Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jayeff
My ambivalence towards FSC is more basic. They are describing themselves as "the trade association of the adult entertainment industry" and they are offering "memberships". Yet taking the information available on the site at face value, I would be paying a fee for their "Board of Directors and professional staff" to spend as they see fit.
|
the situation you described happens with all associations, much like the ones you were a member of. Same is true with condos. If you own a condo, you have no control over what the board decides to spend money on in using up the escrow account, but that's why people who are concerned run for office.
FSC board is elected by the members, so being active in FSC as a director would allow for some level control.... otherwise, yes, you do have to sit back and allow them to operate as they see fit with the funds., no different than contributions to ACLU or EFF.
Members get some latitude on FSC directions through voting on issues, but your concerns about how they spend the money once you give it to them is out of your hands.
Given the various posts that I have seen of yours, you'd probably make a good FSC director, but i also understand that activism takes time, but it's the motivated (good or bad) people that make changes (good or bad).
On your point about what is FSC challenging on 2257, they were pretty clear in their oppostion letter:
http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/F...7_Comments.htm
What's really interesting is reading the DOJ response to comments like what was presented above and their answers.. most things they rejected.
The clock is ticking down for them to file their injunctions and lawsuits, so I would expect to be reading news about it shortly, probably the actual fiiling where the attorneys have specified their challenges.
There is still alot of substance to 2257 from the previous regulations to the new ones that will survive any legal challenge.
"Do nothing" seems to be the popular action by most, and is one that is the most concerning, because of apathy and inaction, webmasters can go to jail for a felony offense, just because they were lazy in not keeping their records straight. You can go to jail if you don't keep you IRS filings straight, so it's not too far of a stretch to see that compliance with 2257 should be taken as seriously as other required business activities.
Your point about the need for clear and forthcoming information is a valid one, and one that seems to be addressed with the hiring of Tom Hymes as the Communciations Director, former editor of AVNonline. Tom will certainly be providing timely and insightful information over the FSC issues.
FSC certainly has some more evolving to do as it seeks to bring in more internet-based members. Michelle seems to be taking FSC in a positive direction since her arrival, so hopefully your viewpoints will be answered through actions, since it does seem that FSC is the most logical choice to represent a large group of adult online webmasters over these confusing and technical legal issues.
Fight the Hereto and wherefore!