Discuss....
-
-
i sure hope so... -
-
Sure would be madness if legislation did include non-nude.
Just trying to find some references - saw "something" somewhere to the effect that is it far safer to cover ass all round and collect data for *all* website content.XXX TLD's - Another mosquito to swat.Comment
-
Not entirely...I'm sure if someone were rubbing their genitalia and/or breasts, even with clothes on, it could be interpreted as 'sexually explicit'...think it through people, then ask a lawyer or two...Investor with 5m - 15m USD to invest. Do you have a site or network of sites earning 50k - 200k a month income? Email your contact and preliminary data to: domain.cashventures (at) gmail.com....Please...no tire kickers...serious offers and inquiries only.
Comment
-
The worlds gone mad...
I Buy My High Quality Traffic Here, You Should Too!
Comment
-
Suppose there could be an arguement depending on the nature of the website - ie.. if it is mean't to appeal to an X audience and is of an adult nature, then - hell, better to cover ass all round.Originally posted by TheJimmy
This is all kinda crappy, pathetic stuff..XXX TLD's - Another mosquito to swat.Comment
-
nonnude adult targeted = sexually explicitComment
-
Most of my sites have just a few cropped thumbs of a models face or something like a butt in a thong. The rest are all text. I dont host anything that could even be considered as "simulated". I link to the hosted galleries, potds, etc for that.Comment
-
Overall context of the site is for sure an issue...Originally posted by WebbyInvestor with 5m - 15m USD to invest. Do you have a site or network of sites earning 50k - 200k a month income? Email your contact and preliminary data to: domain.cashventures (at) gmail.com....Please...no tire kickers...serious offers and inquiries only.Comment
-
Bump for more opinions/discussionsComment
-
Could you please explain your thoughts. Obviously it is intended for adults but if I do what Fusion does it wouldnt be considered "sexual content" or "simulated". I do pretty much the same. A few face thumbs and mostly hosted galleries. No nudity at all.Originally posted by gooddomainsComment
-
Originally posted by bryc
The definitions of those terms are left up to the prosecuting attorney. By then you are already fucked.Comment
-
My thoughts, non-nude, even tits only is safe. Tits are not genitalia. But take non-nude and zoom in on see through panties so you can see the pink and such, well, then I think you have "crossed the line" into non-exempt ville.
Comment
-
got this from FSC page
"Clause (v) of section 2256(2)(A) of title 18, United States Code" is part of the definition of "sexually explicit conduct," and reads, "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person." Lascivious exhibition had previously been entirely excluded from the requirements of hahaha167;2257, but with H.R. 4472's changes to the law, lascivious exhibition will apparently now be included if the material also depicts sexual intercourse, bestiality, masturbation or sadistic or masochistic abuse, all referenced in clauses (i) through (iv) of hahaha167;2256(2)(A).Comment
-
The new Adam Walsh law yesterday takes it a few steps further..
Simulated sex and artistic nudity...
So masturbating through clothes, I'm guessing.. it simulated sex...
There's also the new misleading hyperlink law... did anyone read that yesterday?Comment
-
Originally posted by Scott McD
Please note that this is not a world wide issue, it seem sto be of major concern to the US
Shooting Exclusive Content for over 16 years
You can reach me at [email protected]
I have survived in this industry shooting exclusive for 16 years.
Comment
-
Originally posted by CaptainHowdy
at this rate, non nude will not be safe eventually.ICQ: 16544251 - Skype: gator37 @ eastlink.ca - email: yngwie @ isys.caComment
-
I guess I will go completely text. No banners, no thumbs. My sites may look like shit but fuckin' a, they are NOT driving me out of this business.
There's ways around not using pictures if need be. Just gotta be creative!Comment
-
If you look very closely at how things work then you will see that nudity is not really required for being sexually explicit, but then I am only working in the adult arena for the last 12 years.....Originally posted by brycComment
-
If you had a girl who was in braw and panties and you were sticking a finger into her pussy to make a camel toe and took a picture of it that would be lewd and lacivious focus on the genitals I'd think, even if the pussy was never ever shown... because there is sexual context to it.. So I would still think 2257 would apply here... lol.. sorta makes you sctratch your head to think about all the fucked up shit they could get you for...
Lets all start filming dry humping now...I'm here for the violence!Comment
-
I meant no disrespect. I just didnt understand what you were saying exactly.Originally posted by gooddomains
I'm trying to read up on everything I can.Comment
Comment