Thank you for your question.
Pictures of people in swimwear is not pornographic. The U.S. Justice department says that in order for something to be considered pornographic it has to meet the following criteria: it must focus on the genital area, mush show unnatural poses, must depict the person as a sex object or be willing to engage in sex, and it must be in a suggestive setting.
Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court has held in Miller v. California
that obscenity was not protected speech. Further, the court ruled that each community is responsible for setting its own standards about what is considered to be obscene material. If pornographic material is prosecuted and brought to trial, a jury can deem it obscene based on:
- whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
- whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law; and
- whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
The court spelled out a few clear examples of what it thought could be considered obscene:
- Patently offensive representations or descriptions of ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated
- Patently offensive representations or descriptions of masturbation, excretory functions and lewd exhibition of the genitals.
Granted, there may be magazines or ads that use models in suggestive poses, but if that were illegal, than anyone in possession of a "Sports Illustrated - Swimsuit Edition" would be guilty of owning pornography, and any family member that took a picture of a child in a swimsuit might be considered as owning pornography, and as you know, neither of these is true.