Nonnude=2257 safe - GoFuckYourself.com

bryc · 07-28-2006, 01:20 AM

Discuss....

Kimo · 07-28-2006, 01:31 AM

i sure hope so

CaptainHowdy · 07-28-2006, 01:34 AM

If not it's the end of it all, man...

Webby · 07-28-2006, 01:39 AM

Sure would be madness if legislation did include non-nude.

Just trying to find some references - saw "something" somewhere to the effect that is it far safer to cover ass all round and collect data for *all* website content.

TheJimmy · 07-28-2006, 01:44 AM

Not entirely...I'm sure if someone were rubbing their genitalia and/or breasts, even with clothes on, it could be interpreted as 'sexually explicit'...think it through people, then ask a lawyer or two...

Scott McD · 07-28-2006, 01:46 AM

The worlds gone mad...

Webby · 07-28-2006, 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheJimmy

Not entirely...I'm sure if someone were rubbing their genitalia and/or breasts, even with clothes on, it could be interpreted as 'sexually explicit'...think it through people, then ask a lawyer or two...

Suppose there could be an arguement depending on the nature of the website - ie.. if it is mean't to appeal to an X audience and is of an adult nature, then - hell, better to cover ass all round.

This is all kinda crappy, pathetic stuff..

gooddomains · 07-28-2006, 01:50 AM

nonnude adult targeted = sexually explicit

F U S I O N · 07-28-2006, 01:53 AM

Most of my sites have just a few cropped thumbs of a models face or something like a butt in a thong. The rest are all text. I dont host anything that could even be considered as "simulated". I link to the hosted galleries, potds, etc for that.

TheJimmy · 07-28-2006, 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Webby

Suppose there could be an arguement depending on the nature of the website - ie.. if it is mean't to appeal to an X audience and is of an adult nature, then - hell, better to cover ass all round.

This is all kinda crappy, pathetic stuff..

Overall context of the site is for sure an issue...

bryc · 07-28-2006, 07:42 AM

Bump for more opinions/discussions

bryc · 07-28-2006, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gooddomains

nonnude adult targeted = sexually explicit

Could you please explain your thoughts. Obviously it is intended for adults but if I do what Fusion does it wouldnt be considered "sexual content" or "simulated". I do pretty much the same. A few face thumbs and mostly hosted galleries. No nudity at all.

L-Pink · 07-28-2006, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bryc

Could you please explain your thoughts. Obviously it is intended for adults but if I do what Fusion does it wouldnt be considered "sexual content" or "simulated". I do pretty much the same. A few face thumbs and mostly hosted galleries. No nudity at all.

The definitions of those terms are left up to the prosecuting attorney. By then you are already fucked.

Lycanthrope · 07-28-2006, 08:25 AM

My thoughts, non-nude, even tits only is safe. Tits are not genitalia. But take non-nude and zoom in on see through panties so you can see the pink and such, well, then I think you have "crossed the line" into non-exempt ville.

scardog · 07-28-2006, 08:44 AM

got this from FSC page

"Clause (v) of section 2256(2)(A) of title 18, United States Code" is part of the definition of "sexually explicit conduct," and reads, "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person." Lascivious exhibition had previously been entirely excluded from the requirements of hahaha167;2257, but with H.R. 4472's changes to the law, lascivious exhibition will apparently now be included if the material also depicts sexual intercourse, bestiality, masturbation or sadistic or masochistic abuse, all referenced in clauses (i) through (iv) of hahaha167;2256(2)(A).

BabyDaryl · 07-28-2006, 09:26 AM

The new Adam Walsh law yesterday takes it a few steps further..

Simulated sex and artistic nudity...

So masturbating through clothes, I'm guessing.. it simulated sex...

There's also the new misleading hyperlink law... did anyone read that yesterday?

ContentSHOOTER · 07-28-2006, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott McD

The worlds gone mad...

Please note that this is not a world wide issue, it seem sto be of major concern to the US

Yngwie · 07-28-2006, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy

If not it's the end of it all, man...

at this rate, non nude will not be safe eventually.

bryc · 07-28-2006, 09:58 AM

I guess I will go completely text. No banners, no thumbs. My sites may look like shit but fuckin' a, they are NOT driving me out of this business.

There's ways around not using pictures if need be. Just gotta be creative!

gooddomains · 07-28-2006, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bryc

Could you please explain your thoughts. Obviously it is intended for adults but if I do what Fusion does it wouldnt be considered "sexual content" or "simulated". I do pretty much the same. A few face thumbs and mostly hosted galleries. No nudity at all.

If you look very closely at how things work then you will see that nudity is not really required for being sexually explicit, but then I am only working in the adult arena for the last 12 years.....

media · 07-28-2006, 10:53 AM

If you had a girl who was in braw and panties and you were sticking a finger into her pussy to make a camel toe and took a picture of it that would be lewd and lacivious focus on the genitals I'd think, even if the pussy was never ever shown... because there is sexual context to it.. So I would still think 2257 would apply here... lol.. sorta makes you sctratch your head to think about all the fucked up shit they could get you for...

Lets all start filming dry humping now...

bryc · 07-28-2006, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gooddomains

If you look very closely at how things work then you will see that nudity is not really required for being sexually explicit, but then I am only working in the adult arena for the last 12 years.....

I meant no disrespect. I just didnt understand what you were saying exactly.

I'm trying to read up on everything I can.

07-28-2006, 01:20 AM	#1
bryc Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 102	Nonnude=2257 safe Discuss....

07-28-2006, 01:31 AM	#2
Kimo ... Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Maryland ICQ:87038677 Posts: 11,542	i sure hope so __________________ ...

07-28-2006, 01:39 AM	#4
Webby Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Far far away - as possible Posts: 14,956	Sure would be madness if legislation did include non-nude. Just trying to find some references - saw "something" somewhere to the effect that is it far safer to cover ass all round and collect data for all website content. __________________ XXX TLD's - Another mosquito to swat.

07-28-2006, 01:44 AM	#5
TheJimmy ICQ- five seven 0 2 5 5 0 Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 10,747	Not entirely...I'm sure if someone were rubbing their genitalia and/or breasts, even with clothes on, it could be interpreted as 'sexually explicit'...think it through people, then ask a lawyer or two... __________________ Investor with 5m - 15m USD to invest. Do you have a site or network of sites earning 50k - 200k a month income? Email your contact and preliminary data to: domain.cashventures (at) gmail.com....Please...no tire kickers...serious offers and inquiries only.

07-28-2006, 01:46 AM	#6
Scott McD Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Glasgow, Scotland Posts: 67,795	The worlds gone mad... __________________ I Buy My High Quality Traffic Here, You Should Too!

07-28-2006, 01:34 AM	#3
CaptainHowdy Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Happy in the dark. Posts: 93,575	If not it's the end of it all, man...

07-28-2006, 01:50 AM	#8
gooddomains Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Netherlands Posts: 10,127	nonnude adult targeted = sexually explicit

07-28-2006, 01:53 AM	#9
F U S I O N Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 1,898	Most of my sites have just a few cropped thumbs of a models face or something like a butt in a thong. The rest are all text. I dont host anything that could even be considered as "simulated". I link to the hosted galleries, potds, etc for that.

07-28-2006, 07:42 AM	#11
bryc Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 102	Bump for more opinions/discussions

07-28-2006, 08:25 AM	#14
Lycanthrope Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Wisconsin Posts: 4,517	My thoughts, non-nude, even tits only is safe. Tits are not genitalia. But take non-nude and zoom in on see through panties so you can see the pink and such, well, then I think you have "crossed the line" into non-exempt ville. __________________

07-28-2006, 08:44 AM	#15
scardog Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 886	got this from FSC page "Clause (v) of section 2256(2)(A) of title 18, United States Code" is part of the definition of "sexually explicit conduct," and reads, "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person." Lascivious exhibition had previously been entirely excluded from the requirements of hahaha167;2257, but with H.R. 4472's changes to the law, lascivious exhibition will apparently now be included if the material also depicts sexual intercourse, bestiality, masturbation or sadistic or masochistic abuse, all referenced in clauses (i) through (iv) of hahaha167;2256(2)(A).

07-28-2006, 09:26 AM	#16
BabyDaryl Registered User Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 31	The new Adam Walsh law yesterday takes it a few steps further.. Simulated sex and artistic nudity... So masturbating through clothes, I'm guessing.. it simulated sex... There's also the new misleading hyperlink law... did anyone read that yesterday?

07-28-2006, 09:58 AM	#19
bryc Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 102	I guess I will go completely text. No banners, no thumbs. My sites may look like shit but fuckin' a, they are NOT driving me out of this business. There's ways around not using pictures if need be. Just gotta be creative!

07-28-2006, 10:53 AM	#21
media Confirmed Moneymaker Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Eugene, OR It's Like Jail, Only with Trees! Posts: 9,852	If you had a girl who was in braw and panties and you were sticking a finger into her pussy to make a camel toe and took a picture of it that would be lewd and lacivious focus on the genitals I'd think, even if the pussy was never ever shown... because there is sexual context to it.. So I would still think 2257 would apply here... lol.. sorta makes you sctratch your head to think about all the fucked up shit they could get you for... Lets all start filming dry humping now... __________________ I'm here for the violence!