Just went to an interesting site called www.nationalblacklist.com. It appears to be a venture in conjunction with Exotics. On one of their webpages, they discussed the law above at great length, and warned providers not to advertise on domestically owned escort malls. They then pointed out that Exotics is Swiss-owned, and therefore exempt from maintaining records of the advertisers real age, address,etc. They explicitly warned providers not to purchase ad space on That Mall, etc.
What is the reality in terms of enforceability of this recently changed law? Or are the numerous warnings on their website just another tactic to reel in provider dollars? Thanks in advance for your reply.
-- Modified on 10/14/2006 8:02:30 AM
The statute only applies to"producers" of "visual depictions" of "actual sexually explicit conduct".
18 U.S.C. 2256 defines some of these terms. "Produces" means "produce, manufacture, or publish any book, magazine, periodical, film, video tape, computer generated image, digital image, or picture, or other similar matter and includes the duplication, reproduction, or reissuing of any such matter, but does not include mere distribution or any other activity which does not involve hiring, contracting for managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers depicted".
It defines "sexually explicit conduct" as:
(2) 'sexually explicit conduct' means actual or simulated—
(A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(B) bestiality;
(C) masturbation;
(D) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person.
Some points to keep in mind:
First, the word "actual" in section 2257 means that SIMULATED sexually explicit conduct is not covered.
Second, item (e) on this list ("lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person") is expressly NOT governed by section 2257. This means that even the raunchiest full nudity is okay as long as it isn't coupled with actual sex, masturbation, bestiality or S&M.
Third, the statute only applies to "visual depictions". This means photos, video, etc.Written descriptions, discussions, etc. are not covered.
Fourth, the statute does not outlaw using even the type of images described above. It just requires those who use such images to keep records documenting that the people depicted are adults. These requirements are a bit cumbersome but are manageable. If they weren't, the adult film and magazine industries would be out of business.
Not many provider ads depict actual sex, masturbation, bestiality or S&M, so the statute shouldn't pose a problem for most providers.
-- Modified on 10/14/2006 8:39:35 PM
-- Modified on 10/14/2006 8:40:07 PM
eom
let's thank God that the word "boobies" doesn't appear in it!
(still not a lawyer)