> doesn't really explain what intimate means It doesn't have to. The act exclusively amends 15 USC 6851, which already defines it in §6851(a)(5): http://uscode

> doesn't really explain what intimate means It doesn't have to. The act exclusively amends 15 USC 6851, which already defines it in §6851(a)(5): http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:15%20section:6851%20edition:prelim) http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:15%20section:6... (5) Intimate visual depiction The term "intimate visual depiction"- (A) means a visual depiction, as that term is defined in section 2256(5) of title 18, that depicts- (i) the uncovered genitals, pubic area, anus, or post-pubescent female nipple of an identifiable individual; or (ii) the display or transfer of bodily sexual fluids- (I) on to any part of the body of an identifiable individual; (II) from the body of an identifiable individual; or (III) an identifiable individual engaging in sexually explicit conduct and (B) includes any visual depictions described in subparagraph (A) produced while the identifiable individual was in a public place only if the individual did not- (i) voluntarily display the content depicted; or (ii) consent to the sexual conduct depicted. > A law like this would have 100% clashed with the ruling of Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell (1988) It would not. The parody advert at the heart of Hustler vs. Falwell did not include an "intimate visual depiction" of Falwell. It had a stock portrait of him, and lurid satirical text purporting to be his own words: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5d/Falwellhustler.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5d/Falwellhustle...