|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1 |
|
Took the hint.
|
wishmaster, too much hair... too many disco suits.
![]() Alex |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Trying is the first step towards failure
|
Sexually Explicit Conduct
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me if this is applicable to the regualations that are going intol effect June 2005 or is speaking to the proposed rules originally made in 2004.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 |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 | |
|
Lonewolf Internet Sales
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 | |
|
Shut up brain, or I'll stab you with a Q-tip!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 114
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|