Quote 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.