You call this 2257 help?? Some of you Sponsors are Unreal!!

[boneprone]

I just got a list of 2257 gallereis I can use on boneprone.com from an unnamed sponsor.. He told me that the images would be safe because the girls were non nude on the thumbs id have on my server to promote his fgh's with..

Easy enough..

So i start to add his urls using these non-nude 2257 freindly for a secondary producer would need if he runs a thumb tgp or thumb mgp..

I add the first one, its cool some gals face.. No problem there.

The next one i add has a girls face but there is cum on it..

The third has come on her face too!!

Then one of the pics you see a gal smiling, but if you look close there is a cock by her face!!

JESUS!!

I dont think these are gunna work.. She may be non nude, and its a face shot only, but I think the cum all over her face may make a difference.

[After Shock Media]

Actually if you want to follow the thin line of the law. Nowhere does it say that a person can not have bodily fluids on them, and nowhere does it say that you can not have a cock next to an orriface as long as the guy and girl are not touching it.

[boneprone]

dont think so..

[FleshJoe2005]

Actually this has already been discussed to death here: http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=477859

The issue is if section E is or is not included in the definition of what requires 2257 compliance. So if not, then a pic of a cock does NOT require 2257. If yes, then yes.

Better be safe than sorry, tho.

[seeric]

um yeah, and the cock in her mouth. lol. thats not gonna work.

[bigdog]

who is to say it's cum it could be milk

[Damian_Maxcash]

No-one will really know the finer points like this until a few cases have been through the court system. It sucks but it seems to be the way it works.

[boneprone]

Originally Posted by bigdog

who is to say it's cum it could be milk

or soap..

[boneprone]

and does the cum need 2257 also to make sure the DOB on the guy is legit?

[FilthyRob]

LOL, softcore

[After Shock Media]

Originally Posted by boneprone

lol...
Dont think so.. That would be saying an underage gal is allowed to be posted with jizz on thier face..

Dont think that works man!

I am actually very serious. This has as little to do with underage as a degree equates to being successfull.

Kiddie porn is illegal no matter how you slice it. Where as this deals with adults and nowhere in the law does it say anything about bodily fluids, sure they addressed beastiality but not fluids. Then a cock next to ones mouth but not touching it falls into the realm of simulated and not actual which again does not need 2257 compliance just like plain nudity.

[Juicy D. Links]

was it THICK cum or soft?

[Juicy D. Links]

also what it pure white or a hint of yellow?

[RogerV]

Originally Posted by boneprone

I just got a list of 2257 gallereis I can use on boneprone.com from an unnamed sponsor.. He told me that the images would be safe because the girls were non nude on the thumbs id have on my server to promote his fgh's with..

Easy enough..

So i start to add his urls using these non-nude 2257 freindly for a secondary producer would need if he runs a thumb tgp or thumb mgp..

I add the first one, its cool some gals face.. No problem there.

The next one i add has a girls face but there is cum on it..

The third has come on her face too!!

Then one of the pics you see a gal smiling, but if you look close there is a cock by her face!!

JESUS!!

I dont think these are gunna work.. She may be non nude, and its a face shot only, but I think the cum all over her face may make a difference.

I call that sexually explicit.. Don't worry my new program you'll love coming out this month

[Juicy D. Links]

Originally Posted by RogerV

I call that sexually explicit.. Don't worry my new program you'll love coming out this month

not if the cum is milky only if its creamy

creamy stuff is out of the question I think

[RogerV]

Originally Posted by Juicy D. Links

not if the cum is milky only if its creamy

Agreed LOL I don't think its going to be a grey area though

[boneprone]

I assume bukkake is out?

[boneprone]

even if she has clothes on?

[taibo]

doubt it

[FleshJoe2005]

BP why are you asking questions like that...? Its like the saying "noone can define love but you know it when you see it". Same applies to pr0n

[Johny Traffic]

what about fake cum? Alot of shoots are done with fake cum, can you be non complient with flour and water?

[BV]

Originally Posted by FleshJoe2005

Actually this has already been discussed to death here: http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=477859

The issue is if section E is or is not included in the definition of what requires 2257 compliance. So if not, then a pic of a cock does NOT require 2257. If yes, then yes.

Better be safe than sorry, tho.

There is no Sec E of paragraph 2 in 2256 any more

[pornstar2pac]

is double anal shots ok?

[SquireMD]

it's just mayo and egg whites

[After Shock Media]

from serious to stupid in near record time.

[Pleasurepays]

Originally Posted by After Shock Media

Actually if you want to follow the thin line of the law. Nowhere does it say that a person can not have bodily fluids on them, and nowhere does it say that you can not have a cock next to an orriface as long as the guy and girl are not touching it.

i am not going to read all the posts but i would guess that you are wrong. "sexually explicit" is pretty clear. you can't show a cock next to a girls pussy. the law already says that. and how do you think CP is defined? your logic says that sexually explicit pics of a minor also require penetration and its not sexually explicit if some old guys cock is just next to a little girls vagina. and am not going to look it up, but i doubt the law recognizes multiple definitions of "sexually explicit" but it does mention the pubic region and if multiple definitions do in fact exist, an attorney will tell you that you have to assume they all are applicable.


for the others... i highly doubt you can argue in court that a pic of an 18 year old licking cum off her lips is not sexually explicit regardless of whether or it is defined as such - and the other side of that is that the government probably will. so.... why risk it? stupid arguments like "it could be milk" are going to look pretty stupid to a judge given the context of the images, the context of the site, the content of similar sites, the history of these sites and the fact that there is no reason to assume it is not cum and endless reasons to assume it is.

[tranza]

So all the galleries showed girls faces only?

[Dirty Dane]

Another story:
You think you are compliant with a hardcore gallery, because you have the girls ID.....
Knock knock - "we would like to see the ID of the male you show in gallery ##"

[After Shock Media]

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

i am not going to read all the posts but i would guess that you are wrong. "sexually explicit" is pretty clear. you can't show a cock next to a girls pussy. the law already says that. and how do you think CP is defined? your logic says that sexually explicit pics of a minor also require penetration and its not sexually explicit if some old guys cock is just next to a little girls vagina. and am not going to look it up, but i doubt the law recognizes multiple definitions of "sexually explicit" but it does mention the pubic region and if multiple definitions do in fact exist, an attorney will tell you that you have to assume they all are applicable.


for the others... i highly doubt you can argue in court that a pic of an 18 year old licking cum off her lips is not sexually explicit regardless of whether or it is defined as such - and the other side of that is that the government probably will. so.... why risk it? stupid arguments like "it could be milk" are going to look pretty stupid to a judge given the context of the images, the context of the site, the content of similar sites, the history of these sites and the fact that there is no reason to assume it is not cum and endless reasons to assume it is.

Will not get into the CP angle because like I said CP is CP no matter how it is done if a minor is used.
There is vagueness in the revised statute as compared to the current statute. With the current statute simulated but not actual sex was exempt. (Before 1995 such companies like penthouse would never show penetration just dick close to it, after 1995 they would show penetration because the law clarified it and thus allowed them to do it.)
If you happen to watch showtime or HBO, you will notice they 2257 the material that is actually sexually explicit such as various episodes of Real Sex, where they do not 2257 any show or movie where the sex is simulated such as sex and the city where you would see pussy then see a guy go down on the pussy but never see mouth to pussy contact.
If using the reasoning that bodily fluids even semen are required by 2257 and always have been, why do we not see a 2257 disclaimer at the end of the movie there is something about mary? We clearly have a case of semen or possibly fake semen being used in production along with a masterbation scene.

I am not saying risk it, I am just talking opinion and how it is used and stated in the laws.

[dopeman]

Originally Posted by Dirty Dane

Another story:
You think you are compliant with a hardcore gallery, because you have the girls ID.....
Knock knock - "we would like to see the ID of the male you show in gallery ##"

spot on. the guys need records too.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by After Shock Media

Actually if you want to follow the thin line of the law. Nowhere does it say that a person can not have bodily fluids on them, and nowhere does it say that you can not have a cock next to an orriface as long as the guy and girl are not touching it.

Yeah so if the girl MAY look 16 the DOJ won't care is some 16 year old looking girl got cum on her face.</sarcasm>

[Martin]

Dude we be fuct

[fris]

Originally Posted by boneprone

dont think so..

boneprone.com is gonne be text only shortly

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by boneprone

and does the cum need 2257 also to make sure the DOB on the guy is legit?

No, it's actually horse cum and therefore exempt.

[After Shock Media]

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

No, it's actually horse cum and therefore exempt.

They actually list beastiality in the sexually explicit terms.

[chase]

I have lotion that looks just like cum.

*shrug*
I'm just sayin.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by RogerV

I call that sexually explicit.. Don't worry my new program you'll love coming out this month

No more Porn Kings?

[Juicy D. Links]

Originally Posted by boneprone

I assume bukkake is out?

Depends , as long as the bukkake is 49 percent milky then your ok but if ot goes over that into the "cramy" realm then you cant

[Diligent]

In Boneprone's examples;

If the content could be defined as nudism, it's not sexually explicit.

On the other hand, if it depicts anything hinting there's sexual activity happening
(hard cock or nipple-/pussy-stimulation), or having happened (cum anywhere),
then it IS sexually explicit.

That's as far as I've understood so far regarding definitions.

[boneprone]

Originally Posted by Just-Anotha-Mack

In Boneprone's examples;

If the content could be defined as nudism, it's not sexually explicit.

On the other hand, if it depicts anything hinting there's sexual activity happening
(hard cock or nipple-/pussy-stimulation), or having happened (cum anywhere),
then it IS sexually explicit.

That's as far as I've understood so far regarding definitions.

Yeah im thinking this too.

[Pleasurepays]

Originally Posted by After Shock Media

Will not get into the CP angle because like I said CP is CP no matter how it is done if a minor is used.
There is vagueness in the revised statute as compared to the current statute. With the current statute simulated but not actual sex was exempt. (Before 1995 such companies like penthouse would never show penetration just dick close to it, after 1995 they would show penetration because the law clarified it and thus allowed them to do it.)
If you happen to watch showtime or HBO, you will notice they 2257 the material that is actually sexually explicit such as various episodes of Real Sex, where they do not 2257 any show or movie where the sex is simulated such as sex and the city where you would see pussy then see a guy go down on the pussy but never see mouth to pussy contact.
If using the reasoning that bodily fluids even semen are required by 2257 and always have been, why do we not see a 2257 disclaimer at the end of the movie there is something about mary? We clearly have a case of semen or possibly fake semen being used in production along with a masterbation scene.

I am not saying risk it, I am just talking opinion and how it is used and stated in the laws.

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.

[After Shock Media]

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

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.

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.

[wjxxx]

Originally Posted by pornstar2pac

is double anal shots ok?

if you have docs ...

[Ian]

Dear Boneprone:

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

It's cheap/

[nico-t]

thank you bush for unleashing these kind of dicussions

[baddog]

Originally Posted by After Shock Media

Actually if you want to follow the thin line of the law. Nowhere does it say that a person can not have bodily fluids on them, and nowhere does it say that you can not have a cock next to an orriface as long as the guy and girl are not touching it.

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

[Pleasurepays]

Originally Posted by After Shock Media

Actually if you want to follow the thin line of the law. Nowhere does it say that a person can not have bodily fluids on them, and nowhere does it say that you can not have a cock next to an orriface as long as the guy and girl are not touching it.

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.

[kernelpanic]

Originally Posted by After Shock Media

They actually list beastiality in the sexually explicit terms.

Its actually horse snot.


I hear that explicit animal nose sites are converting quite well

[baddog]

Originally Posted by Dirty Dane

Another story:
You think you are compliant with a hardcore gallery, because you have the girls ID.....
Knock knock - "we would like to see the ID of the male you show in gallery ##"

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.