![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
||||
Welcome to the GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum forums. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. |
![]() ![]() |
|
Discuss what's fucking going on, and which programs are best and worst. One-time "program" announcements from "established" webmasters are allowed. |
|
Thread Tools |
![]() |
#1 | |
Confirmed User
Industry Role:
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Miami
Posts: 5,527
|
2257 and Weiner and interesting spin by Greg Piccionelli on Xbiz
According to an article on Xbiz http://www.xbiz.com/news/134997 Greg makes a mention on how all media outlets are in violation of 2257.
Quote:
It is an interesting spin as to why 2257 is a burden.
__________________
| skype: getscorecash | ICQ: 59-271-063 |
New Sites: | SCORELAND2 | Roku Channel SCORETV.TV | 60PLUSMILFS | | Big Tit Hooker | Tits And Tugs | Big Boobs POV | Karla James | | Naughty Foot Jobs | Linsey's World | Busty Arianna Sinn | Get SCORE Cash | |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
So Fucking Banned
Industry Role:
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: the beach, SoCal
Posts: 107,089
|
With all due respect, his definition of "lascivious exhibition" and mine are on opposite ends of the spectrum. Nice try though. I wonder what his comments would be if that was as lascivious as it gets for one of his clients.
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Jägermeister Test Pilot
Industry Role:
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: NORCAL
Posts: 73,465
|
I agree with Baddog (for once). The main picture in question didn't even show his cock, only the outline of his cock under his underwear.
__________________
“The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.” - Sarah Huckabee Sanders YNOT MAIL | THE BEST ADULT MAILING SOLUTION |
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
working on my tan
Industry Role:
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Florida/Kentucky
Posts: 39,151
|
That's a tube sock.
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#5 | |
FUBAR the ORIGINATOR
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FUBARLAND
Posts: 67,374
|
Quote:
![]()
__________________
![]() FUBAR Webmasters - The FUBAR Times - FUBAR Webmasters Mobile - FUBARTV.XXX For promo opps contact jfk at fubarwebmasters dot com |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Confirmed User
Industry Role:
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Ontario
Posts: 4,235
|
would you guys be okay with showing pictures of that clothed cock to kids? if not then it needs 2257 but i dont see how he himself violated 2257 just the sites that published his pics
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
2011 GFY Hall of Fame!
Industry Role:
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Back in Texas!
Posts: 15,224
|
LOL... I'm going to go out on a crazy limb here and bet he has proof of how old he is...
__________________
Looking for Opportunity! ![]() |
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#8 | |
Confirmed User
Industry Role:
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Miami
Posts: 5,527
|
Quote:
Technically they should have his ID, do they need it is up to Eric Holder.
__________________
| skype: getscorecash | ICQ: 59-271-063 |
New Sites: | SCORELAND2 | Roku Channel SCORETV.TV | 60PLUSMILFS | | Big Tit Hooker | Tits And Tugs | Big Boobs POV | Karla James | | Naughty Foot Jobs | Linsey's World | Busty Arianna Sinn | Get SCORE Cash | |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#9 | |
So Fucking Banned
Industry Role:
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: the beach, SoCal
Posts: 107,089
|
Quote:
2. How can you tell if it is erect or not? Mine certainly does not lay that way when erect. That would hurt. |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Confirmed User
Industry Role:
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,257
|
If that was even his cock.
Also, here is something that gets me. Say it is all True, he accidently tweeted a pic to the public instead of private of his underwear with what appears to be an aroused penis. We had a President get a Fucking Blow job..... Edit, To bad they don't enforce 2257 on Tubes and GF sites...... |
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
Confirmed User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,218
|
secondary producers = news outlets, are required to have 2257 info... this pic imo would definitely fall under 2257, but I'm no lawyer
__________________
Sup |
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#12 | |
Confirmed User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,280
|
It's not a definition you are going to find clearly stated within the language of any statute or regulation.
The idea that a clothed pubic area can be subjected to the lascivious exhibition clause stems from case law, and two cases in particular: U.S. v Dost and U.S. v Knox. These were both CP cases, and one of the questions addressed in them was whether pictures of clothed children could still be considered CP. In Dost, the Court established a six part 'test' to determine whether a visual depiction of a minor meets the definition of a "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area" under 18 USC 2256. The Court concluded that just because the pubic area in question is clothed does not mean that display of it cannot be considered "lascivious" under the law. (A depiction does not have to meet all six parts of the Dost test in order to be considered lascivious, btw; in that sense, this is a very different 'test' than, say, the Miller test for obscenity) In Knox, the Court refined the Dost court's ruling, and established that things like the context of the depiction and the intent of the person who created the depiction should be relevant to the Dost test. The Knox Court also wrote that: Quote:
I don't believe there is an actual case that is on point here. The attorneys who speculate that 2257 can be applied to depictions of clothed genitals are making a reasonable, if fairly conservative (from a risk assessment perspective I mean; not politically conservative) assumption about how the Court would interpret 2257, in light of Dost and Knox.
__________________
Q. Boyer |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
Confirmed User
Industry Role:
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 1,950
|
Quentin is right. See: Record-Keeping Compliance For Producers of Adult Content: What You Need To Know About Section 2257
__________________
![]() 2257 Third-Party Custodian of Records Services Designed by an attorney to be DOJ compliant Only $1 per record |
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
Registered User
Industry Role:
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 22,511
|
they are talking about the cock pic brietbart had originally posted on opie and anthony.
![]() pure hard exposed cock. |
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
It's 42
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Global
Posts: 18,083
|
18 U.S.C. §2257A is on the books ... If it was ever indicted upon it would most likely be found unconstitutional ... |
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#16 |
So Fucking Banned
Industry Role:
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,241
|
Maybe if anything the Media was in violation of copyright? LOL
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#17 |
..........
Industry Role:
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: ..........
Posts: 41,917
|
what Q said.
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#18 |
Geo Cities
Industry Role:
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: North Captiva Island, Florida USA
Posts: 11,830
|
__________________
Make a Free Chaturbate White Label site in 34 minutes and be making money tonight ![]() |
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#19 | |
Confirmed User
Industry Role:
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Miami
Posts: 5,527
|
Quote:
__________________
| skype: getscorecash | ICQ: 59-271-063 |
New Sites: | SCORELAND2 | Roku Channel SCORETV.TV | 60PLUSMILFS | | Big Tit Hooker | Tits And Tugs | Big Boobs POV | Karla James | | Naughty Foot Jobs | Linsey's World | Busty Arianna Sinn | Get SCORE Cash | |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#20 | |
Confirmed User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,280
|
Quote:
* "intended for commercial distribution" {see §2257 (h)(1)(A)(i)} * "created as a part of a commercial enterprise by a person who certifies to the Attorney General that such person regularly and in the normal course of business collects and maintains individually identifiable information regarding all performers, including minor performers, employed by that person, pursuant to Federal and State tax, labor, and other laws, labor agreements, or otherwise pursuant to industry standards, where such information includes the name, address, and date of birth of the performer." {the very next paragraph, §2257 (h)(1)(A)(ii)} As such, I have a hard time seeing how 2257A could be applied in this instance. Not only was the depiction pretty clearly not intended for "commercial distribution," my guess is that Weiner has affected nothing like the above referenced certification with the AG's office.... although if he has registered with the AG's office as a producer of simulated sexually explicit content, I'd sure love to see the initial letter he sent them. (Perhaps it would start with "Hey guys, just in case I ever screw up and post a picture of my erect penis to Twitter, I thought I'd better drop you this note, first....") So far as I can tell, any prosecution of Weiner over his Twitter snafu would come up under the main body of 2257, under some other section of code completely outside of that section, or not at all. My hunch? It will be "not at all." I just can't see the DOJ bringing charges in this situation under any section of law. That practical assessment doesn't change the theoretical legal question, of course, and I agree with Barry that this is what Greg was actually addressing: Greg was talking about the way in which 2257 could, hypothetically, be applied in this situation, yes, but his more salient point was what that potential application says about the nature, purpose, scope and sense (or lack thereof) of 2257 as it is written, and in light of the legislature's intent in passing the law in the first place.
__________________
Q. Boyer |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#21 |
dumb libs love censorship
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,198
|
2257 might be the most irrelevent law in the USA. The Man always turns to obscenity to bully freedom fighters in the porn industry.
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#22 | |
It's 42
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Global
Posts: 18,083
|
non-commercial??? |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#23 | |||
Confirmed User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,280
|
Quote:
The last line of what you quoted says: Quote:
That's all beside the point, though, because the Connection case involved 2257, not 2257A (which didn't exist yet when Connection was first filed) and in the CFRs that pertain to 2257A it states, very unambiguously, that 2257A does NOT cover non-commercial depictions. Here's the text of CFR 75.9, which sets the conditions under which a depiction is subject to 2257A, rather than to the main body of 2257 and the CFRs that pertain to it. Please note that ALL of these conditions must apply in order for the depictions to be subject to 2257A: Quote:
2257A is effectively a loophole designed by Congress to provide producers of mainstream entertainment (i.e. "Hollywood") whose depictions include simulated sex an easier means to be compliant with the age-verifying/record-keeping requirements than is offered to producers of actual sexually explicit conduct (i.e., "porn"). In the end it doesn't matter: Weiner won't be prosecuted under either 2257 or 2257A. The difference (and my assertion) is that he can't be prosecuted under the latter, because the plain language of the statute and its CFRs simply preclude that possibility. ![]()
__________________
Q. Boyer |
|||
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |