Now, things got complicated when DOJ added an entirely new class of producers you speak of "secondary producers", anyone who "publishes, reproduces, or reissues" explicit material. This is where things get complicated. What followed was a circuit court decision, and other proceedings, that ruled these requirements were facially invalid because they imposed an overbroad burden on legitimate, constitutionally protected speech.

The real question now becomes about its enforcement. Much of the sexual material on the internet, even depiction of works of art several hundred years old, any form of nudity even for educational, anatomical purposes might fall under this law (lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person).

The burden on service providers, and hosting websites would be massive to speak of - consider the implication on Facebook for example, or Flickr, or even Google, being responsible for linking every single image in results, they don't possess the proper records of the depicted subjects, which might very well number into tens of millions.

Maybe that's why, it has been implemented only in one specific case primarily based on the new 2257 law and related legislation. The case was against Joe Francis, the originator of "Girls gone Wild" series. Also, of relevance might be that the series in question only depicted nudity, and not any sexual act. Even these charges were for the most part dropped later on.