lawyer talk 2257 - GoFuckYourself.com

crockett · 06-07-2005, 10:28 AM

I have a appointment set up to talk to a lawyer about the 2257 issues.

I have a pretty good handel on whats needed but I'm still unclear on this part as what "is" considered sexually explicit . In the original 2257 it was outlined by 2256..

from 2256
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;

Well it was brought to my attention in the lightspeed 2257 thread, that this was changed in the new 2257.

To be exact my question is about section {H} of the new 2257
(h) As used in this section?
(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;

So it seems section E is no longer relevant in the new 2257 requirements. (lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person).

Of course I'm going to be talking to my lawyer on this, but IMO that is going to allow full nudes as long as there is no touching of the genital areas. So in theory as long as there is no penetration that means there should be no 2257 documents required right? I'm even talking this as the girl can be grabbing her tits as being exempt from the 2257.

But in theory if the sites are fully softcore with no penetration it seems there is no need for any 2257 info at all.

Your thoughts? Anyone care to share what their lawyers comments are on this subject?

V_RocKs · 06-07-2005, 11:16 AM

FSC lawyers take on it,

http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/p...esentation.pdf

Page 4, they seem to have noticed the same thing, it is seemingly left out of the definition... intensionally or by mistake?

BV · 06-07-2005, 11:32 AM

Hey Crocket,

Can you hit me up on ICQ? 119968011

Dirty Dane · 06-07-2005, 11:32 AM

It defines "actual sexually explicit conduct".
Focus on genitals is still "sexually explicit conduct", but not "actual".

Thats how I read it.

FilthyRob · 06-07-2005, 11:35 AM

it's confusing

JD · 06-07-2005, 11:39 AM

hmmmmm............... I don't get it

Dirty-Dough · 06-07-2005, 12:26 PM

"simulated" is left out because of obvious reasons..

But the fact that (E) is left out, is new to me.. That could ease things up a little...

MandyBlake · 06-07-2005, 12:28 PM

better to be safe than sorry. i would include it.

ModelPerfect · 06-07-2005, 12:44 PM

Anyone have a link where it says this? There must be a revised copy of the new 2257 somewhere, because the one I'm looking at doesn't reference 2256 at all.

the real magoo · 06-07-2005, 12:53 PM

I´m gonna start tracking down domains that doesnt comply with 2257 and report them to the proper authorities to get ride of competition. You fuckers are going down! Muhahahahaha

crockett · 06-07-2005, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ModelPerfect

Anyone have a link where it says this? There must be a revised copy of the new 2257 somewhere, because the one I'm looking at doesn't reference 2256 at all.

It's there read section H

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/us...7----000-.html

VeriSexy · 06-07-2005, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the real magoo

I´m gonna start tracking down domains that doesnt comply with 2257 and report them to the proper authorities to get ride of competition. You fuckers are going down! Muhahahahaha

phogirl69 · 06-07-2005, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty Dane

It defines "actual sexually explicit conduct".
Focus on genitals is still "sexually explicit conduct", but not "actual".

Thats how I read it.

This is how i read it too. I am so glad that Iam not in law school, this shit would kill me. Everything is open to interpretation; there is no black and white.

mardigras · 06-07-2005, 01:54 PM

Like the Patriot Act I think much of the current crop of regulations are intentionly being written unclear to allow wide use.

ModelPerfect · 06-07-2005, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

It's there read section H

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/us...7----000-.html

Release date: 2004-08-06

Isn't that the current one...not the one coming up?

jonesy · 06-07-2005, 02:17 PM

i would also ask him the definition of secondary producer in regards to your field

the word "publsih" is used to describe a secondary producer

so it could apply as well.

i wonder about designers too.

FleshJoe2005 · 06-07-2005, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ModelPerfect

Release date: 2004-08-06

Isn't that the current one...not the one coming up?

Nope thats the new proposed one. Of course we still dont know what the new ACTUAL FINAL one is, I *think* (maybe wrong, if so someone should be kind enough to post the URL? Thanks).

Lensman · 06-07-2005, 02:22 PM

E is excluded in the law, always has been.

ModelPerfect · 06-07-2005, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FleshJoe2005

Nope thats the new proposed one. Of course we still dont know what the new ACTUAL FINAL one is, I *think* (maybe wrong, if so someone should be kind enough to post the URL? Thanks).

I'm not so sure.
http://freespeechcoalition.com/pdf/70FR29607%202%20.pdf
I don't find any reference to 2256 or an exclusive of (E). PLEASE, if anyone can provide a reference that says such, please post it. I would love clarification on this issue.

ModelPerfect · 06-07-2005, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lensman

E is excluded in the law, always has been.

Thanks for the input, Lens. I'd love to see a reference saying that...the law is one area I don't like to take chances with.

BV · 06-07-2005, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lensman

E is excluded in the law, always has been.

There is no E anymore.

Paragraph 2 of 2256 ony has A - B

BV · 06-07-2005, 02:58 PM

and what was A thru D is now included all under A in roman numerals I - V

06-07-2005, 10:28 AM	#1
crockett in a van by the river Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 76,806	lawyer talk 2257 I have a appointment set up to talk to a lawyer about the 2257 issues. I have a pretty good handel on whats needed but I'm still unclear on this part as what "is" considered sexually explicit . In the original 2257 it was outlined by 2256.. from 2256 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; Well it was brought to my attention in the lightspeed 2257 thread, that this was changed in the new 2257. To be exact my question is about section {H} of the new 2257 (h) As used in this section? (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; So it seems section E is no longer relevant in the new 2257 requirements. (lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person). Of course I'm going to be talking to my lawyer on this, but IMO that is going to allow full nudes as long as there is no touching of the genital areas. So in theory as long as there is no penetration that means there should be no 2257 documents required right? I'm even talking this as the girl can be grabbing her tits as being exempt from the 2257. But in theory if the sites are fully softcore with no penetration it seems there is no need for any 2257 info at all. Your thoughts? Anyone care to share what their lawyers comments are on this subject? __________________ In November, you can vote for America's next president or its first dictator.

06-07-2005, 11:35 AM	#5
FilthyRob Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Anaheim - CA Posts: 6,741	it's confusing __________________ AKA - Clubsexy

06-07-2005, 12:28 PM	#8
MandyBlake The one and only! Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 17,761	better to be safe than sorry. i would include it. __________________ Mandy's Playhouse Her First Fat Girl If you're interested in promoting my sites, ICQ me! 178411921

06-07-2005, 12:44 PM	#9
ModelPerfect Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: USA Posts: 2,862	Anyone have a link where it says this? There must be a revised copy of the new 2257 somewhere, because the one I'm looking at doesn't reference 2256 at all. __________________ Logan modelperfect [at] gmail.com http://www.modelperfect.com (Proudly hosted at www.webair.com )

06-07-2005, 01:54 PM	#14
mardigras Bon temps! Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: down yonder Posts: 14,194	Like the Patriot Act I think much of the current crop of regulations are intentionly being written unclear to allow wide use. __________________ .

06-07-2005, 11:16 AM	#2
V_RocKs Damn Right I Kiss Ass! Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Cowtown, USA Posts: 32,422	FSC lawyers take on it, http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/p...esentation.pdf Page 4, they seem to have noticed the same thing, it is seemingly left out of the definition... intensionally or by mistake?

06-07-2005, 11:32 AM	#3
BV wtf Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Bikini State, FL USA Posts: 10,914	Hey Crocket, Can you hit me up on ICQ? 119968011

06-07-2005, 11:32 AM	#4
Dirty Dane Sick Fuck Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: www Posts: 9,491	It defines "actual sexually explicit conduct". Focus on genitals is still "sexually explicit conduct", but not "actual". Thats how I read it.

06-07-2005, 11:39 AM	#6
JD Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 22,651	hmmmmm............... I don't get it

06-07-2005, 12:26 PM	#7
Dirty-Dough Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 496	"simulated" is left out because of obvious reasons.. But the fact that (E) is left out, is new to me.. That could ease things up a little...

06-07-2005, 12:53 PM	#10
the real magoo So Fucking Banned Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: EU Posts: 1,637	I´m gonna start tracking down domains that doesnt comply with 2257 and report them to the proper authorities to get ride of competition. You fuckers are going down! Muhahahahaha

06-07-2005, 02:17 PM	#16
jonesy Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 6,688	i would also ask him the definition of secondary producer in regards to your field the word "publsih" is used to describe a secondary producer so it could apply as well. i wonder about designers too. __________________ . Shooting Bikini Girls

06-07-2005, 02:22 PM	#18
Lensman GFY Chaperone Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Adult.com Posts: 9,846	E is excluded in the law, always has been.

06-07-2005, 02:58 PM	#22
BV wtf Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Bikini State, FL USA Posts: 10,914	and what was A thru D is now included all under A in roman numerals I - V