Hire me for all your blog design needs!!

50 :)

I'm guessing you didn't read the entire thing.. what is posted in this thread's first post, is just a very small part of the updates. I'd suggest you read the entire thing.

Those are the bullet points.

I already read through it and the only correction I need to make is that I meant to use the word depiction not picture.
See:
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...f/E7-13500.pdf
Above the waist depictions are fine no matter how arousing. Just keep in make sure you don?t run afoul of the other existing definitions of sexually explicit already in 2256. In the Federal register they say what they want the test to determine if a depiction is a lascivious display of the pubic area vs. a non lascivious display. It makes more since if you read the Federal Register yourself because no matter how well someone else explains it they leave something out and it creates misunderstandings.

crockett, don't you only need 2257 docs for content on your own host? Why would you need docs for the sponsor's hosted galleries? That makes no sense at all. If the images on your site are not sexually-explicit then you don't need any records. When the surfer clicks the non-explicit thumb, they get the FHG, which is on the sponsor's host... therefore they are responsible for the 2257 docs.

Damn! A Player!

how will this affect hosting and domain registration companies ?

america is going to be worse than Iran was I'll tallya that HAHA!