Quote:
Originally posted by Lee@Aug 25 2004, 07:09 AM
QUOTE]Come on dude thats not what i said at all, that was YOUR interpretation of what i said LOLQUOTE]
|
Here is what I posted on the other board:
"By using pics that do NOT show full frontal nudity, simulated or real sex, masturbation, etc. you can completely avoid the need to comply with the 2257 regulations."
Here's your reply:
Hammer, no offence dude but you're talking crap. *ANY* image that can be construed as 'sexually explicit' MUST have the required US2257 documents in use whether you are showing cock, pussy, tits, or only ass.
So now you're telling me that your attorney tells you that you don't need to comply with 2257 for images that are merely depictions of non-sexually explicit nudity, or are depictions of simulated sexual conduct, but you told me I was full of crap when I took it a step further and suggested to be safe it would be best to not show full frontal nudity?
Here's the car quote from that thread:
"Even a car could become sexual to the point where a surfer jacks off to it, just because an image is animate or not, doesnt make it any less sexual than a real person, this is the whole concept of a 'fetish'."
You came up with that analogy to prove your point that a picture didn't need to show nudity to be considered sexually explicit, even though now you say you are following your own attorney's advice and he says it's ok to show nudity and simulated sex. I guess you just wanted to argue with me and didn't really mean what you said.
Sorry, you can deny it all you want, but arguing with me in that thread made you one of the keyboard lawyers you're ridiculing, unless you have a law degree I dont know about. If you tell me I'm wrong and then give me reasons why but don't have the legal credentials to back your arguments up, how does that make you any different than anyone else that thinks they're right?