Printable View
I have been considering some alternatives to actual pictures of guys holding their dicks in some banners. How about a cartoon depiction? If it is not a real person, then there is no need for ID, and therefore not subject to 2257 definitions, right?
Perhaps an animated gif of a cum shot?
Any thoughts on some alternatives to photos?
Hi MW,
I did see an article somewhere that said cartoon characters were not subject to 2257.
I would certainly hope not considering the fact that it isn't a real person!!!
However, do be careful and I would suggest researching it a bit more to find out what other "idiotic" laws are out there that you "would" be subject to.
Don't forget the "obscenity" laws.
PapaBear
I think we can get creative without pushing the obscenity definitions. Something like this maybe?
http://www.menwithcams.com/images/weiner.gif
If someone in law enforcement has an issue with that one, I'm definitely going to retire from the adult industry!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by MWCren
PB
The only thing I saw in the new regs about cartoons was if they are drawn from real people you'd need id - otherwise, they're exempt.
... and I love the creativity on the weiner banner!
Did it actually say that? I don't recall seeing it, and I find it suspect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bec
If it weren't for the 1995 exclusion, certain works of of Picasso would need to be banned if he used a real model...
http://web.org.uk/picasso/Erotic.jpg
http://www.donshewey.com/2001_zine/IMAGES/SEX.ht14.jpg
If a real model is used to draw those sexual drawings today, model ID's are required on file? Doubtful.
As I go through my sites to clean them up, I will be using this image when I need a quickie bandaid - or to make a statement. Feel free to use it.
Remember this is the same administration that has put fabric over the private parts of statues in the white house and surrounding government buildings. fucking amazing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt 26z
these so called christians have filthy minds. when i look at a beautiful statue of a man or woman, i don't think "ah! i wish i could lick those tits" or "that naked statue reminds me it's time to rape a nun".
Quote:
Originally Posted by basschick
HAHAHA! omg....
:goof:
I was planning on doing the same thing when I pull images. The statement left in their place will be...Quote:
Originally Posted by LavenderLounge
NUDE IMAGE REMOVED DUE TO NEW ONLINE REQUIREMENTS BY GEORGE W BUSH APPOINTED ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBERTO GONZALEZ.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt 26z
The Department notes that the Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition determined that virtual child pornography could not be constitutionally prohibited under that statute, which did not require that the material be either obscene or the product of sexual abuse. The ruling does not, however, restrict the government's ability to ensure that performers in sexually explicit depictions are not in fact children. Nevertheless, the
Department has made a slight change to the final rule in response to
these comments by clarifying that the rule applies to those who
digitally manipulate images of actual human beings but not to those who
generate computer images that do not depict actual human beings (e.g.,
cartoons).
I'd say that definitely has something to do with the "virtual cp" thing awhile back that went to the Supreme Court.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bec
It is impossible for a cartoon or drawing in general to depict an "actual human being" since cartoon's and actual humans contradict each other. Thus why it was thrown out.
So now they are clarifying that a sexual image containing any part of an actual human being (photo of them) falls under 2257.
From what I read, ****'s were taking photos of young girls at the mall or wherever and inserting their heads onto the bodies of airbrushed adult models. Thus creating virtual cp.
This element seems to be their second choice in combating that practice. If the image is sexually explicit and it contains elements (actual photos) of a real human, then you'd better have docs.
At least, that's my 2c.
Also.... As a result of that, while they can not nail virtual cp guys with cp charges now, they can get them on 2257 violations.
My point in mentioning that section is because it's easy enough to take a real photo and make it look like a drawing in various graphic editing programs. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but I think those manipulated images would still come under the 2257 gun.
Hi Matt!Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt 26z
I certainly agree with you and everyone else on this subject. HOWEVER, while we're making/taking pokes at these "good ole boys" we also need to educate the general public and particularly our own customers.
I for one am in favor of using your statement but wanted to share with you a thought (edit that I will be making):
Replace Nude with Explicit.
Why? Because surfers will still be going to other websites. They will be able to see softcore nude pictures.... they will then wonder "why" you aren't showing "nude" pictures and what the purpose of your statement was initially made for.
Hope I made sense
PapaBear