Correct me if I'm wrong, on this 2257 deal - GoFuckYourself.com

Kimmykim · 06-23-2005, 03:52 PM

While I certainly applaud the FSC for going to bat for their member base, and for working out a stopgap sort of measure with the DOJ, I've yet to see it stated clearly anywhere that if the FSC does not receive an injunction from the courts on August 8th, or if the FSC does not prevail in court ultimately --

that anyone, including FSC members are getting a "get out of jail free" card for failing to be compliant today.

What I am asking is for someone to show me where it's written that if the DOJ wins on this case, it is stated that anyone who is out of compliance today will not have to answer for their non-compliance.

My main reason for bringing up this point is that I've had several people icq me saying things along the lines of them not having to worry about what they have today on their servers. That they'll join FSC and they'll somehow be safe no matter what the outcome is on the court battle.

I'm not trying to scare anyone, but unless someone has this in writing from the DOJ, what is to stop them from screen shotting everyone they think might be non-compliant today, and then should they win in court, coming back and saying on June 23rd, the date for compliance, you had this on your tours, your member areas, whatever, and requiring you to prove compliance on the images or videos?

I just don't see this deal as changing potential indictments in the event that the DOJ takes the day in court down the road.

Just_Dave · 06-23-2005, 03:55 PM

very interesting stuff kimmy

Fletch XXX · 06-23-2005, 03:57 PM

Sly · 06-23-2005, 03:59 PM

No, you are right. Today simply buys time for everyone. That week of August everyone will be nervous once again.

Kimmykim · 06-23-2005, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fletch XXX

This does seem like the study of the Talmud sometimes.

BradShaw · 06-23-2005, 03:59 PM

Lack of an injunction is disturbing, I am not really sure why they settled for less.

3piece chicken Dinner · 06-23-2005, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kimmykim

While I certainly applaud the FSC for going to bat for their member base, and for working out a stopgap sort of measure with the DOJ, I've yet to see it stated clearly anywhere that if the FSC does not receive an injunction from the courts on August 8th, or if the FSC does not prevail in court ultimately --

that anyone, including FSC members are getting a "get out of jail free" card for failing to be compliant today.

What I am asking is for someone to show me where it's written that if the DOJ wins on this case, it is stated that anyone who is out of compliance today will not have to answer for their non-compliance.

My main reason for bringing up this point is that I've had several people icq me saying things along the lines of them not having to worry about what they have today on their servers. That they'll join FSC and they'll somehow be safe no matter what the outcome is on the court battle.

I'm not trying to scare anyone, but unless someone has this in writing from the DOJ, what is to stop them from screen shotting everyone they think might be non-compliant today, and then should they win in court, coming back and saying on June 23rd, the date for compliance, you had this on your tours, your member areas, whatever, and requiring you to prove compliance on the images or videos?

I just don't see this deal as changing potential indictments in the event that the DOJ takes the day in court down the road.

Damn it woman you're doing it again.

we were all advised to be compliant by TODAY.

adonthenet · 06-23-2005, 04:00 PM

sorry 2257 on my dick

ronaldo · 06-23-2005, 04:00 PM

That's the interpretation I got from it too.

If you're not compliant TODAY and the FSC loses, you're in danger of being charged.

The only thing non-compliant people will have going for them, is the DOJ has to KNOW how to create screenshots first.

3piece chicken Dinner · 06-23-2005, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BradShaw

Lack of an injunction is disturbing, I am not really sure why they settled for less.

And I applaud you for showing the good sense not to pass judgement yet. And stating it as a question which is a fine example for the sheep.

Kimmykim · 06-23-2005, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3piece chicken Dinner

Damn it woman you're doing it again.

we were all advised to be compliant by TODAY.

Some days I just get a wild hair up my ass ;)

FilthyRob · 06-23-2005, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fletch XXX

That's how I feel

wjxxx · 06-23-2005, 04:03 PM

these fuckers could do that

Fletch XXX · 06-23-2005, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FilthyRob

That's how I feel

"listening.jpg"

Kimmykim · 06-23-2005, 04:09 PM

I'm off to go sailing, but my point in starting this thread was to bring up the fact that as an industry, we are way too used to being overly complacent until the 11th hour, so to speak.

It's been a year since the original proposed changes were released, and while everyone had to know that something was coming down the pipe, very few did anything to get themselves at all prepared.

When I say I talk to people that have been on the short end of the DOJ prosecuting stick before, I should use the listening.jpg image.

EXACTLY what one of them told me would happen is EXACTLY what did happen. The DOJ would get everyone into an uproar, then back off for enough time to get everyone back to thinking they were above the law or above the cold, skeletal clutches of the law.

Then they drop the bomb on you.

What makes anyone think this is any different? Hell, I'd bet that Justice isnt anywhere near having the cases they want against their original target list. But I also bet that target list didn't change at 12:01 am today.

If you aren't compliant today, and you take this as some sort of stay of execution, you're crazy and probably stupid. A 7 year old can take a screen shot, what makes you think the DOJ can't or won't?

There's an old saying about giving someone enough rope.

I certainly hope the DOJ isn't hanging a number of you with their deal today.

Shok · 06-23-2005, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kimmykim

Some days I just get a wild hair up my ass ;)

and small asian boys

martyVP · 06-23-2005, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kimmykim

While I certainly applaud the FSC for going to bat for their member base, and for working out a stopgap sort of measure with the DOJ, I've yet to see it stated clearly anywhere that if the FSC does not receive an injunction from the courts on August 8th, or if the FSC does not prevail in court ultimately --

that anyone, including FSC members are getting a "get out of jail free" card for failing to be compliant today.

What I am asking is for someone to show me where it's written that if the DOJ wins on this case, it is stated that anyone who is out of compliance today will not have to answer for their non-compliance.

My main reason for bringing up this point is that I've had several people icq me saying things along the lines of them not having to worry about what they have today on their servers. That they'll join FSC and they'll somehow be safe no matter what the outcome is on the court battle.

I'm not trying to scare anyone, but unless someone has this in writing from the DOJ, what is to stop them from screen shotting everyone they think might be non-compliant today, and then should they win in court, coming back and saying on June 23rd, the date for compliance, you had this on your tours, your member areas, whatever, and requiring you to prove compliance on the images or videos?

I just don't see this deal as changing potential indictments in the event that the DOJ takes the day in court down the road.

I have discussed this matter with my attorney and he said it would be rarethat they go back and get someone who was a part of the lawsuit, it would just be bad faith on their part.

Centurion · 06-23-2005, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kimmykim

I'm off to go sailing, but my point in starting this thread was to bring up the fact that as an industry, we are way too used to being overly complacent until the 11th hour, so to speak.

It's been a year since the original proposed changes were released, and while everyone had to know that something was coming down the pipe, very few did anything to get themselves at all prepared.

When I say I talk to people that have been on the short end of the DOJ prosecuting stick before, I should use the listening.jpg image.

EXACTLY what one of them told me would happen is EXACTLY what did happen. The DOJ would get everyone into an uproar, then back off for enough time to get everyone back to thinking they were above the law or above the cold, skeletal clutches of the law.

Then they drop the bomb on you.

What makes anyone think this is any different? Hell, I'd bet that Justice isnt anywhere near having the cases they want against their original target list. But I also bet that target list didn't change at 12:01 am today.

If you aren't compliant today, and you take this as some sort of stay of execution, you're crazy and probably stupid. A 7 year old can take a screen shot, what makes you think the DOJ can't or won't?

There's an old saying about giving someone enough rope.

I certainly hope the DOJ isn't hanging a number of you with their deal today.

And the list for "what happened today is not necessarily good for webmasters" continues to grow.

Centurion · 06-23-2005, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyVP

I have discussed this matter with my attorney and he said it would be rarethat they go back and get someone who was a part of the lawsuit, it would just be bad faith on their part.

Yeah, this administration and justice dept is known FAR and WIDE for their good faith ain't they? lol

Sarah_Jayne · 06-23-2005, 04:29 PM

well..if you have your records in order by the time the grace period is over how are they going to know you didn't have them today?

kristin · 06-23-2005, 04:32 PM

I said the same thing days ago ... when someone brought up well, we won't get busted in 13 hours, blah, blah, blah ... I said, who is to say they don't have computer junkies with a list of paysites/programs that they go through, find non-compliancy THEN come after you at a later date ...

emmanuelle · 06-23-2005, 04:37 PM

If ultimately the fsc fails to win an injunction, will that membership list continue to be sealed?

The Sultan Of Smut · 06-23-2005, 04:49 PM

I don't get how being a member of a club makes you immune to prosecution and all non-members are ripe for the pickin. I'm not familiar with many US laws but that seems pretty weird... Was there an attempt at getting an injunction or did the FSC broker this sweetheart deal to encourage webmasters (most likely by the hundreds) to sign up.

On a side note, if I was a US webmaster I'd already be signed up for no other reason than to support a group that was fighting for my industry.

NetRodent · 06-23-2005, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emmanuelle

If ultimately the fsc fails to win an injunction, will that membership list continue to be sealed?

It will probably remain "sealed" but that's irrelevant. The DOJ merely has to ask the Special Master enough names and eventually they'll know most if not all of FSC's members.

tony286 · 06-23-2005, 04:55 PM

been compliant on the front of my site since the proposed regs

Probono · 06-23-2005, 04:59 PM

Why is this so hard to understand

1. The lawsuit was filed by a few individuals and the Free Speech Coalition for it's members. They are the people covered by the agreement.

2. The law is still the law and has been the law since the last century.

3. The new regulations still apply for EVERYONE, all that is delayed are inspections for the protected class.

4. If you a member of the protected class use the time to get your records in order because unless a permanent injunction is granted they can come and enforce the law in the future.

If you are not willing to participate in the law suit you can file your own or quit complaining about paying for less than one hour of an attorney's time.

pornguy · 06-23-2005, 05:01 PM

Very true, and very interesting, but I think that it was a MAJOR fuck up on their part for the part about ONLY protecting thier paying members. I thought that free speach was for everyone.

dopeman · 06-23-2005, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NetRodent

It will probably remain "sealed" but that's irrelevant. The DOJ merely has to ask the Special Master enough names and eventually they'll know most if not all of FSC's members.

well if they already have the names to ask, then you're already on the list.

VeriSexy · 06-23-2005, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornguy

Very true, and very interesting, but I think that it was a MAJOR fuck up on their part for the part about ONLY protecting thier paying members. I thought that free speach was for everyone.

Money talks, BS walks

V_RocKs · 06-23-2005, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Probono

Why is this so hard to understand

1. The lawsuit was filed by a few individuals and the Free Speech Coalition for it's members. They are the people covered by the agreement.

2. The law is still the law and has been the law since the last century.

3. The new regulations still apply for EVERYONE, all that is delayed are inspections for the protected class.

4. If you a member of the protected class use the time to get your records in order because unless a permanent injunction is granted they can come and enforce the law in the future.

If you are not willing to participate in the law suit you can file your own or quit complaining about paying for less than one hour of an attorney's time.

HEY, Whoa! I paid for a FULL hour of the attorney's time.

Socks · 06-23-2005, 05:16 PM

Did you have to be compliant as the clock struck 12 last night, or do we have to become compliant today?

Kimmykim · 06-24-2005, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyVP

I have discussed this matter with my attorney and he said it would be rarethat they go back and get someone who was a part of the lawsuit, it would just be bad faith on their part.

Well, let's just say for the sake of proving how irrelevant that might be --

They don't inspect ANYONE for the next 3 months, for example. The FSC does not win their injunction. The DOJ then comes to inspect someone, who happens to be an FSC member. The DOJ asks for compliance back to yesterday. The person is non-compliant.

At this point the DOJ really doesn't care whether you are, were or even have heard of the FSC, since there is no injunction.

How is this bad faith?

Just an example of what might happen. There is no excuse for not being compliant today.

Peaches · 06-24-2005, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kimmykim

There is no excuse for not being compliant today.

That seems to be the part people are missing.

Brad Mitchell · 06-24-2005, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kimmykim

While I certainly applaud the FSC for going to bat for their member base, and for working out a stopgap sort of measure with the DOJ, I've yet to see it stated clearly anywhere that if the FSC does not receive an injunction from the courts on August 8th, or if the FSC does not prevail in court ultimately --

that anyone, including FSC members are getting a "get out of jail free" card for failing to be compliant today.

What I am asking is for someone to show me where it's written that if the DOJ wins on this case, it is stated that anyone who is out of compliance today will not have to answer for their non-compliance.

My main reason for bringing up this point is that I've had several people icq me saying things along the lines of them not having to worry about what they have today on their servers. That they'll join FSC and they'll somehow be safe no matter what the outcome is on the court battle.

I'm not trying to scare anyone, but unless someone has this in writing from the DOJ, what is to stop them from screen shotting everyone they think might be non-compliant today, and then should they win in court, coming back and saying on June 23rd, the date for compliance, you had this on your tours, your member areas, whatever, and requiring you to prove compliance on the images or videos?

I just don't see this deal as changing potential indictments in the event that the DOJ takes the day in court down the road.

From my understanding, KK, you are not wrong in your assertion.

Cory W · 06-24-2005, 08:40 AM

Marty actually has a very logical point. If they investigate someone that isn't compliant, then they are not compliant and the timeframe is not as relevant. However, if they go after someone and they prove compliant, I doubt they would backtrack just to make a case. You have to think, if they backtrack on a current compliant defendant, the case would be tough. They would fair better to just move on to someone that would be easy to prosecute.

Of course, that is just my opinion.

06-23-2005, 03:52 PM	#1
Kimmykim bitchslapping zebras!!!!! Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: In a shack by the beach Posts: 16,015	Correct me if I'm wrong, on this 2257 deal While I certainly applaud the FSC for going to bat for their member base, and for working out a stopgap sort of measure with the DOJ, I've yet to see it stated clearly anywhere that if the FSC does not receive an injunction from the courts on August 8th, or if the FSC does not prevail in court ultimately -- that anyone, including FSC members are getting a "get out of jail free" card for failing to be compliant today. What I am asking is for someone to show me where it's written that if the DOJ wins on this case, it is stated that anyone who is out of compliance today will not have to answer for their non-compliance. My main reason for bringing up this point is that I've had several people icq me saying things along the lines of them not having to worry about what they have today on their servers. That they'll join FSC and they'll somehow be safe no matter what the outcome is on the court battle. I'm not trying to scare anyone, but unless someone has this in writing from the DOJ, what is to stop them from screen shotting everyone they think might be non-compliant today, and then should they win in court, coming back and saying on June 23rd, the date for compliance, you had this on your tours, your member areas, whatever, and requiring you to prove compliance on the images or videos? I just don't see this deal as changing potential indictments in the event that the DOJ takes the day in court down the road.

06-23-2005, 03:57 PM	#3
Fletch XXX GFY HALL OF FAME DAMMIT!!! Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: that 504 Posts: 60,840	__________________ Want an Android App for your tube, membership, or free site? Need banners or promo material? Hit us up (ICQ Fletch: 148841377) or email me fletchxxx at gmail.com - recent work - About me

06-23-2005, 03:59 PM	#4
Sly Let's do some business! Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 31,329	No, you are right. Today simply buys time for everyone. That week of August everyone will be nervous once again. __________________ Vacares - Web Hosting, Domains, O365, Security & More - Paxum and BTC Accepted Windows VPS now available Great for TSS, Nifty Stats, remote work, virtual assistants, etc. Click here for more details.

06-23-2005, 03:59 PM	#6
BradShaw Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: KB's trailer Posts: 7,840	Lack of an injunction is disturbing, I am not really sure why they settled for less. __________________ Sig too big http://www.gofuckyourself.com/gfy_faqs.html Want to use a large banner in your sig??? Contact Eric about getting on as an advertiser - eric AT adult.com

06-23-2005, 04:32 PM	#21
kristin GOO! Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Back Home : ) Posts: 9,768	I said the same thing days ago ... when someone brought up well, we won't get busted in 13 hours, blah, blah, blah ... I said, who is to say they don't have computer junkies with a list of paysites/programs that they go through, find non-compliancy THEN come after you at a later date ... __________________ Vacares rules. "Usually only fat guys have the kind of knowledge and ability that Kristin has."

06-23-2005, 03:55 PM	#2
Just_Dave Its almost time Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 13,009	very interesting stuff kimmy

06-23-2005, 04:00 PM	#8
adonthenet Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 16,753	sorry 2257 on my dick

06-23-2005, 04:00 PM	#9
ronaldo Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: ICQ#: 272000271 Posts: 5,475	That's the interpretation I got from it too. If you're not compliant TODAY and the FSC loses, you're in danger of being charged. The only thing non-compliant people will have going for them, is the DOJ has to KNOW how to create screenshots first.

06-23-2005, 04:03 PM	#13
wjxxx So Fucking Banned Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 4,448	these fuckers could do that

06-23-2005, 04:09 PM	#15
Kimmykim bitchslapping zebras!!!!! Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: In a shack by the beach Posts: 16,015	I'm off to go sailing, but my point in starting this thread was to bring up the fact that as an industry, we are way too used to being overly complacent until the 11th hour, so to speak. It's been a year since the original proposed changes were released, and while everyone had to know that something was coming down the pipe, very few did anything to get themselves at all prepared. When I say I talk to people that have been on the short end of the DOJ prosecuting stick before, I should use the listening.jpg image. EXACTLY what one of them told me would happen is EXACTLY what did happen. The DOJ would get everyone into an uproar, then back off for enough time to get everyone back to thinking they were above the law or above the cold, skeletal clutches of the law. Then they drop the bomb on you. What makes anyone think this is any different? Hell, I'd bet that Justice isnt anywhere near having the cases they want against their original target list. But I also bet that target list didn't change at 12:01 am today. If you aren't compliant today, and you take this as some sort of stay of execution, you're crazy and probably stupid. A 7 year old can take a screen shot, what makes you think the DOJ can't or won't? There's an old saying about giving someone enough rope. I certainly hope the DOJ isn't hanging a number of you with their deal today.

06-23-2005, 04:29 PM	#20
Sarah_Jayne Now with more Jayne Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 40,077	well..if you have your records in order by the time the grace period is over how are they going to know you didn't have them today?

06-23-2005, 04:37 PM	#22
emmanuelle Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Oh Canada! Posts: 3,662	If ultimately the fsc fails to win an injunction, will that membership list continue to be sealed?

06-23-2005, 04:49 PM	#23
The Sultan Of Smut Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Vancouver Posts: 4,325	I don't get how being a member of a club makes you immune to prosecution and all non-members are ripe for the pickin. I'm not familiar with many US laws but that seems pretty weird... Was there an attempt at getting an injunction or did the FSC broker this sweetheart deal to encourage webmasters (most likely by the hundreds) to sign up. On a side note, if I was a US webmaster I'd already be signed up for no other reason than to support a group that was fighting for my industry.

06-23-2005, 04:55 PM	#25
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	been compliant on the front of my site since the proposed regs

06-23-2005, 04:59 PM	#26
Probono Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Under the Rainbow Posts: 2,731	Why is this so hard to understand 1. The lawsuit was filed by a few individuals and the Free Speech Coalition for it's members. They are the people covered by the agreement. 2. The law is still the law and has been the law since the last century. 3. The new regulations still apply for EVERYONE, all that is delayed are inspections for the protected class. 4. If you a member of the protected class use the time to get your records in order because unless a permanent injunction is granted they can come and enforce the law in the future. If you are not willing to participate in the law suit you can file your own or quit complaining about paying for less than one hour of an attorney's time.

06-23-2005, 05:01 PM	#27
pornguy Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Homeless Posts: 62,911	Very true, and very interesting, but I think that it was a MAJOR fuck up on their part for the part about ONLY protecting thier paying members. I thought that free speach was for everyone. __________________ PornGuy skype me pornguy_epic AmateurDough The Hottes Shemales online! TChicks.com \| Angeles Cid \| Mariana Cordoba \| MAILERS WELCOME!

06-23-2005, 05:16 PM	#31
Socks Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2002 Location: Toronto Posts: 8,475	Did you have to be compliant as the clock struck 12 last night, or do we have to become compliant today?

06-24-2005, 08:40 AM	#35
Cory W Deeply shallow Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Hollywood, Ca. Posts: 9,133	Marty actually has a very logical point. If they investigate someone that isn't compliant, then they are not compliant and the timeframe is not as relevant. However, if they go after someone and they prove compliant, I doubt they would backtrack just to make a case. You have to think, if they backtrack on a current compliant defendant, the case would be tough. They would fair better to just move on to someone that would be easy to prosecute. Of course, that is just my opinion. __________________ ICQ: 292310358 Offering writing and content services (mainstream). Marketing for L3 Payments