This should clear some stuff up..
http://my.execpc.com/~xxxlaw/primer.html
More about what we talked about above. It does seem that as long as the people aren't doing the nasty, things will be fine. BUT, xxxlaw.net recommends you still get the record, just incase.
from xxxlaw.net" It imposes no obligations on producers of material that does not include actual, sexually explicit conduct. Thus, there is no obligation under this provision regarding graphic representations of mere erotic nudity or of simulated sex. But it does cover the waterfront of actual, sexual conduct: It includes all varieties of sexual intercourse, vaginal, anal, or oral, straight or gay, and bestiality, masturbation, and sadistic or masochistic abuse. The determination of whether the act applies to images that do not clearly display penetration or the other covered activities is simple: If it was really going on, the Section applies, even if the actual sexual conduct can't be seen in the image, due to obscuring, covering, or any other reason. (There are compelling and eminently practical reasons why that the wise content provider should harvest identity documents and information in every graphic depiction of erotic nudity whether, strictly speaking, required by the Statute, or not, and should maintain them as though covered by the Statute.)"
Hard for me to think the above is correct, based off the purpose of this law. With all the "crack down talk", then you see this, kinda makes you stop and think.. wtf are they doing with this law then? The protection of children is out the door if its ok to have a nude girl laying on the bed.
For myself, the words "actual but NOT simulated conduct" means A-D is fine if the content is simulated, but if the content is lude (E) then A-D applies.
The wording is jacked up..
(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;