Another "Explicit" Question

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Hell House Vic
    Pay to Cum
    • Aug 2004
    • 1029

    #1

    Another "Explicit" Question

    Best gueses please:

    Two naked women standing next to each other, embracing, touching breasts... do these photos come under the reach of 2257?

    Contact Me - ICQ: 206851710 eMail vic (at) hellhousemedia (dot) com
    'Satanism is like Capitalism for teens' - Ty HellHouse
  • broke
    Confirmed User
    • Aug 2003
    • 4501

    #2
    http://www.lii.warwick.ac.uk/uscode/18/2256.html
    Perfect Gonzo

    Comment

    • mardigras
      Bon temps!
      • Feb 2003
      • 14194

      #3
      Would probably fall under "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person" if someone wanted to be a problem...
      .

      Comment

      • Hell House Vic
        Pay to Cum
        • Aug 2004
        • 1029

        #4
        but 2257.h.1 says the record keeping only applies to definitions a,b,c, and d of "explicit"

        Contact Me - ICQ: 206851710 eMail vic (at) hellhousemedia (dot) com
        'Satanism is like Capitalism for teens' - Ty HellHouse

        Comment

        • Paul Waters
          Confirmed User
          • Mar 2003
          • 4402

          #5
          Originally posted by Kick Ass Vic
          but 2257.h.1 says the record keeping only applies to definitions a,b,c, and d of "explicit"
          Does this mean that you can show a dilated asshole as long as the cock has pulled out?


          Paul

          Comment

          • Hell House Vic
            Pay to Cum
            • Aug 2004
            • 1029

            #6
            right! what the fuck are they talking about with this bullshit!?!?!?!?!?

            Contact Me - ICQ: 206851710 eMail vic (at) hellhousemedia (dot) com
            'Satanism is like Capitalism for teens' - Ty HellHouse

            Comment

            Working...