When Calvin Klein was to unveil a billboard in New York’s Times Square on Feb. 18 promoting a new kids’ underwear line, many people cried that the advertisement was no more than child pornography.

The billboard was of little boys and girls in their underwear jumping on a sofa.

A black-and-white photograph of the promotion was published Feb. 17 in full-page newspaper ads.

Many groups, including the American Family Association, scolded Klein, saying the ads sexually exploited children.

If there’s one thing Klein is known for, it is his avant-garde advertising techniques.

In past ads, Klein has been criticized for using almost pre-teen models to advertise adult clothing and fragrances.

It is no wonder that many people assumed Klein was once again trying to challenge society to see exactly how far he could go.

He didn’t go far.

On the day the billboard was to be unveiled, Klein pulled the entire campaign.

What’s wrong with a big billboard of two kids jumping on a couch in their underwear?

In this case, there were many things wrong with the ad.

For one, the way the ad was composed didn’t portray a picture of happy kids just jumping on a couch in their underwear.

The photo’s lighting and tone seemed to beckon that there was a hidden meaning.

What made the ad even more sexual was that the outline of the little boy’s genitals could be seen in the photo.

There is no place in our free market society for sexual exploitation of children.

When the time comes that children’s sexuality is being used to sell products, it means that the industry has gone too far.

A mother doesn’t need to see an actress on a TV commercial rubbing the bare buttocks of a baby to know that a diaper will keep her baby’s behind smooth and dry.

The mother can’t feel the baby’s behind through the TV screen.

There would have been a proper way for Klein to promote his new children’s underwear line without the obvious sexual undertones. If he needed help on the right way to do it, he would not have had to look any further than a Sears Roebuck & Co. catalogue.

It should not be a question of First Amendment rights but a question of good judgment.