Ok, I'm not a prosecutor so I'm not 100% on my interpretation of the application of this, but -

I attended a class today on preventing sexual abuse of children and one of the officers in a film we were shown was stating that child porn can include images of children while they are wearing clothes if the footage is focused on the genitals in any way, whether clothes are there or not. Examples he gave included while the children were wearing wet clothing. This would mean that Greg Chism's videos depicting Annabelle peeing on herself constitutes child porn because he zoomed in on the pee spot on her clothing as she crawled away from the camera while shaking her butt (like a stripper on stage would do).

It would also mean that his zooming in on the genitals from behind during the videos where they were going down a slide of some sort would possibly constitute child porn. (This was something I read about from another article about the videos but I didn't personally watch the video of him zooming in on them while they went down the slide)

In my opinion the video in which Annabelle peed on herself was likely depicting her in a drugged state.

In my opinion the "spit up" she was forced to make on her sister's shoulder at the end of the video looked like semen.

In my opinion, a video called pool party / pools in the house, or the video of the girls in their swimwear in the shower might also fall under the definition since they were in wet clothing and we know that the intent was obviously to get pedophiles to the channel to look. This is clear child exploitation.

This is not meant to be an all inclusive argument but more of an afterthought. Obviously there was plenty of other evidence against him all over his gross channel. This is just a side note on the definition of child porn including zooming in on the genitals even if clothed, or if the clothing is see through or wet while zooming in. I believe they also count the breasts as areas that they can include as sexually exploitative if someone is zooming in on the boobs of an underage girl on film in a sexually suggestive way. Especially in a wet bathing suit.

It's unfathomable to me how the law enforcement and CPS where Chism lives can't figure this out. Obviously he must be a protected individual, most likely in the CIA or something.

@Factfinder2 @ESOTERICshade

https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-child-pornography

Images of child pornography are not protected under First Amendment rights, and are illegal contraband under federal law. Section 2256 of Title 18, United States Code, defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (someone under 18 years of age). Visual depictions include photographs, videos, digital or computer generated images indistinguishable from an actual minor, and images created, adapted, or modified, but appear to depict an identifiable, actual minor. Undeveloped film, undeveloped videotape, and electronically stored data that can be converted into a visual image of child pornography are also deemed illegal visual depictions under federal law.

       Notably, the legal definition of sexually explicit conduct does not require that an image depict a child engaging in sexual activity.  A picture of a naked child may constitute illegal child pornography if it is sufficiently sexually suggestive.