Nonnude=2257 safe
 

Discuss....

i sure hope so

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

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.

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...

The worlds gone mad...

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..

nonnude adult targeted = sexually explicit

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.

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

Bump for more opinions/discussions

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.

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.

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).

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?

Please note that this is not a world wide issue, it seem sto be of major concern to the US:2 cents: :thumbsup

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

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!

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.....

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

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