2257 regs published in full

[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.

[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