Greenguy's Board


Go Back   Greenguy's Board > General Business Knowledge
Register FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 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!
 
lassiter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 473
Send a message via ICQ to lassiter Send a message via Yahoo to lassiter
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.
lassiter is offline   Reply With Quote
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:36 PM.


Mark Read
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© Greenguy Marketing Inc