 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-06-14, 11:47 PM
|
#7 |
|
Took the hint.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,597
 |
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 |
|
|
|
|
Threaded Mode