Welcome to the GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum forums.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Post New Thread Reply

Register GFY Rules Calendar
Go Back   GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum > >
Discuss what's fucking going on, and which programs are best and worst. One-time "program" announcements from "established" webmasters are allowed.

 
Thread Tools
Old 06-01-2005, 05:21 PM   #1
ModelPerfect
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 2,862
What's the legal definition of "sexually explicit"?

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".
__________________
Logan
modelperfect [at] gmail.com
http://www.modelperfect.com

(Proudly hosted at www.webair.com )
ModelPerfect is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2005, 05:23 PM   #2
After Shock Media
It's coming look busy
 
After Shock Media's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn".
Posts: 35,299
check 2256.
__________________

[email protected] ICQ:135982156 AIM: Aftershockmed1a MSN: [email protected]
After Shock Media is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2005, 05:32 PM   #3
ModelPerfect
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 2,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by After Shock Media
check 2256.
Thanks...that was what I was looking for:

(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;
__________________
Logan
modelperfect [at] gmail.com
http://www.modelperfect.com

(Proudly hosted at www.webair.com )
ModelPerfect is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2005, 06:39 PM   #4
ModelPerfect
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 2,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by ModelPerfect
Thanks...that was what I was looking for:

(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;
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".

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.
__________________
Logan
modelperfect [at] gmail.com
http://www.modelperfect.com

(Proudly hosted at www.webair.com )
ModelPerfect is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2005, 06:45 PM   #5
After Shock Media
It's coming look busy
 
After Shock Media's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn".
Posts: 35,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by ModelPerfect
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".

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.
I was stated before that it included any actual (a) through (d) and not simulated, and it excluded (e).
__________________

[email protected] ICQ:135982156 AIM: Aftershockmed1a MSN: [email protected]
After Shock Media is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2005, 06:56 PM   #6
ModelPerfect
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 2,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by After Shock Media
I was stated before that it included any actual (a) through (d) and not simulated, and it excluded (e).
Where does it say excluding (e)? I haven't been able to find it.
__________________
Logan
modelperfect [at] gmail.com
http://www.modelperfect.com

(Proudly hosted at www.webair.com )
ModelPerfect is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2005, 07:07 PM   #7
bdld
$100,000
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 11,452
this is key for sites with topless girls squeezing or completely nude models posing.
bdld is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2005, 07:09 PM   #8
After Shock Media
It's coming look busy
 
After Shock Media's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn".
Posts: 35,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by ModelPerfect
Where does it say excluding (e)? I haven't been able to find it.
In the current right now regs.
The revised ones give no real refference to 2256 at all.
__________________

[email protected] ICQ:135982156 AIM: Aftershockmed1a MSN: [email protected]
After Shock Media is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2005, 07:11 PM   #9
mardigras
Bon temps!
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: down yonder
Posts: 14,194
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.
__________________
.
mardigras is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2005, 07:14 PM   #10
kernelpanic
Too lazy to set a custom title
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,961
Whats the ruling on topless girls in tours?
kernelpanic is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2005, 07:16 PM   #11
ModelPerfect
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 2,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by After Shock Media
In the current right now regs.
The revised ones give no real refference to 2256 at all.
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.
__________________
Logan
modelperfect [at] gmail.com
http://www.modelperfect.com

(Proudly hosted at www.webair.com )
ModelPerfect is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2005, 07:18 PM   #12
After Shock Media
It's coming look busy
 
After Shock Media's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn".
Posts: 35,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by ModelPerfect
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.
Yes, No, Maybe.
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.
__________________

[email protected] ICQ:135982156 AIM: Aftershockmed1a MSN: [email protected]
After Shock Media is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2005, 07:18 PM   #13
Kingfish
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 668
Quote:
Originally Posted by ModelPerfect
Where does it say excluding (e)? I haven't been able to find it.
You find that in 2257

Quote:
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;
Kingfish is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2005, 07:21 PM   #14
mardigras
Bon temps!
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: down yonder
Posts: 14,194
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.
__________________
.
mardigras is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2005, 07:23 PM   #15
ModelPerfect
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 2,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingfish
You find that in 2257
Yeah, but that's the existing regs; not the new ones.
__________________
Logan
modelperfect [at] gmail.com
http://www.modelperfect.com

(Proudly hosted at www.webair.com )
ModelPerfect is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2005, 07:27 PM   #16
ModelPerfect
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 2,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by After Shock Media
Yes, No, Maybe.
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.
Good call, but the original definition states even pubic area, which could mean hair and/or shaved, even if no pink.
__________________
Logan
modelperfect [at] gmail.com
http://www.modelperfect.com

(Proudly hosted at www.webair.com )
ModelPerfect is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2005, 07:28 PM   #17
ModelPerfect
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 2,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by mardigras
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.
True. The laws are so vague they could theoretically target anyone they wanted...
__________________
Logan
modelperfect [at] gmail.com
http://www.modelperfect.com

(Proudly hosted at www.webair.com )
ModelPerfect is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2005, 07:33 PM   #18
Kingfish
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 668
Quote:
Originally Posted by ModelPerfect
Yeah, but that's the existing regs; not the new ones.
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.
Kingfish is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2005, 07:35 PM   #19
Mr.Fiction
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Free Speech Land
Posts: 9,484
Quote:
Originally Posted by mardigras
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.
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.

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.
__________________
Don't be lazy, protect free speech: ACLU | Free Speech Coalition | EFF | IMPA
Mr.Fiction is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2005, 07:48 PM   #20
ModelPerfect
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 2,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingfish
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.
www.xxxlaw.net
My understanding is the proposed are changes actually to 2257. Can anyone support this?
__________________
Logan
modelperfect [at] gmail.com
http://www.modelperfect.com

(Proudly hosted at www.webair.com )
ModelPerfect is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2005, 08:03 PM   #21
TheDoc
Too lazy to set a custom title
 
TheDoc's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Currently Incognito
Posts: 13,827
The new 2257 regulations are additions to the current 2257 law. It only replaces when it states that.
__________________
~TheDoc - ICQ7765825
It's all disambiguation
TheDoc is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2005, 08:48 PM   #22
r-c-e
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by ModelPerfect
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".

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.
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.
r-c-e is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2005, 08:54 PM   #23
Major (Tom)
Boomer Woffen
 
Major (Tom)'s Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Null
Posts: 30,600
what about a girl with cum on her face but no cock in the picture?

DUke
__________________
My mother said, to get things done
You'd better not mess with Major Tom
Major (Tom) is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2005, 08:57 PM   #24
mardigras
Bon temps!
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: down yonder
Posts: 14,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Fiction
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.
You can stick your head in the sand, we won't ridicle you. We're too busy watching jurisdictions try to ban "sexy" cheerleading.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Fiction
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Fiction
Use common sense when it comes to what the government could get away with prosecuting you on when they say "sexually explicit".
Use common sense when you decide what you think the US government will prosecute.

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"
__________________
.
mardigras is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2005, 09:00 PM   #25
mikeyddddd
Viva la vulva!
 
mikeyddddd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: you can't please everyone, so you got to please yourself
Posts: 16,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by mardigras
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.
mmmmm, lascivious!
mikeyddddd is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Post New Thread Reply
Go Back   GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum > >

Bookmarks



Advertising inquiries - marketing at gfy dot com

Contact Admin - Advertise - GFY Rules - Top

©2000-, AI Media Network Inc



Powered by vBulletin
Copyright © 2000- Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.