2001). Pennsylvania courts have defined actions that tend to corrupt the morals of minors as those that “would offend the common sense of the community and the sense of decency, propriety and morality which most people entertain.” Commonwealth v. DeWalt, 752 A.2d 915, 918 (Pa.Super.2000) (quotation omitted). However, the possession of pictures of nude minors, without more, is protected speech under the First Amendment. Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103, 112, 110 S.Ct. 1691, 109 L.Ed.2d 98 (1990) (upholding Ohio’s anti-child pornography statute because the Ohio Supreme Court had interpreted the law to proscribe not merely nudity, but nudity constituting a lewd exhibition or graphic focus on the genitals); New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 765 n. 18, 102 S.Ct. 3348, 73 L.Ed.2d 1113 (1982) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, Lesoine’s mere possession of such
holding that nudity without more is protected exp ression holding that the federal child pornography statute on its face contains no nudity or discernability requirement that nonnude visual depictions  can qualify as lascivious exhibitions and that this construction does not render the statute unconstitutionally overbroad holding that the information is not protected by attorneyclient privilege holding that more than notice to a defendant is required holding that a professionals license is a protected property interest