![]() |
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? |
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? |
Hey Crocket,
Can you hit me up on ICQ? 119968011 |
It defines "actual sexually explicit conduct".
Focus on genitals is still "sexually explicit conduct", but not "actual". Thats how I read it. |
it's confusing
|
hmmmmm............... I don't get it
|
"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... |
better to be safe than sorry. i would include it.
|
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.
|
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
|
Quote:
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/us...7----000-.html |
Quote:
:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :321GFY |
Quote:
|
Like the Patriot Act I think much of the current crop of regulations are intentionly being written unclear to allow wide use.
|
Quote:
Isn't that the current one...not the one coming up? |
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. |
Quote:
|
E is excluded in the law, always has been.
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
There is no E anymore. Paragraph 2 of 2256 ony has A - B |
and what was A thru D is now included all under A in roman numerals I - V
|
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:14 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123