mancheck scripts are not compliant!

**basschick** · 06-23-2005, 03:43 PM

i thought some of you might want to know that the pics on the mancheck scripts may not be considered compliant. there is a gay sex pic and a guy with his hand on his crotch in undies, which my lawyer says can count as masturbation.

i'm not trying to diss mancheck, but i don't want anyone to get in trouble!

**chadknowslaw** · 06-23-2005, 03:49 PM

Simulated sex is compliant. So is a hand on clothed genitals. I respectfully, but wholeheartedly, disagree with your laywers interpretation.

**Lee** · 06-23-2005, 03:50 PM

They are Canadian so it doesnt really matter $0.02

Regards,

Lee

**gaystoryman** · 06-23-2005, 03:53 PM

That is interesting and kind of raises a possibly interesting question to for an AEN/AVS operation... as they do in essence monitor the sites under their umbrella for certain criteria, will they also be subject to the 2257 rules for all the sites they manage? or are they exempt like a web host would be? and if so, how? I mean sure the sites aren't hosted by them, but you can't gain access to those sites without their approval (so to speak) so wondering, do they become part n parcel of all this?

And wonder what the other AEN/AVS are doing about their script images too? not to mention their banners and other content within their member areas.. such as their pay per view and galleries... are they providing their members with all those documents?

nice pick up too Basschick, but you should be celebrating your 21st birthday.. :extat:

**buffdude** · 06-23-2005, 04:06 PM

Sexkey change there's out on Tuesday.
Mansites were all softcore to start with.

**basschick** · 06-23-2005, 04:07 PM

chad, i was told that any image that shows manipulation of the genitals would not be compliant. is that incorrect, in your opinion?

btw, i just noticed that the compliance statement was missing from U*G*A*S and that they are not acting as custodians of records, but still have their link to their producers. i talked with them, and they do not have plans to become custodians at this time, but they do plan to get the compliance text up.

one lawyer has posted on a board that if you link to non compliant galleries or sites, you might have problems. i suppose this applies to non compliant avs systems. i'm pretty concerned about these avs things

**chadknowslaw** · 06-23-2005, 04:23 PM

I do not agree that "any" image showing manipulation of the genitals is masturbation. I advise using very bright lines--touching over clothing, for the purpose of triggering 2257 compliance, is not masturbation. However, I advise that pics showing _actual_ touching of the genitials be considered sexually explicity. Seriously--we men are always playing with the package! Just grabbing big jim and the twins for an adjustment isn't masturbating. I understand the desire to "cover our asses" but we don't want to use Puritan definitions that send every pic with some skin or a smile to the members area.

Also, just linking does not make you responsible for content on the linked site.

In my opinion... ;-)

**djdez** · 06-23-2005, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by basschick

chad, i was told that any image that shows manipulation of the genitals would not be compliant. is that incorrect, in your opinion?

btw, i just noticed that the compliance statement was missing from U*G*A*S and that they are not acting as custodians of records, but still have their link to their producers. i talked with them, and they do not have plans to become custodians at this time, but they do plan to get the compliance text up.

one lawyer has posted on a board that if you link to non compliant galleries or sites, you might have problems. i suppose this applies to non compliant avs systems. i'm pretty concerned about these avs things

Just like any other professions -- lawyers cover their asses so they won't be sued for malpractice. so i think you're attorney was giving you worse case scenario. There are three 'stages of compliance'. Full compliant, non-complaint and can the DOJ try to make a case that the image is uncompliant.

it's the latter that the DOJ has lawyers spouting rehetoric from someone holding their dick in their under is masterbation to kissing is sexual contact. sometimes you have to wade through the BS that lawyers tend to shell out. there is a difference between what the DOJ can do and what they are likely to do. They are unlikely to make at best a weak case for your scenario and even more unlikely to have a judge agree to it.

**basschick** · 06-23-2005, 04:45 PM

djdez - i agree, however i want to cover my ass as much as the lawyers do. the worst-case scenario is what i want to try to avoid.

a lawyer that sides with caution is the lawyer I want to work with. if you get a conservative judge, he's going to take matters to its most conservative conclusion, so that is who i want to prepare for. you would probably win after years in court, if you had the resources, but i don't want to spend years in court.

**djdez** · 06-23-2005, 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by basschick

djdez - i agree, however i want to cover my ass as much as the lawyers do. the worst-case scenario is what i want to try to avoid.

a lawyer that sides with caution is the lawyer I want to work with. if you get a conservative judge, he's going to take matters to its most conservative conclusion, so that is who i want to prepare for. you would probably win after years in court, if you had the resources, but i don't want to spend years in court.

Trust me - we have probably the most conservative attorney I know. In fact we've done more in terms of 2257 complaince than any company I know. We have a list of date of productions on our paysites for every single image/video because in our attornies oppinion under the revised regs you must list the date of production for every picture on your site produced after 7-95 and this list must reside on your website. I don' t know of any other company that did that.

The most conservative thing you can do is just close up shop and get out of porn all together. But I wager to guess that's not part of your plan either. So, you do have to make some acceptable risks. What you mentioned is rhetoric plain and simple. It would not even get passed a motion to dismiss. It wouldn't take years of court battles.

What you are doing by posting stuff like this is propogating the rhetoric and making matters worse for webmasters that are already on edge as it is. I know you're trying to help, but you're not.

**basschick** · 06-23-2005, 05:05 PM

isn't it possible that is just your opinion? i have talked to a lot of people recently who are taking the safest road possible, and they at least deserve to know their options. the reason i posted here is another webmaster i know was freaked out to realize he had not considered his avs scripts, and when he deleted everything, he still had images he had no control over on his web pages.

i did the second most conservative thing i could - i deleted every last sexually explicit image and site. my current content is non nude, with no hands on crotches, no banners served from other sites. it left me with only three sites, but they're mighty clean sites