>>115819
>and a cabal of rock fetishists decided it was the peak of rock porn creation and bought all their shit en masse, would they be arrested because theyre now a prolific, illegal pornographer?
it is entirely possible that the fetishists would be arrested under these circumstances
although it is possible that they wouldn't be
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dost_test

some relevant bits

The Fifth Circuit of the United States departed from Dost with respect to the intent of the Defendant, concluding well that a given photo may constitute child pornography even if the photographer clearly had only asexual intent, and that likewise a photo of a child in a winter coat was not child pornography, even if a pedophile was sexually stimulated by the latter.[7]

so an image taken with visibly asexual intent could be deemed pornographic (which I would say is psychotic, you simply cannot have it be clear that the image is not made to be a sexual depiction and then declare it to be porn)
but, an image can be considered to be outright nonsexual and thus non pornographic even if a fetishist could get off to it (in your example, it would be a fucking rock, which is outright nonsexual)

really though, as far as I can tell, the laws are deliberately shit in this regard specifically so that everyone errs on the side of caution ┐(ﾟ～ﾟ)┌

>obscenity laws, man, who needs em (´～`)
god, don't get me started ヽ(`Д´)ノ
I outright believe that obscenity as a concept has no place in US law. It is an entirely vague, nebulous thing whose existence is solely to weaken the First Amendment (and target groups the government doesn't like) but outright should not be able to, being undefined and unmentioned in the Constitution.
other legal systems may not have the protections needed to keep it out, but the US visibly fucking does have the needed protections, and yet the case law says otherwise （ ´,_ゝ`）

that does remind me though, things considered to be CP don't need to be considered obscene to be illegal