![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
||||
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 2004
Posts: 4,027
|
SO whats the 2257 law regarding user submitted content?
like on dating sites where users submit nude photos, and sometimes videos of themselves.
Before it was ok because of the government cant prevent a person from posting a photo of themselves because of freedom of speech. What does the new 2257 law say about this now? |
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2 | |
Confirmed User
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: 418194907
Posts: 3,134
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |
Confirmed User
Join Date: May 2002
Location: European Union
Posts: 3,815
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Fuck Checks, CASH only!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 19,422
|
talk to a lawyer this place is full of bad 2257 info
__________________
![]() Spanking, Medical Fetish, Sleeping, Strap-on Anal Lesbians, Girls Fucking Guys, Handjob site REAL HOT, Shemales, Anal and Ass Licking sites 100% Real EXCLUSIVE with amazing retention, ccbill payouts, lots of content FREE FTP HOSTING Promote the largest and oldest member paid escort site, Converts 10 times better then any dating site, CCBill payouts ICQ# 158802076 |
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#5 | |
A freakin' legend!
Industry Role:
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada USA
Posts: 18,975
|
Quote:
I think if it is non-sexually explicit, you are exempt. However, check with a lawyer and do what your lawyer says to do.
__________________
Boner Money |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Confirmed User
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 451
|
It's a complicated issue with a lot of conflicting information because the new regs are not completely clear on the subject. I know most of the well-known first amendment attorneys have a private mailing list and bounce opinions back and forth, so I suspect they will be talking extensively about these issues at Internext.
In the meantime, it's probably prudent to prepare now to have a method within your web applications to be able to have whomever is reviewing your site's content identify photos as explicit or nonexplicit. That way, assuming the regs are shown to be enforceable, all you would have to do is flip a switch and all explicit images could be turned off. That's what we've been working on for about a year now with one of our projects that's under development. One other sticky issue: The definition of "nonexplicit" or "2257 exempt" is changing; previously, mere nudity was exempt, so, for example, a pic of a guy with a raging hard-on who wasn't touching himself would have been exempt, as would a pic with people who were "simulating" sex but weren't actually having sex. The new regs attempt to make both sorts of images subject to 2257, although in my (non-legal) opinion, that would be a pretty clear violation of the first amendment.
__________________
Gaybucks.com 100% exclusive American guys - hosted movie galleries - NATS - Boyfunk.com - Boysfeetclub.com - AJsCloset.com- SkylerDeVoss.com ICQ 272-995-402 ![]() |
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |