Creative solutions to Explicit Banners

[Matt 26z]

The only thing I saw in the new regs about cartoons was if they are drawn from real people you'd need id.

Did it actually say that? I don't recall seeing it, and I find it suspect.

If it weren't for the 1995 exclusion, certain works of of Picasso would need to be banned if he used a real model...





If a real model is used to draw those sexual drawings today, model ID's are required on file? Doubtful.

[LavenderLounge]

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.

[Matt 26z]

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.

I was planning on doing the same thing when I pull images. The statement left in their place will be...

NUDE IMAGE REMOVED DUE TO NEW ONLINE REQUIREMENTS BY GEORGE W BUSH APPOINTED ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBERTO GONZALEZ.

[GLBTcity]

I was planning on doing the same thing when I pull images. The statement left in their place will be...

NUDE IMAGE REMOVED DUE TO NEW ONLINE REQUIREMENTS BY GEORGE W BUSH APPOINTED ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBERTO GONZALEZ.

Hi Matt!

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

[Squirt]

Did it actually say that? I don't recall seeing it, and I find it suspect.

If it weren't for the 1995 exclusion, certain works of of Picasso would need to be banned if he used a real model...





If a real model is used to draw those sexual drawings today, model ID's are required on file? Doubtful.

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.

[basschick]

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".

[JustMe]

"that naked statue reminds me it's time to rape a nun".

HAHAHA! omg....

:goof:

[Bec]

Did it actually say that? I don't recall seeing it, and I find it suspect.

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).

[Matt 26z]

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.

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.

[Matt 26z]

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.

[Bec]

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.