Spring break type content is fucked (2257)
 

those guys have no records and if some smartass is going to come in this thread and tell me that springbreak content is exzempt due to the fact that its considered "public nudity", think again.

its only considered "public nudity" if there is no type of touching, fondling, or contact.

yep things will change

You goat fucker. It's considered documentary type of work when it's in public. People just say public nudity thinking anyone that gives a shit might have already looked into the laws instead of spouting bullshit.

call it what you want you shmuck...publish that shit after 2257 is enforced and you don't have records, you be gettin it up the ass by "bubba"

As far as the goatfucker comment...why don't you come and let me fuck you in the ass?

btw..i have discussed this issue with Gregg Piccinelli, Clyde Dewitt, and tim umbreit fyi.

do you even know what these guys do?

I really wish more people could understand what "sexually explicit" meant.

What he said....yes there will be changes BUT, there is a big difference between "sexually explicit" and "documentary" content. "Spring Break" sites won't be fuked, rather forced to snip out scenes showing sexual acts, touching, etc... That is why we have always made release forms a mandatory for girls getting into any type of contest / shoot. I honestly don't believe these will be the first target either...there are too many better targets that they have their sites on. GGW did a nice job of paving the litigation highway for "Spring Break" content :)

in most videos i have seen, 90 percent would be cut in that case

2257 sucks!!

tony

sucks big balls, that is!!!

People are so classy here. 3 Posts in and already the thread started is called a goat fucker, as a result he wants to fuck the guy in the ass. :1orglaugh

Give you bad fucking advice?

i found that quite humorous as well :D

STFU Scrotum Juggler :321GFY

I can't help the topic starter is a shit disturbing moron. Really I can't.

:1orglaugh

Nightwind your sig rocks

lol
Only for Americans :thumbsup

good point.

What constitutes "sexually explicit"

Is it defined in 2257? I don't see it.

Anywhere else in US law?

In Canada, we have some history of formal government film censorship, and there was a period when anything sexually explicit had to be cut. During that period fondling of titties, and ass grabbing went through uncut.

I hope that arrogant fuck that owns Girls Gone Wild goes down.

One of the major porblems that we will face is what does the DOJ think sexually explicit means??

something personal with Joe? :Oh crap

thanks marty

Somehow I dont think its the midnight shift @Mickey D's..........say Hi to Tim for me :thumbsup

I sure as hell hope he doesn't. Cause if he does, who's next? Content suppliers who produce similar content. Then who's next?

thanks for all the info, you must be a lawyer huh?

but he has them all sign something...

so who hurt the most?

what about lascivious dipslay of genitals?

i think that could be applied to almost any genital display

you can touch, fondle, and suck on a breast and its not sexually explicit.

Duke

Janet Jackson's busted ass nipple evidently ;)

Sad to say, we still need a lawyer here..

:thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup