I was not, and did not mean to imply it was their policy.
I was trying to say that the legal risk was not there, not speak to what the policies were.
The law is (from wikipedia, I'm too lazy to read the actual statutes right now):
The PROTECT Act also amended 18 U.S.C. 2252A, which was part of the original CPPA. The amendment added paragraph (a)(3), which criminalizes knowingly advertising or distributing "an obscene visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or a visual depiction of an actual minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct". The law draws a distinction between obscene depiction of any minor, and mere depiction of an actual minor.
As long as it's not sexually explicit it's legal, though also:
In 1994, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit ruled that the federal statute contains no requirement that genitals be visible or discernible. The court ruled that non-nude visual depictions can qualify as lascivious exhibitions and that this construction does not render the statute unconstitutionally overbroad.
So genitals are a help in determining, but are not a requirement, and if it's not sexually explicit, it's not pornography, and therefore not child pornagraphy. I have not looked at the pictures in question, because, I have better things to do.