Solo sites and 2257 ?

[Huskyhunks]

If a person runs his or her own site, with ONLY his or her own pictures, videos, (content), how do you think that person could comply or would they have to at all ?

[chadknowslaw]

A single model with his or her own site [or webcam] still needs to comply--according to the new regs you will be required to post your business address [likely your home] and yourself as the custodian of records. You will need to have copy of your own driver's license and a copy of every image you have ever published, plus a screen shot of your webpages [assuming you make regular changes] and you would be required to keep a copy of any video or streaming video you send out.

According to the new regs, you can NOT have someone else be your custodian of records, and you will have to have at least 20 hours a week as hours that your records will be open to review.

This stuff really sucks. Lets hope that saner heads prevail and the court system reels in the DOJ.

[Huskyhunks]

Chad,

Thank you for replying. Man, that is alot of stuff to worry about just for one solo site. I can't imagine how much manpower it would take on their end to enforce these rules. I don't see it getting that far, I think any judge in their right mind is going to see that this is utter b.s. but stranger things have happened.

[Squirt]

According to the new regs, you can NOT have someone else be your custodian of records, and you will have to have at least 20 hours a week as hours that your records will be open to review.

This stuff really sucks. Lets hope that saner heads prevail and the court system reels in the DOJ.

That's the thing that violates a persons right to privacy IMO. The government forcing an individual to put his name, home address, and hours he will be home, on a worldwide porn site. If this is challenged in court and an injunction is granted.. will it only be granted to those who challenge it, or against the DOJ for all of us?

Thanks for your input Chad :high:

[chadknowslaw]

An injunction against enforcement would benefit everybody--law enforcment cannot enforce a law against some people but be prevented from enforcing it against a selected class [such as members of an organization].

However, all injunctions come to an end at some time. The last 2257 regs took nearly 3 years to work through all the court challenges, and when it was all over, the really stupid parts were taken out. Lets hope for the same result this time.

[Squirt]

An injunction against enforcement would benefit everybody--law enforcment cannot enforce a law against some people but be prevented from enforcing it against a selected class [such as members of an organization].

However, all injunctions come to an end at some time. The last 2257 regs took nearly 3 years to work through all the court challenges, and when it was all over, the really stupid parts were taken out. Lets hope for the same result this time.

That's great to know! I'm all for following the law and doing the right thing and when regulations seem purposefully burdensome, or unreasonable, they should be changed.

Thanks again for your input Chad, it's much appreciated :high:

[Matt D]

If this is challenged in court and an injunction is granted.. will it only be granted to those who challenge it, or against the DOJ for all of us?

The FSC web site says that only parties to litigation are covered by an injunction. In this case FSC members.

The only other way to get around the new regs is to switch to a non-explicit format. Nudity isn't covered by 2257. It only applies to "actual sexually explicit conduct."

[Northstar]

So what defines "sexually explicit conduct"? Is a guy standing with a boner explicit? Is a guy showing his ass considered explicit? This law considers masturbating sexual explicit but if it is a picture, how do they know he is masturbating and not just holding his boner if you can see movement?

[basschick]

(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;

showing his ass but not spreading it might be non explicit, but holding his dick or playing with it would seem to me to fall into the above legal definition.

[Squirt]

So what defines "sexually explicit conduct"? Is a guy standing with a boner explicit? Is a guy showing his ass considered explicit? This law considers masturbating sexual explicit but if it is a picture, how do they know he is masturbating and not just holding his boner if you can see movement?

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 110 > § 2256

For the purposes of this chapter, the term—
(1) “minor” means any person under the age of eighteen years;
(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;

[Squirt]

(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;

showing his ass but not spreading it might be non explicit, but holding his dick or playing with it would seem to me to fall into the above legal definition.

JINKX! :extat: :extat:

[Slade]

JINKX! :extat: :extat:

Now..just define for me what "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person" is? :extat:

[Squirt]

Now..just define for me what "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person" is? :extat:

las·civ·i·ous Pronunciation Key (l-sv-s)
adj.

1) Given to or expressing lust; lecherous.
2) Exciting sexual desires; salacious.


Example: Showing nudity to excite a surfer to click a link and signup for a porn site where sexual activity it displayed :francais:

Talk to your attorney.. now is not the time to be without one.
Adult entertainment lawyer Chad Belville, Esq

Chad Belville, Esq
4500 S. Lakeshore Drive Ste 515
Tempe, Arizona 85282

AZ Bar # 020771
IA Bar # 015731
Nat'l Dist. Attorneys Association # 3745

[Matt D]

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 110 > § 2256

For the purposes of this chapter, the term—
(1) “minor” means any person under the age of eighteen years;
(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;

This is only partly correct. 2257 has its own definition of "actual sexually explicit conduct." It's derived from the 2256 definition, but it excludes simulated sex and "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person." So you can show any kind of nudity so long as it doesn't include masturbation, bestiality, S&M or a hardcore depiction of a sex act.

If the revised definition includes simulated sex and "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person" this would be great news for us all. Because then the mainstream entertainment industry would have to comply. Shows like Sex and the City, Deadwood, The Sopranos and Oz would have to be banned or censored for non-compliance. Movies like Monsters Ball and Fight Club would have to be censored. Celebrities would have to compromise their privacy rights. And the mainstream press would have to sit up and pay attention because then this would be a general censorship issue instead of a porn issue.

[Squirt]

This is only partly correct. 2257 has its own definition of "actual sexually explicit conduct." It's derived from the 2256 definition, but it excludes simulated sex and "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person." So you can show any kind of nudity so long as it doesn't include masturbation, bestiality, S&M or a hardcore depiction of a sex act.

Can you please just quote the exact part of the regulations you're talking about and a link? Thanks