It won't pass. I can already tell you what will happen: Local activists will get TV local news programs to produce a bunch of hysterical stories about "legalizing child porn". And that will be that.

Man, that's going to be a hard law to draft. Would love to participate in an intelligent conversation about how to de-criminalize the 90+% of consensual teenage behavior (such as sexting selfies) that would otherwise be catagorized as "child porn," while retaining the ability to stop actual behavior that IS sexually exploitative of those under age 18. Hmmm.

Don't need a new "law"-- just need prosecutors with sense to know the difference.
This BS of "we have to write a specific law" causes a lot of problems. No, you don't. You don't need legislation at all. Just protect victims and stop victimizing anyone. So simple. Political simpletons can't figure this out? How stupid must they be?

prosecutors with sense

Uh huh.

This is what happens when you cross "low hanging fruit" with the Law of Unintended Consequences: prosecutors have easy wins because the law is an ass. They look "tough on crime" and more importantly, about protecting "underage victims".

How stupid must they be?

That's a hole with no bottom.

I do have a question. From the fine article, emphasis mine:

In the legal case at the center of this call to action, a 16-year-old girl was involved in a “one-up” competition with her best friends, another 16-year-old girl and a 17-year-old boy, according to court records. The girl sent a video of herself performing a sex act to a group chat she maintained with those friends.

Later, after a falling-out, her friends shared the video with other students at their school and with a school resource officer.

I presume those friends - who actually distributed the video to third parties - were also similarly charged?

I have to agree with IRA here. Prosecutorial discretion is a synonym for corruption. Some will use it appropriately. Most will not. Instead they will be harassing those they don't like and refusing to deal with obviously criminal people who are related to people they do like.

That is just part of human nature and you can't change it.

Discretion. Ah, yes, I have your discretion right here:

The Tallahassee Police Department says a 19-year-old woman is dead after a driver ran the red light at a pedestrian crosswalk on West Tennessee Street Thursday morning.

TPD says 19-year-old Natalie Nickchen died after a driver, identified as 24-year-old Ivey Green, ran the red light at the pedestrian crosswalk in the 1000 block of West Tennessee Street.

Police say Nickchen was in the crosswalk when she was hit by the car.

After consulting with the State Attorney’s Office about the investigation, criminal charges will not be filed against the driver, though Green will be issued the "appropriate citations."

https://www.wtxl.com/news/local-news/tpd-investigating-a-pedestrian-involved-crash-on-west-tennessee-street

I'm pretty sure that's considered vehicular manslaughter in most places.

What are the odds it is the mayor's kid? Senator's?

Yep, IRA. That is the face of prosecutorial discretion.

This has been addressed before, as I pointed out that we consider pictures to be real people at hand when it's convenient to demonstrating our righteousness.

Back to the topic: how do you tell who put pics of the underage teens on the phone when the phone is registered to Uncle Steve?

I'm just pointing out that "laws" are NEVER a solution, but only cause more problems.
If you think government can (or would) fix anything, your brain isn't working and you don't understand what government is.

Would it really be that hard to pass a law that says the person in the picture can't be prosecuted as a child pornographer? Seems to me that would solve much of the problem without creating any loopholes.