Reubens: “I think some of it is erotic. Some of it is sensual. Most of it I don't view like that. It seems so innocent to me. You would immediately look at that collection and to tell very, very, very quickly this is not a collection of child pornography.”
Phillips: “It wasn't obvious to the city attorney's office. They have characterized it quite differently. I mean, they say that in and amongst these magazines were photographs that depict people underage engaged in masturbation, oral copulation, in short, pornographic images.”
Reubens: “I know what they say. It depends upon whether it's you or the city attorney looking at them. It depends upon what one sees in those images for example.”
Phillips: “Well, it's pretty clear and pretty specific. I mean, were there photographs of young men, boys, underage people, performing, masturbating?”
Reubens: “No. Absolutely not. One hundred percent not.”
Phillips: “So what are they referring to when they describe it that way?”
Reubens: “One photograph for example has a young man with his hand on his thigh. It is close to his genitals, but not even that close. That's what they're calling somebody getting ready to perform a sex act.”
The city attorneys office told us the images involved are more graphic that what Reubens describes. Even so, last month the child pornography charges were dropped. Reubens agreed to plead guilty to possessing obscene images of minors.
