[Lee]

I'm dead serious about 2257.

Thats what makes it so funny dude.

I'm curious too, since you want to keep arguing the point that any nudity is covered, not just sexually explicit, why does your own 2257 compliance notice (from dilf.com) say the following?

Some visual depictions displayed on this Website are exempt from the provision of 18 U.S.C. section 2257 and 28 C.F.R. 75 because said visual depictions do not consist of depictions of conduct as specifically listed in 18 U.S.C section 2256 (2) (A) through (D), but are merely depictions of non-sexually explicit nudity, or are depictions of simulated sexual conduct, or are otherwise exempt because the visual depictions were created prior to July 3, 1995.

The part I'm curious about is where it says "Some visual depictions displayed on the website are exempt from the provision... because said visual depictions do not consist of depictions of conduct... but are merely depictions of non-sexually explicit nudity, or are depictions of simulated sexual conduct..."

So you're saying that you can show a picture depicting 'simulated sex' and be exempt?

You should ask out attorney because that was his interpretation of the law just as the attorneys you keep quoting are interpreting the law in a different way.

Might you also enlighten all of us how it is that you argued with me on another board that a picture of a car could be considered sexually stimulating so any nudity or even people posed in a provacative way -- although fully clothed -- would require 2257 info to be displayed, when your own notice states that pictures on your site that show nudity, but not sexually explicit or showing simulated sex, are exempt?

Come on dude thats not what i said at all, that was YOUR interpretation of what i said LOL

Just what exactly do you consider a non-sexually explicit nude picture to be? And explain how your definition would be different than mine which was as long as the picture does not show an overt display of the genitals, simulated or real sex, s&m or masturbation, it would be exempt.

My interpretation is what my attorney tells me it is, thats what we pay them for.. to make sure my version of the law is the closest to their version so if there are any problems we can hopefully have them resolved (hopefully) amicably with the minimum of fuss.

That's the same definition that Larry Walters used in the 2257 seminar in Hollywood by the way.

Your point being?

P.S. The argument you got into with me on the other board kind of made you a keyboard lawyer, didn't it.

Um no LOL

Regards,

Lee