2257 regs published in full

[RawAlex]

wishmaster, too much hair... too many disco suits.

Alex

[ardentgent]

The below url is a link to a power point presentation on the FSC webpage. In it it states that lascivious depiction of the pubic area is excluded from the definition of actual sexually explicit conduct and that nuduty itself does not implicate compliance.

It is unclear to me if this is applicable to the regualations that are going intol effect June 2005 or is speaking to the proposed rules originally made in 2004. Does anyone know?

Thanks.

http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/p...ad-Only%20.pdf

[Toby]

Originally Posted by ardentgent

The below url is a link to a power point presentation on the FSC webpage ...snip... It is unclear to me if this is applicable to the regualations that are going intol effect June 2005 or is speaking to the proposed rules originally made in 2004...

The copyright date on the bottom of each page is 2004, it's speaking about the existing regs, not the new ones.

[airdick]

Originally Posted by ardentgent

The below url is a link to a power point presentation on the FSC webpage. In it it states that lascivious depiction of the pubic area is excluded from the definition of actual sexually explicit conduct and that nuduty itself does not implicate compliance.

It is unclear to me if this is applicable to the regualations that are going intol effect June 2005 or is speaking to the proposed rules originally made in 2004. Does anyone know?

Thanks.

http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/p...ad-Only%20.pdf

I have not seen anything that changes the definitions of "actual sexually explicit conduct". It is defined in Title 18 2257 (h)(1) as a subset of Title 18 2256 paragraph (2) that excludes simulated sexual conduct and "(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person"

from Title 18 2257:
(h) As used in this section—
(1) the term “actual sexually explicit conduct” means actual but not simulated conduct as defined in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (2) of section 2256 of this title;


from Title 18 2256:
(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;


You should check with your attorney, but as far as I can tell R-Rated movies, Playboy Magazine, National Geographic, and the Sears Catalog will still be exempt from the Recordkeeping Requirements of 2257.

[noooze]

damn this is crazy

I have allways said, and will allways say. USA is a fucked up country regarding laws.
bet there a christian wing of the party involved in this... trying to make life as impossible to adult webmasters as they can
I read that anything contacting the us, is req. to follow the law. I say bullshit. Let the us goverment come to denmark and try and look me up. I'll be the first one to kick em out of my house and piss on their fancy briefcases
I will allways comply to first danish law, seconf EU law. and no one else

this is why i'll never in my life move to the US

[Barron]

the 2257 regs require our address.

Look what happened to this women and she is "not" in the adult industry.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/interne....ap/index.html


_

[wishmaster]

does everone think this 2257 would fly ?

http://www.4pornsex.com/2257/

[Chop Smith]

Damn sure has lots of altitude and will probably catch a good tail wind.

[Toby]

Originally Posted by wishmaster

does everone think this 2257 would fly ?

http://www.4pornsex.com/2257/

No, not for content you host yourself, regardless of the source. You'll now be required to maintain copies of all of the model records, just like the primary producer you purchased the content from, and your 2257 Compliance Statement would only include your own name and address (your primary place of business).

[RawAlex]

You should check with your attorney, but as far as I can tell R-Rated movies, Playboy Magazine, National Geographic, and the Sears Catalog will still be exempt from the Recordkeeping Requirements of 2257.

Airdick, sorry, but you are hitting 3 different situations here.

Sears catalog - fully clothed. End discussion.

National Geographic - reporting news. Different rules.

Playboy - paying models to get naked including showing the area of pink - 2257.

Don't spend time trying to DODGE it. Your reward for failing is 5 years in a federal butt slamming prison.

ALex

[airdick]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Playboy - paying models to get naked including showing the area of pink - 2257.

Don't spend time trying to DODGE it. Your reward for failing is 5 years in a federal butt slamming prison.

ALex

You're mistaken - the definition is very specific and I've cited the relevant portion of the regulations to support my claim. Is there a portion of 2257 where the definition of "actual sexual conduct" is expanded beyond what is spelled out in (h)?

It would seem that the FSC agrees as well. I'm not even sure why I'm bothering to argue US Law with a Canadian webmaster.

[SirMoby]

Originally Posted by airdick

I'm not even sure why I'm bothering to argue US Law with a Canadian webmaster.

Please DO NOT show disrespect to RawAlex here.

[airdick]

Originally Posted by SirMoby

Please DO NOT show disrespect to RawAlex here.

My comments was a bit flippant, perhaps it wouldn't have come off sounding rude if I'd included a smily. I don't harbor any ill will towards Alex or anyone else on this board, and I certainly have nothing against Canadians. If I hurt anyone's feelings I apologize.

[Chop Smith]

I don't care if Alex lives in Bumfuck, Mississippi. He has spend considerable time researching this crap and should be appreciated. Never once has he professed to be giving a legal opinion. Personally, I think his opinion is more accurate than the one I paid for.

Keep posting, Alex.

[HornyHeather]

I believe Alex has been the biggest help I have found on any forum, And everything he has said explains exactly what we are reading,Thank you again Alex!

I am thinking that some are trying like hell to find a "WAY OUT" of the 2257.

Plain and simple if you show nude explicit material, you need docs. I know it is a hard pill to swallow, but we have to, look at it in a good way, you will know in your mind that a model you added to your website is Over 18...That would make me sleep better.

[HornyHeather]

Originally Posted by Chop Smith

I don't care if Alex lives in Bumfuck, Mississippi. He has spend considerable time researching this crap and should be appreciated. Never once has he professed to be giving a legal opinion. Personally, I think his opinion is more accurate than the one I paid for.

Keep posting, Alex.

I agree...I paid for 3 opinions and all 3 had different outlooks on it and didnt come close to what I have learned here.

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by airdick

You're mistaken - the definition is very specific and I've cited the relevant portion of the regulations to support my claim. Is there a portion of 2257 where the definition of "actual sexual conduct" is expanded beyond what is spelled out in (h)?

It would seem that the FSC agrees as well. I'm not even sure why I'm bothering to argue US Law with a Canadian webmaster.

Airdick, no offense taken. "Sexual conduct"... ahh, well... it's pretty hard to truly determine what is sexual. I agree with FSC in theory.... but a theory and $4 will get you a decent coffee at starbucks. I wouldn't bet my business, my (blank) criminal records, or my (virgin) ass on a theory.

If the girl shows the pink ANYWHERE in a photoset, there is potential that it could be considered sexual conduct, and as such, well...

A full clothed girl sucking on a dildo. Yes? No?

Fully naked girl reading the news? Yes? No?

Topless girl with cum dripping down her face (but no pink no penis). Yes? No?

The nature of the game is a judgement call. In the same way that obscenity was a judgement call, this is a judgement call as well. While the definition appears to be more clear, there is no way to know how a DOJ official or a southern district federal judge might look upon your content.

It isn't just about "getting around" or "just getting by" but about being bullet proof so if you get the knock on the door (and in theory, everyone is suppose to get a knock sooner or later) you won't be freaking out and trying to pack the anal lube.

Play too close to the line, you are VERY likely to fall over it by accident. 5 years for a single undocumented image... think about it.

Alex

[Linkster]

Alex - keep in mind that the inspections will not involve arrests - if the inspections yield that the proper documentation wasnt kept then they can go get a warrant but its not like they break down your door for the inspection and haul you off to jail with them if you dont have them

[RawAlex]

Linkster, the inspectors will come, and if you don't have the documents, I suspect in round 1 they will sit with you while a warrant is drawn up. Remember also that they can use that time to look for other felonies... so who knows what they might find?

Ask Mike Jones about inspections.

Alex

[Useless]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Linkster, the inspectors will come, and if you don't have the documents, I suspect in round 1 they will sit with you while a warrant is drawn up. Remember also that they can use that time to look for other felonies... so who knows what they might find?

The most they can get me on is allowing my dogs' licenses to lapse. What sort crimes could they possibly search for while in a webmaster's home? The regulations may allow them to pursue other investigations once they're in, but that doesn't mean that they can start scuttling your home. They still require a damn good reason to go beyond your desk and filing cabinets. Even in these trying times, we haven't lost all of our rights.

[RawAlex]

UW, if your records are on a computer, they could possible ask you for the licenses for your major (ie: microsoft) software on your computer, as an example.

I don't worry about MOST people, but a few people might get caught with a little mother nature on the desk or perhaps an unregistered firearm in plain site or something stupid like that. Basically the rules as written say that an inspection does not invalidate plain site rules nor does it mean that inspectors must ignore obvious felonies.

Your rights don't go away... but they play sort of even, ya know?

Alex

[pornrex]

Just finished reading the article from head to toe.

Being a freesite builder and a hubsite keeper, I find as long as I have hardcopy (disk or paper) evidence to support that I am using legal images as it pertains to 2257 and my purposes, then I should be ok. Also, as long as those hardcopy records are at my place of work and readily available for inspection then I should be fine.

Am I correct in my calculations or am I forgetting anything?

[RawAlex]

pornrex: don't forget the cross referenced by url by model name real name stage name etc.

Alex

[Sinistress]

There are going to be a lot of unhappy webmasters I think who are spending more time trying to fight/find a way out of this, than get their shit in order...

If people want to fight/find a way out of this, I get it, I'm not even in the US but I'm still going to act as if I am, because with hosting in the US its still a chance I'd rather not take. My traffic is largely US based, and so if I want traffic I'm going to have to comply. I'd rather try to fight the law from the compliant side of the fence.

[pornrex]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

pornrex: don't forget the cross referenced by url by model name real name stage name etc.

Alex

Can you give me an example? Don't forget I just finished reading this article so my ability to understand plain english is a little strained at the moment.