police got him again in November of 2002.

Towards the end of 2001, Los Angeles police received a complaint concerning Paul Reubens and “Ferris Bueller” star, Jeffrey Jones. Although the complaint was later dismissed, detectives had already gathered about 30,000 items from Reuben's home during a legal search. These items contained vintage gay erotica, videotapes, 8mm films and post-war physique magazines. According to “The Village Voice,” Rocky Delgadillo, Los Angeles' newly elected city detective, was cracking down on child abuse and pornography. When Reubens’ case crossed his desk he decided to prosecute. With just a day left under the one year statute of limitations, Delgadillo issued a warrant for the arrest of Reubens.

Although Reubens is facing a misdemeanor with a maximum one year sentence, he and his legal team are vehemently fighting the charges. According to the same “The Village Voice” article, the smoking gun in the LAPD's case against Reuben is a grainy vintage film, which depicts teenage boys masturbating and performing oral sex. There are also some physique magazines that feature young men posing in all of their teenage glory. Reubens' lawyer argues that the actor should not be charged because the pictures were taken long before child pornography laws were enacted. Yesterday's homoerotic pinups are today's contraband.

California Penal Code states that, "Every person who knowingly possesses or controls any matter, representation of information, data, or image…of which involves the use of a person under the age of 18 years, knowing that the matter depicts a person under the age of 18 years personally engaging in or simulating sexual conduct…." Since Reubens bought most of the vintage erotica in bulk, it would have been nearly impossible to knowingly possess the items now in question.

Although it is up to a jury or judge to determine whether or not Reubens is guilty of possession of child pornography, many people can get entangled in this law. Child pornography laws were designed to protect minors from being exploited, and harmed, both physically and mentally. Sadly, there are thousands of cases where children are exploited sexually by trusted neighbors, friends and even parents.

Although it is clear what can be constituted as child porn, the law still has a lot of gray areas. Can an innocent picture of a naked child be considered child pornography under the law? What about two adult actors playing child characters who engage in sexual acts? Described below are a few instances of how law-abiding citizens may find themselves tangled up in a law that is typically used to deter the abuse of minors.

What is child pornography?

In order to understand the complexities and controversies of child pornography laws, it is important to have a basic understanding of what the laws entail. As defined by United States Code 18:2256, child pornography is a visual depiction of an individual under 18 years of age who appears to be engaged in sexually explicit conduct.

Sexually explicit conduct is defined as “actual or simulated sexual intercourse, bestiality, masturbation, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or lascivious exhibition of the genitals.” Child pornography may be contained in videotapes, photographs, undeveloped camera film and computer graphic files.

Is it illegal to possess child pornography that was created virtually and without the use of real children?

An April 2002 Supreme Court ruling stated that the 1996 Child Pornography Prevention Act was too broad in its definition of child porn. It included the terms “computer-generated image or picture” in its definition of visual depiction. Under this law, pornographers that morph and virtually create the image of children engaging in sexual acts would be guilty of creating child pornography. In its ruling, the Court said that the law was too broad and infringed on the First Amendment freedom of speech provision. Showing adults, even though they may appear to be children, engaging in sexual acts is legal. The same thing goes for computer-generated porn that may feature individuals who appear to be children, but in reality they are not.

Justice Kennedy said in his ruling that, “The (Act) also prohibits speech having serious redeeming value, proscribing the visual depiction of an idea -- that of teenagers engaging in sexual activity -- that is a fact of modern society and has been a theme in art and literature for centuries." Justice Kennedy also adds in his opinion that movies such as “American Beauty” and “Traffic” would be subject to this law because it features young teenagers engaging in sexual acts.

Is it still child pornography if you have an "innocent" picture of your naked three-year-old cousin?

How many pictures are there of you in your birthday suit lying around your house? Too many, you might answer, recalling how many times they were shown to friends and family members during the holidays. In the early ‘80s, child pornography was defined as a crime, but during the 90s, it picked up steam and more people have become aware of the law, especially due to the increase in popularity of the Internet. Although the law may appear cut and dry, many still find themselves mixed up in it, especially amateur photographers and camera-happy relatives.

Picture this: You are baby-sitting your 3-year-old cousin. You give him a bath, dry him off and place him on the couch. He looks so adorable with his blue eyes and big smile. You can’t help but grab the camera and take a picture. Soon, he’s running around the house and you continue clicking away. Before you know it, you’ve used up the whole roll of film. Later that week, you drop off the film at your local developing center. The guy behind the counter watches as your photos come out of the machine. Each one appears to be of a naked boy. He goes up to his boss and asks if he thinks that the pictures of little Joey are child porn.