My one and only question on section 2257

[sunfunbill]

I know that has been beat to death, but if you could stand just ONE more question on it I would appreciate it.

I know if you buy content you need all the records and what not. However, if all you use on your site is your sponsors content, are you covered by just having a link to your sponsors record keeping info?

I know if all you use is softcore you don't have to worry, but since my site is crossdressers it's hard to not get some pics without a dick or two in there. Hell even a guy in a dress could be labeled as "obscene".

So that's all I need to know, if I have sponsors content on my site, can I just say like "all record keeping/ age verification records are available through the parties below" then have a link to the actual page that the sponsor uses for their record keeping contacts?

[artwilliams]

Hi Bill,

Don't quote me on this, I am a Canadian and an adult webmaster --- NOT an American and a lawyer!

I believe the DOJ is insisting that secondary producers (i.e. webmasters) must put personal info on their 2257 on their website even when using sponsor content. I also believe that the Free Speech Coalition is fighting this.

One of the reasons I think this, aside from what I have read, is that I have one sponsor that insists that I agree to providing a personal 2257 link in exchange for their content to be put on my site.

I am sure that someone will come along and straighten me out if I am correct. I hope this helps.

Cheers,

Art

[phuckbunny]

I'm no expert and you won't get a "straight" (LOL) answer from anyone else either b/c the law isn't ironclad and nothing is cut and dry.

In my understanding, a link to the sponsor's record keeper's address won't do you much good; especially since for more than a few of my sponsors it looks something like

Custodian of Records:
Slobodan Milosevic
20 Ulica Titova
Pristina, Kosovo
90210

If you're worried about dicks, I personally draw the line at an erect dick. I usually refrain from showing dick but a naked guy is one thing, a porno guy with a hardon MIGHT be interpreted as something different.

This would seem to be more of an 'explicit display of genitalia' according to the legalese. Ditto for a chick spreading her pussy lips open. That whole explicit display is not defined and would be impossible to define in a court of law, not that we shouldn't all be playing safe, though few of us are.

I don't see how a guy in a dress... omg I almost wrote "guy in a dick" could be considered obscene; though maybe there are some local laws that would say so, but 2257 is federal.

I haven't re-read the whole text of 2257 in a while but I seem to recall, and I could be wrong, that there was something in it about an intent to arouse.

That way you could argue that Sally Mann or Jock Sturges aren't guilty of child pornography because it's art and isn't meant to arouse.

I'd like to open all my windows and scream bollocks at the top of my lungs because there is no way the federal government can legislate what your potential reaction to something will be psychologically. This in effect makes it sounds like an Orwellian "thought crime"! People DO get aroused by Sally Mann and Jock Sturges and Larry Clark and probably jerk off to that stuff but who will naturally not admit it. Hell, some people probably get aroused by jars of mayonnaise. What about those wacky and harmless balloon fetishits? When are balloons going to be considered obscene?

A legal parallel would be the concept of "malice aforethought" which is what distinguishes homicide from manslaughter. This can be established through witnesses, testimony, evidence, etc., and it's STILL a difficult thing to prove in criminal cases. Once we start legislating how people should react to something is when I'm packing up my bags and going somewhere in the South Paciic to pursue my porn business unmolested.

Seriously. Sorry about the rant and tangent, but the implications of 2257 when we get into that kind of territory is 200% insane. Not that the USA isn't 199% insane anyway. I think we almost started WW3 with fucking Kosovo. Putin's guys already said they're ready to send Russian troops into Serbia.

Before I start on another tangent and/or political rant, I say SHOW DICK.

(As long as it's not a hardon and not meant to arouse).

[balls_deep]

Originally posted by phuckbunny
If you're worried about dicks, I personally draw the line at an erect dick. I usually refrain from showing dick but a naked guy is one thing, a porno guy with a hardon MIGHT be interpreted as something different.

sorry, that's not the law.

the law states that an erotic image that is hosted by you makes you the primary producer. There are no solid grounds and pb's guidelines could get you into trouble.

the law has been upheld but nothing is set in stone yet.

no dicks without the docs bill, if you want to completely comply.

[phuckbunny]

OK, now with my rant over, to follow up on Art's post here's how I get this deal in a nutshell.

1. If you buy content, you get the records. That means the model's ID and paperwork. I've never bought content but if you do, this is what you should get and keep in your office in case a Fed knocks on your door and asks for the model info.

2. If you publish explicit content on your site, you are technically responsible for the same record keeping requirements as the SPONSOR, who will NEVER provide you with the names, ID's and personal records of their models.

3. Theoretically, if you CROP or ALTER the sponsor content images e.g. just show the face of the girl or guy getting fucked, you are responsible for those records as well. That is if you're cropping it from an explicit image and publishing it on your site.

Here's how I deal with it:

1. I promote mostly softcore sponsors and mostly female models but I do have good converting hardcore sponsors and it's hard to obey the laws but I do. I do use FHGs and yes I show pussy galore b/c I pray to God pussy isn't considered obscene in the US of Fucking A yet.

2. I try to stay away from showing dick but I certainly never show hardons.

3. If you buy content make sure you get ALL the info you need.

4. If you link to a gallery that's hosted on the sponsor's server you're not responsible b/c you'r e not publishing it.

Finally, here's a tip that I got on this board and which worked out nicely and which is a good idea for bloggers who want to stay on the good side of the law like you and me.

Ask your sponsor for a membership. Out of every 300 pic sets, you can pull a few that are non-explicit, then link to the FHGs. Sometimes this can even be a good marketing tool - like opening up a present, you want to find out what's the good stuff inside. This simple psychology can and should be applied to all porn marketing I think.

[sunfunbill]

Hmmm, yeah I figured any dicks at all would push it over the edge. Now, a clean pic or movie image is ok linking to a FHG, right? Because the gallery is not on your site.

I guess I just need to be careful and make sure nothing shows. As they say, there is already too much free stuff, so as long as they can go to a FHG or something from my link that will be fine.

I will still supply a link to the sponsor just as a way to do something. So I guess the best way is no dick on my site, just links to FHG or movies, or the tour.

[phuckbunny]

Originally posted by balls_deep
sorry, that's not the law.

the law states that an erotic image that is hosted by you makes you the primary producer. There are no solid grounds and pb's guidelines could get you into trouble.

the law has been upheld but nothing is set in stone yet.

no dicks without the docs bill, if you want to completely comply.

You're right, Balls, but the Supreme Court has not defined what an erotic image is, is what I'm saying.

I'm not giving out guidelines, I'm just giving my opinion.

You can show a chick with a nipple piercing just exposing her tit, and for many people that will be an erotic image but I highly doubt there is a legal definition of "erotic" in the constitution or criminal law, and if there is, then it's again "intent to arouse" which is tantamount to legislating the "thought crimes" I was talking about.

Come on! You may not like dick, and a gay guy may not like pussy. So does that make showing pussy on a gay site exempt because it's meant to disgust and not arouse?

Do you see what I'm saying? This is a whole mess of ridiculous legal nonsense and we can go around and around arguing or we can comply within REASONABLE logical means or switch to a text only medium.

I know there's the whole "tits aren't genitals" argument but I can't even start on that. Then why can't I go topless on the beach in California?

[sunfunbill]

Hehe, you posted at the same time I did Puckbunny. Yeah ok, I think I know now what I will do. Thanks much!!

[crockett]

I kinda think 2257 is almost at a stand still right now. I forget with court district it was, the 13th maybe? For the most part over ruled the 2257 legislation on the biases it was unconstitutional.

In the strictest form that ruling only covers people whom live in that district (think it was Ohio). While that ruling doesn't cover say someone in Florida, I think it's unlikely the govt will try to go after anyone at this point with the other ruling on the books.

In fact it's almost as if the FBI has totally stopped doing inspections since that ruling. I have yet to hear of any inspection since that happened and up until that point the FBI was being somewhat active on inspections.

I almost think they are on a wait and see mode. If the govt appeals that ruling and loses it's very bad for them. So IMO most likely they will try to revise or come up with some new law.

Being Alberto whatever his name was kicked to the curb and the short amount of time left for the Bush admin. Well I almost wonder if we might have lucked up.

[balls_deep]

Originally posted by phuckbunny
You're right, Balls, but the Supreme Court has not defined what an erotic image is, is what I'm saying.

actually they have. It is defined by your community standards. Im not gonna get in your face about the bullshit that is our freedom of speach, but you are taking liberties that could be construed as explicit.

no pink, no dick, no worries.

[phuckbunny]

Originally posted by balls_deep
actually they have. It is defined by your community standards.

Balls, believe me I don't mean any disrespect because I like you and you've helped me out and we have both started out around the same time but I don't understand why what you're stating amounts to a double standard.

If you're still living in PA, I'm sure your community standards won't approve of naked vampire chicks covered in theatrical blood; and if when saying "pink" you mean pussy then you show plenty of pink too, so you're telling Bill not to show dick and say "no pink no dick" but you yourself show plenty of 'explicit' pussy on your sites.

Is pussy less obscene in legal terms vs cock? I'd like to hear what the Supreme Court told you about that.

You are taking the very same liberties as I am and perhaps more.

[balls_deep]

Originally posted by phuckbunny
If you're still living in PA, I'm sure your community standards won't approve of naked vampire chicks covered in theatrical blood; and if when saying "pink" you mean pussy then you show plenty of pink too, so you're telling Bill not to show dick and say "no pink no dick" but you yourself show plenty of 'explicit' pussy on your sites.

yes, I do live in the middle of no where, in the heart of Amish country. My guidlines, if pressed would be harsh.

I do show dick, ass, pussy, and extreme shit on my sites.... but i own the content and the docs or the images are hotlinked... which in itself is a fine line, but one im willing to cross.

I'm not shouting the law of the land here just saying protect your ass.

[phuckbunny]

Oh come on, BD, I'm not trying to bust your balls deep balls but hotlinked or not, the image is on your site. Are we going to wait for the courts to define hotlinking vs publishing? I never heard of that as a way out of this.

[balls_deep]

Originally posted by phuckbunny
I never heard of that as a way out of this.

you have to be kidding me? this has been a main debate since the last revision of the law came out.

I like you to PB, but i don't mind arguing.

[Paul Markham]

Here's a very simple rule.

If you host it you're responsible for it.

That goes way beyond 2257 and covers your ass. If the content is stolen, model under age, model did not sign rights for work to be published, etc. Having the documents on 2257 show you went some way to protecting yourself.

However once you start checking then you're really responsible.

The law needs to be changed so those who publish and especially run websites can check legality and be held responsible for what's on their site. the biggest loophole is "I don't check so I'm not responsible."

[balls_deep]

Originally posted by Paul Markham
The law needs to be changed so those who publish and especially run websites can check legality and be held responsible for what's on their site. the biggest loophole is "I don't check so I'm not responsible."

I agree paul... if you could, please write that bill out and provide me with a legitimate explanation of how it won't be bent over backwards, i would appreciate it.

the truth is no one has come up with a good solution to the real problem which is CP.

There is really no reason for us beating each other up over the issue.

if you comply, bend the ruless, or just plain disregard the law... It doesn't matter none of us are ever going to get inspected.

[Paul Markham]

Originally posted by balls_deep
I agree paul... if you could, please write that bill out and provide me with a legitimate explanation of how it won't be bent over backwards, i would appreciate it.

the truth is no one has come up with a good solution to the real problem which is CP.

There is really no reason for us beating each other up over the issue.

if you comply, bend the ruless, or just plain disregard the law... It doesn't matter none of us are ever going to get inspected.

Very true. The Internet has made a lot of the old rules defunct.

[pyratas]

I gave up on 2257 with sponsors over a year ago.

Let me re-assure, the gov is NOT going to knock on your door. (*not* guaranteed)

This is a silly scare-tactic that is now outdated.

The DOJ has no means of busting any of us, let's be reasonable here!

My content that I produce is' 2257X3fold' (I'm a fire-marshall when it comes to my own work) But as far as others I put on a site..........fuck it.....the scare is over.

Besides the bigboy sponsors/companies and a couple smaller companies that had very looking young men........Has anyone been investigated?

I'm not worried.

Fuck 2257.......Use good Judgment instead!

[Hammer]

I almost agree with Pyratas on this one but I'd have to say that 2257 aside, you could still get busted for posting anything that violated your community's obscenity laws. I seriously doubt that a picture of a guy dressed as a chick with his erect penis showing is gonna get anyone busted but if there was a kid in the photo or if the guy was taking a dump on the floor, not so sure.

Bill, no one wants to look at a picture of a guy with a flaccid penis, so if you're going to show dicks, show hard ones and if I was you, I'd make sure I had the docs for the pics and fuck the rest. Put a 2257 disclaimer up that says you have the necessary docs for every model that appears on your website and will be happy to produce said documents upon request from the appropriate law enforcement agency and then put an email address on the page. The only part of 2257 that you're violating at that point is the part that says you must post your name and address and fuck that anyway because that part and most of the record keeping regulations would never stand up in court.

[sunfunbill]

Thanks all! I really think I'm going to keep it dick free for now! The pics they click on will take them to FHG or movies so I can still say they can see lots of porn on my site.

Of course you don't really want them just browsing your site spending an hour looking at pics anyways, you want them to join. So It is just as well to get them to click to see any good stuff. THat goes back to the old too much free stuff rule.

I will post a few new links each day they can click on to see new stuff, as well as having good real post about crossdressers in general. So, they have a lot to come back for. I really think this type of site should have a forum ASAP as it would be a great way to interact.

I'll just have to make up a dozen or so people to start it. But hey, I don't seem to have a problem talking, do I!!!!