Are you sure about those explicity filters Gary? This was the first ad I saw on sex.com

http://www.wired2000.com/Miscpics/sex.bmp
WG

under the new 2257 it would be (at least that is my understanding)

First off....The quote feature is included on this board for a reason...Figure out how to use it.

Secondly...Sleazy is dead nuts on with the following reply:

''sexually explicit'' from 2256 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;


Note that proposed 2257 regulations takes (E) out of the definition.




so, it is conceivable that the sample pic provided would require 2257 statement and records since it can be argued it is showing masturbation (because the graphic is a depiction, and that's what 2257 covers).

use of sexually explicit images in banner advertising could trigger a 2257 requirement.. this is where it all gets so mirky and confusing, especially since this part of the thread is about use of "sexually explicit" images in advertisements.

the interpretations that i have heard so far is that banners with sexually explicit images would have to have 2257 statements and records (which would be an incredible burden and logistical nightmare to deal with, other than don't use sexually explicit imagery).




-brandon

that seems to be the easiest/safest route

Some of the "clarifications" made in the proposed 2257 regulations was that a webmaster made editorial judgements as to what is displayed, therefore they have the record keeping responsibilities of not using underage models.


For those following along with the new regs, you might argue that you have banners setup in rotation or are pulled from remote sources where the banner could change if the website dropped in a new banner, therefore you have no "editorial" control over what is displayed on your page..... you may try to argue a DMCA like argument that you had no control, but in a court, the prosecutor may ask if you had control over other parts of the site, you answer yes, and they would then draw the conclusion that you could have had control over the advertisements that you ran, but you chose not to.

in summary, if you are trying to be creative in defining words like "publish" or "control", etc using a dictionary, you are going to miss out on the legal meanings of these words, and therefore need to check with an attorney about what you are SPECFICALLY doing on your website, rather than talking in generalities as we are doing here.

-brandon

Does anyone remember what this thread was about initially?

all ive learned from this thread is that an explicit image on a TGP, would not be an explicit image if it was on sex.com ..

who said GFY isnt informative...

yep

I'm getting the feeling that some folks have gone away for the day. I can see the tumbleweeds...

I do hope this gets worked out.

I HAVE A DREAM, of one day when ALL adult sites are treaty equally, and Sleazy Dream is able to stand proudly with Aly and ASACP, as they fight side-by-side to eliminate child porn everywhere. :Graucho

Despite differences it is hard to find fault with an organization dedicated to eliminating child pornography.

B

i agree in principal. The asacp does great work for society in general and have saved many children from horrific things, i've never disputed that, but when i get publically plugged for donation and told in an enviroment full of clients that I'm not good enough to donate money but that they will accept my donation annomously I feel a little like i'm being looked down on. I can accept that if those rules for membership are equal for all- and did - but take it a step further - when i realized they accepted another site operating on similar peramiters to mine and tell me they are acceptible and i'm not and i get a little peeved as i don't understand their logic and i'm looking for some clarity as to this decision.

all i'd like (not saying i deserve an answer, just saying it would be nice to get one that makes sense is all) is some clarity there, and from the amount of icqs from other industry people i've recieved in the last few days about this and the page views this thread has gotten i think a lot of other people in this biz would like to know as well exactly what the reasons were for excluding me and not sex.com

- now understand i'm not saying sex.com is a bad site either in any way - they have great traffic and a good name and it's a wonderful thing that they support the asacp.

but

any person or organization that THINKS they're above question is QUESTIONABLE.

so i'm asking questions.....some of the answers so far arn't pretty....

I agree with you 100% !

I think this would be an opportunity for ASACP to extend an invitation to meet with some TGP owners to discuss this in detail.
it's long overdue.

joan was invited to several TGP VIP dinners - she never showed

well they must have meetings..where/when are they? lets
respectfully ask to send some representatives that understand how we conduct business.

good idea - but i was told their site specifically says TGPs arn't allowed.

or maybe someone could toilet paper their booth? :Graucho

Sorry, just a silly thought... :)

is there a secret handshake im not aware of?

i HAVE to restate this.

I wanted to donate money to the ASACP and have wanted to for MANY MANY months (years even) now. I still do (but not annomously)

I believe in what they are trying to do and have for some time. I've even invited Joan to several TGP VIP parties in the past to introduce her to many of the main traffic players in the TGP game. - She never showed up.

I accepted the reason Joan gave me as to why I couldn't donate to the organization - but when i realized the other day on the surface i was no different than sex.com i asked why sex.com was accepted and I wasn't. Thus the fuss here as I havnt' received a respectable answer to it yet that i could understand.


I'm not saying in ANY way sex.com is a bad company - they have great traffic and run a fine business and i refer people to them still - I commend them for supporting an organization like the asacp. It shows Gary has character and responsibility and is a good man in this industry and in life.


but i don't UNDERSTAND why sleazydream was refused based on the comments I've received from the asacp.


i don't like being left in the dark. I know i don't have a right to a reply, but I sure would LIKE a reasonable one.............if that's not tooooooooooo much to ask.

many paysites have things about them that are questionable - thus the asacp from what I'm told inspects every new paysite applicant for compliance. Why is TGP a blanket bann - different tgps operate differently - not all of them take submissions from unknown sources - and that statement shows much ignorance of the tgp marketplace.

I have never taken free submissions ever - and i think this is the problem - I feel like the asacp is using a defination they don't quite understand and i'm caught up in that.

i told joan initially i could not controll what other people do - and i accpeted being passed on membership cause i thought all members were paysites that had total controll of their content.

when seeing sex.com has membership in the asacp and like me has no controll over their advertisers websites and they make their living as I do linking to other people's websites - and we both require contracts that advertisers have 2257 backed by financial commitment on all advertisers - well that made me think - how am I any different than sex.com and why was I refused and they weren't?

Given that TGPs comprise such an important part of the adult industry, I do hope that this issue can be resolved.

I don't think that Sleazy is in any way saying that he has a problem with the ASACP or Sex.com. Rather I think that his intention is good and that he is truly looking for a way to work WITH the organization....certainly not against it.

A consistent standard or clarification of the standards for membership would probably really help here....

Just my :2 cents:

I have been thinking about this issue and believe you have some valid points. Given that you are not taking auto-submission and you are checking each one (i.e. know your customer), I understand your arguement. I personally will bring this issue up to the Advisory Board at the next meeting as again your point seems valid to me. With respect to the specific images you pointed out, we typically allow more explicit images for gay advertisers because of several political considerations. Looking at them, I will have them removed from the site. In any case, let's discuss your points in person at Internext!

sounds like progress has been made . . . although I find the "we typically allow more explicit images for gay advertisers because of several political considerations" very interesting

i respect that response, thank you.