Many Sexually Explicit Pictures Getting      Removed From The Web
        Adult Site Owners Forced To Remove Pictures

Lisa S. Lawless, Ph.D. CEO Holistic Wisdom, Inc. Founder

The battle has just begun between the Department of Justice (DOJ) and adult web site owners who are now being forced to remove many of their sexually explicit content including pictures, video covers, streaming video and more.

If you have not been following our newsletter, I am referring to the new revisions made to the Title 18 U.S.C. § 2257 law that were passed in May and go into effect June 23rd, 2005. If you have not read about that yet, I highly suggest that you do as it is affecting adult sites across the board.

For the past two weeks, I have been working with the Free Speech Coalition (FSC) and warning everyone I can of what is to come. You may even notice we have had to strip off many of our nude photographs from our site that were put into our articles as visual examples of things such as fisting, fingering, etc.

In our case many of those photographs were provided by web site visitors who we have lost touch with and have no way of getting their Title 18 U.S.C. § 2257 model releases. Therefore, we had to take them down. We also have some video covers we are still working on getting the releases for and may have to pull some of those as well until we can secure them or we get the revisions of this law overturned.

Remember that this is not because these pictures were of minors, in fact they were of consenting adults. However, the Department of Justice does not care about this fact (despite that being the whole point of the Title 18 2257 law)... they are requiring that we have the model releases on file and at our place of business. Bottom line, this is meant to disable to adult industry, of which we are a part.

Businesses Hardest Hit Or Forced To Close

While I am happy to report that it looks like our business will remain in tact with some minor changes, many adult sites are going to greatly reduce their business or shut down. The adult web sites that will be the hardest hit will be the sites that offer thumbnails, pictures, streaming video or product covers for which they cannot get Title 18 U.S.C. § 2257 model releases. This will strongly affect many amateur sites and adult sites that offer a diverse number of pictures, video, etc. that are paid or free where it would be impossible to get the thousands of model release forms required.

For example, an acquaintance of mine whose whole site (which consisted of amateurs sending in nude photos) will have to shut down for this very reason. Despite these pictures being of consenting adults who thought it would be fun to have their sexually explicit photo on the web, they did not fill out model releases and thus my friend will have to take those pictures off the web. Because this was the very focus of his entire web site he will have to shut it down. This was how he made his living. He will be out of a job or risk going to jail.

The Sexually Explicit Debate

One point that has been up for debate is- what is considered "sexually explicit" under the new regulations? We are still in the dark about this and will have to wait until the Law Suit with the Free Speech Coalition and the Department of Justice has concluded to have some things clarified.

Here is why it is confusing-

Many people in the adult industry are assuming that "sexually explicit" refers to things like sex acts or masturbation when it comes to the pictures and video on their sites. They often express that they do not feel this pertains to general nudity.

They may be assuming this based on what was previously defined in the Title 18 U.S.C. § 2257 law. But I think that the Department of Justice was sneaky by changing those definitions by the way they did it. They did not "add" any more specifics... what they did was remove the once specific examples and replaced them with a vague term... "sexually explicit."

Why would this be sneaky? Well, let's take a look at what they mean by "sexually explicit". In the United States Code these are defined as follows-

"Sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; bestiality; masturbation; sadistic or masochistic abuse; or lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person."

See, the last part in bold... that was not in the definitions before... so while it appears they took away the specific definitions, they actually added more... but made it harder for adult web site owners to figure this out.

Therefore, to the average adult web site owner, it would seem that the DOJ were being more lax on the definitions by taking out the specifics in the actual law, but when you look up what that actually means it has been made more rigid. That is why so many people in the adult industry who are aware of the changes, may not be fully aware of what they mean.

This is an important point because we are talking about a rather broad term. Lascivious, which mean lustful, can refer to many forms of nudity depending on how conservative your views. If this is the way the DOJ is going to define them (and it seems they are)... it will pretty much devastate the adult industry by requiring them to have model releases for even general nude images perceived as lustful on everything they display from pictures, pictures of products to streaming video, etc. Only those who produce the pictures, film, etc. will be able to show them on their web sites. That would shut down over half of adult sites on the web.

Sexually Explicit Definition Up For Debate?

My interpretation of the new sexually explicit guidelines is agreed upon by some lawyers and argued by others. Those who do not think that the "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person" definition will apply say that because "lascivious exhibition" was not in the definition "sexually explicit" at the time that the original 2257 law was written by Congress (it was added later) how could Congress intend it to apply to 2257?

Legally this could be read either way, and because the DOJ has been so ridiculous in the revisions to begin with, and taking into consideration that the religious right are driving many laws being passed right now... I am going to assume the worst until after the law suit spells this out more thoroughly.

Restraining Order Is In Place

I am happy to say that the Free Speech Coalition (FSC) has filed a restraining order for the state of Colorado (where we operate our business) which should offer us some protection until the law suit results are determined. However, the FSC have recommended we be compliant and so we have done everything we can do to be compliant despite the complete violation of ours and your constitutional rights.

Still Selling Our Products

While we are still going through over 2,000 web pages on our site to make sure we are compliant, I am very pleased to report that we have been able to get many of the model releases we needed to keep selling our products. We will also be able to sell our better sex videos, but we may need to remove the images of any covers that are sexually explicit under the new regulations. Therefore, I believe that we will be impacted, but with minimal damage compared to other adult sites.

Third Party Data Bases

There are some companies right now that are offering to serve as a data base for all of the 2257 model releases so that it will be easier for adult sites to obtain them. However, the Justice Department rejected calls for 2257 to permit third-party custody of records.

This is yet again, just another way the DOJ is trying to prevent law abiding adult companies from following the law because it is not their intention to protect minors, it is their intention to disable the adult industry.

What Are The Statistics Of Child Porn In The Adult Industry?

The Association of Sites Advocating Child Protection (ASACP) hotline receives over 75,000 reports of suspected child pornography sites each year. Of these, their compliance manager validates 3,000 as new Child Porn sites; 99.99% of which are not in any way, shape, or form related to the adult entertainment industry.

The child pornography producers and distributors are criminals who prey upon innocent children and sick pedophiles. The new rules will do nothing to find these criminals. The government is simply trying to position itself to arrest legitimate business people just to keep the religious right quiet.

The Hypocrisy

A friend of mine made this point and I could not resist mentioning it...

The government did not go after Catholic churches when it discovered that tens of thousands of children were molested. Where is the justice for children? Where is the freedom that Americans deserve in exploring their sexuality as consenting adults?

We will continue to update you on the dramatic unfolding of this unjustly revised law. Until then, please support all of those in the legitimate adult industry.

Hear Lisa On Playboy Radio

Lisa spoke about the New Title 18 U.S.C. § 2257 Revisions on 6-20-05 on Playboy Radio.

What Can You Do?

Join the Free Speech Coalition and find out more about what is going on and what you can do through their web site! In the meantime, stay tuned to our site for updates and know that we intend to stand up for your sexual health and education rights.

Join NASAE.org to band together and stay informed!