Anyone got a link to the actual law? "Sexually explicit" is all over 2257, but I can't find a legal definition of what actually makes a pic "sexually explicit".
-
-
check 2256. -
Thanks...that was what I was looking for:Originally posted by After Shock Media
(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;Comment
-
On second thought, I'm not exactly sure this definition applies. This definition clearly states that "sexually explicit conduct" includes both actual and simulated conduct. However, in 2257, it clearly states that the maintenance of records requirement applies to those publishing images "that contains a depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct". The fact they added "actual" to the definition implies that "simulated" conduct is acceptable, which seems to exclude part of the definition of "sexually explicit conduct".Originally posted by ModelPerfect
Furthermore, under "Sec. 75.7 Exemption Statement", it states one exception to the record keeping requirements is when "(2) The matter contains only visual depictions of simulated sexually explicit conduct". This supports that idea that 2257 only covers the publication of images depicting actual sexually explicit conduct.
So it appears that we have a little more flexibility on the issue. However, 2E on the original citation kind of screws us. I don't really see a different between actual and simulated on that one, and a lot of simulated acts could potentially fall under this actual category. Heck, simple frontal nudity could potentially fall under this one, depending on how it's interpreted. *Sigh* they hate us.
Comment
-
I was stated before that it included any actual (a) through (d) and not simulated, and it excluded (e).Originally posted by ModelPerfectOn second thought, I'm not exactly sure this definition applies. This definition clearly states that "sexually explicit conduct" includes both actual and simulated conduct. However, in 2257, it clearly states that the maintenance of records requirement applies to those publishing images "that contains a depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct". The fact they added "actual" to the definition implies that "simulated" conduct is acceptable, which seems to exclude part of the definition of "sexually explicit conduct".
Furthermore, under "Sec. 75.7 Exemption Statement", it states one exception to the record keeping requirements is when "(2) The matter contains only visual depictions of simulated sexually explicit conduct". This supports that idea that 2257 only covers the publication of images depicting actual sexually explicit conduct.
So it appears that we have a little more flexibility on the issue. However, 2E on the original citation kind of screws us. I don't really see a different between actual and simulated on that one, and a lot of simulated acts could potentially fall under this actual category. Heck, simple frontal nudity could potentially fall under this one, depending on how it's interpreted. *Sigh* they hate us.Comment
-
Where does it say excluding (e)? I haven't been able to find it.Originally posted by After Shock MediaComment
-
this is key for sites with topless girls squeezing or completely nude models posing.Comment
-
In the current right now regs.Originally posted by ModelPerfect
The revised ones give no real refference to 2256 at all.Comment
-
Word of the Day for Sunday May 25, 2003
lascivious \luh-SIV-ee-uhs\, adjective:
1. Lewd; lustful.
2. Tending to arouse sexual desires.
Irwin, wearing Groucho Marx glasses to which a false nose is attached, appears uncharacteristically as a lascivious fellow, the maitre d'hôtel who tries to move in on the girlfriend.
--Vincent Canby, "Fool Moon," New York Times, October 30, 1995
Harry . . . volunteered with a lascivious leer, flirting as usual.
--Jackie Collins, Thrill!
Bartholomew Fair was a byword for immorality and in 1697 the lord mayor had published an ordinance against 'obscene, lascivious and scandalous plays, comedies and farces, unlawful games and interludes, drunkenness, etc'.
-- Jenny Uglow, Hogarth: A Life and a World
Lascivious comes from Late Latin lasciviosus, from Latin lascivia, "wantonness, lust, playfulness" from lascivus, "wanton, sportful, playful."
Synonyms: bawdy, incontinent, lecherous, unchaste, wanton. Find more at Thesaurus.com..Comment
-
Whats the ruling on topless girls in tours?Comment
-
Aren't the current regs being replaced with the new ones? If so, we can't rely on anything currently in 2257...only what's spelled out in the new ones.Originally posted by After Shock MediaComment
-
Yes, No, Maybe.Originally posted by ModelPerfect
It is something that needs addressing that is for sure.
We ourselves are assuming sexually explicit means everything that shows pink just to be safe.Comment
-
You find that in 2257Originally posted by ModelPerfect
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;Comment
-
Before anyone gets too far away from the definition I posted above, a fully clothed cameltoe pic can be considered obscene according to the law..Comment
-
Yeah, but that's the existing regs; not the new ones.Originally posted by KingfishComment
-
Good call, but the original definition states even pubic area, which could mean hair and/or shaved, even if no pink.Originally posted by After Shock MediaComment
-
True. The laws are so vague they could theoretically target anyone they wanted...Originally posted by mardigrasComment
-
2257 is not part of the regs. 2257 and 2256 are part of the U.S. code. The ?regs? are the regulations found in the Code of Federal Regulations. The regulations have changed but 2257 and 2256 have not. The exemption for e is still there because it is in 2257.Originally posted by ModelPerfectComment
-
Anything could be considered "sexually explicit" if you are paranoid, but then every show on MTV would be in violation. There is nothing illegal about MTV showing teens (including those underage) in bikinis and this law is not going to change that.Originally posted by mardigras
The term you use in your post is "obscene" and that's another one without a concrete definition. Obscenity hasn't caused the adult industry to die and neither will this. Use common sense when it comes to what the government could get away with prosecuting you on when they say "sexually explicit".
No matter what you do in the adult industry you take a legal risk, before and after the new 2257 rules.Comment
-
www.xxxlaw.netOriginally posted by Kingfish
My understanding is the proposed are changes actually to 2257. Can anyone support this?Comment
-
The new 2257 regulations are additions to the current 2257 law. It only replaces when it states that.
~TheDoc - ICQ7765825
It's all disambiguation
Comment
-
I would take a guess here and say this is protecting movie production companies with simulated sex scenes. Would Angelina Jolies sex scene with Antonio Banderas be under 2257? My guess is that it is not.Originally posted by ModelPerfectOn second thought, I'm not exactly sure this definition applies. This definition clearly states that "sexually explicit conduct" includes both actual and simulated conduct. However, in 2257, it clearly states that the maintenance of records requirement applies to those publishing images "that contains a depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct". The fact they added "actual" to the definition implies that "simulated" conduct is acceptable, which seems to exclude part of the definition of "sexually explicit conduct".
Furthermore, under "Sec. 75.7 Exemption Statement", it states one exception to the record keeping requirements is when "(2) The matter contains only visual depictions of simulated sexually explicit conduct". This supports that idea that 2257 only covers the publication of images depicting actual sexually explicit conduct.
So it appears that we have a little more flexibility on the issue. However, 2E on the original citation kind of screws us. I don't really see a different between actual and simulated on that one, and a lot of simulated acts could potentially fall under this actual category. Heck, simple frontal nudity could potentially fall under this one, depending on how it's interpreted. *Sigh* they hate us.Comment
-
what about a girl with cum on her face but no cock in the picture?
DUkeComment
-
You can stick your head in the sand, we won't ridicle you. We're too busy watching jurisdictions try to ban "sexy" cheerleading.Originally posted by Mr.Fiction
Obscenity got put on a side track when planes went crashing into buildings. It's quiet enough now that if you look at the news you will see much activity.Originally posted by Mr.FictionUse common sense when you decide what you think the US government will prosecute.Originally posted by Mr.Fiction
Now go back and read the definition I posted of lascivious and compare that to the law as referring to the
"lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of
any person"
.Comment
-
mmmmm, lascivious!Originally posted by mardigrasComment
)
Comment