Greenguy's Board - View Single Post - Will LL, TGP and other sites give us a one month amnesty when 2257 is pass?

lassiter · 2004-08-17, 01:09 PM

But remember, not all content is subject to 2257 recordkeeping requirements. Only "actually sexually-explicit conduct" is covered. Section 2257 itself states:

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;

and the relevant part of Sec. 2256 reads as follows:

(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 material under (E) above is specifically exempt from 2257 requirements, as is "simulated" sexual activity. The basic rules to avoid 2257 compliance requirements is: no bondage or BDSM, no penetration (of anything by anything - including dildos), and no cumshots. If anything seems borderline, don't use it (or else have all your 2257 data for it). But really, a fair amount of material is simply not subject to the rule.

I'm going to be taking down a bunch of mainly hard BDSM freesites and changing out a lot of explicit banners over the next couple of weeks, but most of my softcore and amateur sites are staying up with a legal disclaimer (drafted by my attorneys) stating that the content is exempt from 2257 regs.

And I agree that since mere text-linking to another person's domain does not subject the linker to 2257 regulations, that it's ridiculous for LLs to become government enforcers of another person's compliance. I would like to see one LL owner offer the legal justification under the language of 2257 for doing this.

2004-08-17, 01:09 PM	#15
lassiter I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman! Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 473	But remember, not all content is subject to 2257 recordkeeping requirements. Only "actually sexually-explicit conduct" is covered. Section 2257 itself states: 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; and the relevant part of Sec. 2256 reads as follows: (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 material under (E) above is specifically exempt from 2257 requirements, as is "simulated" sexual activity. The basic rules to avoid 2257 compliance requirements is: no bondage or BDSM, no penetration (of anything by anything - including dildos), and no cumshots. If anything seems borderline, don't use it (or else have all your 2257 data for it). But really, a fair amount of material is simply not subject to the rule. I'm going to be taking down a bunch of mainly hard BDSM freesites and changing out a lot of explicit banners over the next couple of weeks, but most of my softcore and amateur sites are staying up with a legal disclaimer (drafted by my attorneys) stating that the content is exempt from 2257 regs. And I agree that since mere text-linking to another person's domain does not subject the linker to 2257 regulations, that it's ridiculous for LLs to become government enforcers of another person's compliance. I would like to see one LL owner offer the legal justification under the language of 2257 for doing this.