Yeah im thinking this too.

my point about CP is that there are definitions that seperate "a picture of a nude child" and "child pornography" and it revolves around the same relevent term "sexually explicit". it can be a sexually explicit photo without penetration. as i said, the definition is similar to 2257 definition sexually explicitl which defines sexually explicit photos of a minor. the point being that "sexually explicit" does not require penetration as far as i recall.

as for the rest of your argument.... i dont know. it doesn't matter why people do or do not do something, particularly when talking about pornographers who generally are largely an irresponsible bunch of assholes that would be flipping burgers if HTML was more difficult than it is. i could also ask a rhetorical question as well to make a point like; "if 2257 is really a law, why doesn't 90% of adult pornographers online comply with it fully?" that however, will not change the court and federal governments view which is all that matters in the end. :)

Like everything it is confusing. CP has many of its own statutes and even though 2257 is labeled under a child protection act, it is just an additional crime to a CP producer for not having records. 2257 in itself is not a CP enforcement law it is a record keeping requirement for adults used in actual sexually explicit productions. 2257 is rarely used in CP related crimes unless it is to plea downward in a case. As you stated a child in a simulated sexually explicit pose would indeed be CP no matter how it was done, then again it would not matter if you did have 2257 on it because it was a minor.
I am not trying to talk in circles, but this law and the way it is labeled and sold to the public makes that happen.

if you have docs ...

Dear Boneprone:

With all the money you are making why not just buy your own content?

It's cheap/

:1orglaugh

thank you bush for unleashing these kind of dicussions :1orglaugh

If the cock is hard, it is going to be explicit display of genitals

this was what i was addressing. i was just making the point that i dont think you are right. penetration in and of itself does not define something as "sexually explicit".

now i finally got annoyed and tried to find the definitions.

unless i am mistaken -the same language for CP and 2257 defining sexually explicit conduct are the same (with the exception that CP has expanded definitions) and defined in TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 110 § 2256.

"For the purposes of this chapter, the term?

(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;"

so to address the point you made that you could show a penis next to the mouth - i would say that would be a bad idea. the above definations could be possibly even be read to mean that "simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area..." would be "sexually explicit"

lascivious \luh-SIV-ee-uhs\, adjective:
1. Lewd; lustful.
2. Tending to arouse sexual desires.



i would not agree with you that it is confusing at all, as you said. all law is largely open to interpretation. that is the nature of the legal system in most western countries and the problem. laws are usually only clarified after being challenged in court. it would be prudent to explore all the possible interpretations and make sure that you do not put yourself in a position to collide with any of them. i would guess that is why people like Steve Lightspeed will not touch anything with a crotch shot - because its not clear yet. ... and if you know or realize its not clear yet... then you already have your answers.

Its actually horse snot.


I hear that explicit animal nose sites are converting quite well :winkwink:

anyone that has not figured out that it means everyone in the picture should probably apply at El Pollo Loco, they are always advertising that they need more people.

50.........

I think you are wrong about that

WTF??

Buy content to promote sponsors free hosted gallereis??

No, they should buy it for me.

Just give me the fucking ID.

I just had a thought.. I know - it's scary..

What about those cheesy pics or vids where the cameraman or part of the crew is in the pic? :1orglaugh

Does he have a hard on??

If so, we need the paper work on em.

Current reg:
(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;

Please note simulated was exempted and so was (e).

My eyes are going out reading so someone else can pull up the revised text of this clause.