Quote Originally Posted by citiboyz View Post
Well, as I understand it, the addition of nudity or more specifically "lascivious exhibition of the genitals" took effect with the signing of the law, but the part about "simulated sexual activity" requires new regulations to be written before it becomes effective, since it needs to be defined and so on. Clear as mud, right?
Everyone would love clear definitions on all of this, but I doubt that we'll get it.

Some say plain old nudity is now under it, but I don't think so. What about the 16yo nude model featured in a photo hanging in an art gallery? Considering stuff like that is legal, it makes no sense to require ID's to make sure they are 18.

Then there is the "lascivious exhibition of the genitals" label. Is it possible that the non-sexual nude photos in a porn set could fall under this? If you take a candid photo of someone skinny dipping for instance, that is 100% innocent. It's "here is a photo of someone skinny dipping, doesn't that look fun?" However the nude still non-sexual photos at the start of a porn set are basically saying, "here is a photo of my sexy naked body, you got a boner yet?" I can see how that could be labeled lascivious exhibition. So does it come down to intent, or what we actually see in the photo? I would think what the photo depicts, but you never know.

Quote Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip View Post
Not to mention that the loser Republicans are, for a change, LOSER republicans and Bush's nazis might have a little harder time with their agenda.
The Republicans are going to have a difficult time pandering to their base over the next two years. They can't do it in congress, so the president will have to do it through areas he has control over... such as the DoJ.