The war on constitutionally protected expression continues:
Ok here is how text links fit in.
Round One: 2257
The seconday producer as record keeper is found valid by the courts. For those that use explicit content from sponsors for advertising must now have the documents.
Result: Sponors choose to supply the documents or not. Explicit content by those falling under the regulation declines since either the sponsors distribute the documents or as in most cases they don't, or even if they do the record keeping burden is just too much of a hassle and possible penalties too severe for secondary producers. So they use text links or softcore to promote and feel safe.
But it has been established that the documents need to be made distributable and that relying on just a statement and specifying where the documents are located is not enough.
Round Two: 2256
Under 2256 it is illegal to knowingly advertise unlawfull content. To advertise is actually part of the definition of 'producer' for that chapter.
So I use text links to advertise a sponsor. I don't use any explicit content so I can avoid the record keeping requirement of 2257. However under 2256 I can be held for knowingly advertising illegal content.
If argued that 'knowingly' also means 'should have known', then the only way I can know if the sponsors content is legal is if I have copies of the documents for all explicit content on the site, including any updates.
Since 2257 mandates the creation and distribution of those documents then I can't claim I didn't know, because now the documentation is readily available (or should be).
So I am now liable for the content on any sponsor site that I advertise even if only with a text link. If any of their content is illegal or can not be proven to be legal, then I should have know and therefore are prosecutable under 2256.
KO