Clarification
 

This may be a dumb ?

So under the new 2257 if the site I build is only nude female stripping is 2257 needed on the actual free site? No hardcore or penetration at all.

It depends on which lawyer you ask. |huh

|pokefun|

It really depends on what the DOJ's definition of "sexually explicit" is (which no one knows)

Well,shit biscuits and country fried fuck this is aggrevating!!!!

That may very well be the most truthful and forthright statement I've seen in all of the 2257 threads.

I think, instead telling people to consult an attorney, we should be telling them to consult several attorneys and their attorneys' attorneys. Me thinks it would be a lot cheaper and just as accurate to sit down for 15 minutes with a palm reader or a proctologist.

It is one of the weird things about the new 2257 that doesn't make sense. There is a definition of sexual explicit in 2256 that is the "standard". But then in the new 2257 they exclude "E" (genitals) but keep using the term sexually explicit - which as a matter of law has been defined in 2256.

It's stunning how it all goes.

Alex

Well, they say SM/BD is sexually explicit lol :D so who the fuck knows most SM people i know are clothed and it has nothing to do with sex WTF do they even know what it is?? What's next sex stories too :D i'm tired of 2257 already, can't do shit til someone actually knows what is going on it's getting fustrating!

Sec. 2256. - Definitions for chapter

(2)

''sexually explicit conduct'' means actual or simulated -

(A)

sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;

(B)

bestiality;

(C)

masturbation;

(D)

sadistic or masochistic abuse; or

(E)

lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

So I wonder if simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals means that you need docs for a fully dressed model spreading her legs...