[araxis]

Thank you for the responses. Very informative.

To go back to google. The thumbnails that google has for their image search(and of course their cache) aren't any different than a site that provides thumbnailed links to galleries.

So I would have to assume that either the law is worded in a way that protects sites that are categorized as search engines, or that google will be just as guilty as a site that provides the same kind of thumbnailed links without the 2257.

Doing an image search for 'f**k me on google (after taking off content filtering) will yield a results page that looks like any other pornographic thumbnail link site.

I'm not particularly interested in hosting full content simply thumbnailed links. I know that I've been focused on 'google' but It seems like the best way to look at it.

edit: btw for those not familiar with google's image search. Look at the top of the page and there will be a link to it. The search results are thumbnailed images(hosted by google).