Quote:
Originally Posted by mikesouth
Id like to point out here that I think the FSC really dropped the ball on this one anyway. The secondary producer thing is all fine and dandy but IMNSHO its the weakest argument of the bunch.
It seems to me the strong argument would have negated the entire law by simply saying how is someone supposed to be criminally held responsible for not being able to prove he didnt commit a crime that never happened.
The whole idea is ludicrous as is the idea that they can enter my residence with no warrant and help themselves to information they can use to charge me with a crime.
Had the FSC attacked on these levels I might be more supportive.
But getting back to the matter at hand These regs have nothing to do with protecting children and everything to do with making it easier to came down on the adult industry without having to draw obscenity convictions, see it for what it really is people.
Whether I deliver my name address and weaknesses to an enemy who has vowed to destroy me through a third party or whether I do it directly I dont see what difference it makes maybe they do have all this info already but at least I wasnt enough of a sheep to hand deliver it to them.
As for Kernes thinking the Democrats will be our saviour...dream on Mark theyd sell out porners as quick as the republicans would.
Maybe its time to become Canadian.
|
You weren't in federal court, and your assumptions about what FSC did or didn't do is starting to again sound like subjective and negative/hater haranging over and over again. Please use facts, not whatever misinformation you are relying upon. Attorneys Lou Sirkin, Paul Cambria, Jeffrey Douglas, etc DID bring up your points AND the UNconstitutionality of the former DOJ regs---get the transcripts, Mike! But, the Judge took the easy out and limited his published findings mostly to the TRO based upon the Sundance Precedence enjoiningg DOJ from including Secondary Producers, and said the other issues could be addressed later at trial. That trial, IMHO, will now happen once the new regs are published; and, unless DoJ takes our comments into consideration, you will see the decisions ( the ones relating to your present criticism against FSC, when it was the judge, NOT FSC, who chose to deal with them later at trial).
My role is NOT to back-up FSC against inuendo/hate/subjectiveness/criticism/unfounded accusations/etc, but I had to this time with my above comment about your mis-assumptions. Some on this board constantly badmouth people and organizations subjectively and without foundation--in my opinion, they are hurting the Industry. If I could wave a magic wand, it would be for such folks to stop spreading BS and to instead be the leaders that they could be---either that, or just please stfu.
I will not respond to any responses to my ranting--I'm done; ya's have burnt me out.
End of my Angry Rant,
Regards,
dave