lawyer talk 2257

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • crockett
    in a van by the river
    • May 2003
    • 76818

    #1

    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.
  • V_RocKs
    Damn Right I Kiss Ass!
    • Nov 2003
    • 32449

    #2
    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?

    Comment

    • BV
      wtf
      • Sep 2001
      • 10914

      #3
      Hey Crocket,

      Can you hit me up on ICQ? 119968011

      Comment

      • Dirty Dane
        Sick Fuck
        • Feb 2004
        • 9491

        #4
        It defines "actual sexually explicit conduct".
        Focus on genitals is still "sexually explicit conduct", but not "actual".

        Thats how I read it.

        Comment

        • FilthyRob
          Confirmed User
          • Feb 2004
          • 6741

          #5
          it's confusing
          AKA - Clubsexy

          Comment

          • JD
            Too lazy to set a custom title
            • Sep 2003
            • 22651

            #6
            hmmmmm............... I don't get it

            Comment

            • Dirty-Dough
              Confirmed User
              • Dec 2004
              • 496

              #7
              "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...

              Comment

              • MandyBlake
                The one and only!
                • Nov 2002
                • 17761

                #8
                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

                Comment

                • ModelPerfect
                  Confirmed User
                  • Nov 2003
                  • 2862

                  #9
                  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 )

                  Comment

                  • the real magoo
                    So Fucking Banned
                    • Sep 2001
                    • 1637

                    #10
                    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

                    Comment

                    • crockett
                      in a van by the river
                      • May 2003
                      • 76818

                      #11
                      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
                      In November, you can vote for America's next president or its first dictator.

                      Comment

                      • VeriSexy
                        Join The Royal Family
                        • Apr 2002
                        • 25463

                        #12
                        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

                        Looking for a KICK ASS TEEN SPONSOR? Check out ROYAL CASH - THE KING OF TEEN!
                        Incredible webmaster tools FHGs, Morphing Blog and RSS Feeds, Embedded FLV & WMV Videos
                        .
                        With TOP RATIO Sites like


                        ATMovs.com | iTeenVideo.com |
                        TeenSexMovs.com | TeenSexMania.com


                        Comment

                        • phogirl69
                          Confirmed User
                          • Jul 2001
                          • 3330

                          #13
                          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.
                          Last edited by phogirl69; 06-07-2005, 12:52 PM.

                          Comment

                          • mardigras
                            Bon temps!
                            • Feb 2003
                            • 14194

                            #14
                            Like the Patriot Act I think much of the current crop of regulations are intentionly being written unclear to allow wide use.
                            .

                            Comment

                            • ModelPerfect
                              Confirmed User
                              • Nov 2003
                              • 2862

                              #15
                              Originally posted by crockett
                              Release date: 2004-08-06

                              Isn't that the current one...not the one coming up?
                              Logan
                              modelperfect [at] gmail.com
                              http://www.modelperfect.com

                              (Proudly hosted at www.webair.com )

                              Comment

                              • jonesy
                                Confirmed User
                                • Jan 2003
                                • 6688

                                #16
                                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

                                Comment

                                • FleshJoe2005
                                  Confirmed User
                                  • Jan 2005
                                  • 287

                                  #17
                                  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).
                                  I convert male sextoy traffic at ~1:30!!!
                                  Send me your traffic and we'll split 50-50.
                                  ICQ: 325-310-821

                                  Comment

                                  • Lensman
                                    GFY Chaperone
                                    • Jan 2001
                                    • 9846

                                    #18
                                    E is excluded in the law, always has been.

                                    Comment

                                    • ModelPerfect
                                      Confirmed User
                                      • Nov 2003
                                      • 2862

                                      #19
                                      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.
                                      Logan
                                      modelperfect [at] gmail.com
                                      http://www.modelperfect.com

                                      (Proudly hosted at www.webair.com )

                                      Comment

                                      • ModelPerfect
                                        Confirmed User
                                        • Nov 2003
                                        • 2862

                                        #20
                                        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.
                                        Logan
                                        modelperfect [at] gmail.com
                                        http://www.modelperfect.com

                                        (Proudly hosted at www.webair.com )

                                        Comment

                                        • BV
                                          wtf
                                          • Sep 2001
                                          • 10914

                                          #21
                                          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

                                          Comment

                                          • BV
                                            wtf
                                            • Sep 2001
                                            • 10914

                                            #22
                                            and what was A thru D is now included all under A in roman numerals I - V

                                            Comment

                                            Working...