2257 and non nudes

[Dzinerbear]

Can anyone point me to the sections of the legislation that deal with non-nude content? Do we need to keep 2257 docs for them and what exactly is defined as non-nude. How much butt crack can you show before it's considered nude?

thanks
Michael

[basschick]

at the moment, nude isn't the issue. sexually explicit is the issue. at this point, according to my lawyer, a little butt crack isn't a problem.

and no, 2257 is all about records for sexually explicit material.

[gaybucks_chip]

Occasionally you'll find as part of somebody's disclaimer the phrase (or some variant) "Some of the content may be exempt from the requirements of 2257 because it is not a depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct, but only simulated conduct or non-sexually explicit nudity."

I seem to remember that 18 USC 2256 (which I haven't read in a while) deals with non-explicit nudity.

So, by pretty much all accounts, if the person is simply naked, non erect, not touching himself or having anyone else touch him, then it's not sexually explicit, and exempt from 2257.

Different attorneys disagree on whether an erection, without touching, is explicit. The justice department's attorney recently said it was not, but it's questionable whether that's binding.

We maintain the same records required by 2257 for our non-explicit foot fetish site, even though it has little nudity and would by pretty much anyone's definition be exempt. It's a little more work, but for us, it falls under the "you can't do too much to show good faith" notion.

[desslock]

Dzinerbear:

Under Supreme Court preceedent since the 1970s, the definition of what you want is established via the local community standards. In practice this has meant that if you sell Hustler magazine in Atlanta, your business would probably be deemed ok. But if you are in rural Georgia, that community may deem it obscene. That's the way it works.

My own conclusion therefore is that, to me it seems that people outside the United States are simply beyond the scope of current laws as established and written. So I've actually not even understood why people maintain that the US Dept of Justice is going to travel to Canada or Australia, conduct a 2257 records compliance investigation, and then initiate legal proceedings. What court would have jurisdiction? And if that did happen, I would imagine that such a case could be dismissed for a jillion such reasons.

Steve

[chadknowslaw]

2257 does not apply to non-sexually explicit nudity. It is not the same test as obscenity, so crack is OK. Full frontal nudity does not trigger 2257 either, male or female. Masturbation and penetration is ALWAYS covered by 2257, so if you have a guy holding the high hard one, it appears he is masturbating and in my opinion, 2257 applies. An erection alone is where you will find reasonable minds differing. I tend to believe that an erection alone is not sexually explicit as long as the guy is not touching it.