2 ms·
It wouldn't have anything to do with this, would it? http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-29677.pdf http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-29677.pdf S
by iamdave 18y ago
It wouldn't have anything to do with this, would it?
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-29677.pdf http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-29677.pdf
See pg 38-42
These NEW record keeping regulations extend a NEW recordkeeping requirement to a LOT of work involving mere nudity, and some with no actual nudity at all, presented in any way that can be interpreted as "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or public area" [even if covered] that is produced on or after March 18, 2009
Seems to me that Facebook is just trying to cover it's ass.
- gjm11 18y agoWell ... not exactly its ass.
- azanar 18y agoBreasts aren't considered part of the genitalia, and also breastfeeding isn't exactly a lascivious display. That they did this does not strike me as a legal thing, much more a PR thing; they don't want to piss off anyone who is offended by the display of too much of the wrong area of skin.