Reubens also definitely did not possess dozens of photos of child sexual abuse, for which he was arrested in 2002

Edit: The photos were classified by authorities as ｢child pornography｣, ｢obscene material improperly depicting a child under the age of 18 in sexual conduct｣, and most specifically as ｢people underage engaged in masturbation or oral copulation｣. Reubens denied all of these classifications of the photos, saying that the photos were just art and 100% not sexual. I wrote this comment under the assumption that Reubens was BS’ing, because I feel like the justice system would have no reason nor ability to arrest him and intentionally or accidentally describe his photo collection as worse than it actually was, and would on the contrary have every reason to let him off easy by accepting his plea bargain.

But I guess from the response to this comment that he was actually being truthful and I misunderstood/misrepresented the situation. As tends to happen when your only knowledge of a situation comes from Wikipedia. Sorry!