Quote:
|
Originally Posted by A1R3K
i dated a prosecutor in l.a., a cum laude stanford law school grad at that. she laughed at me when i told her about all this. that is so b.s. to apply something in this sense to one person over another because they are a member of an organization is definitely not impartial or judicial. i'm not trying to rain on the fsc's parade here, but it seems pretty silly to me for someone the think the judicial system cares more about someone who is a member of a coalition. we're all equal citizen's of a country that prides itself on our so called "justice" system. otherwise, what the hell good is our constitution? it's almost like saying "well, your a platinum level citizen, you're good." meanwhile, "you're only a bronze level citizen sir, looks like you get to have a records inspection." i think what the fsc is doing is great, but the whole "you're protected thing and you're not" doesn't add up to me. has any of the lawyers like j.d, greg, or clyde said anything to support that statement. my post is purely inquiry based here and not attacking fsc. this is what i know and have been told by my x-girlfriend.
|
First, never trust a prosecutor... girlfriend or not. That said, it's my personal feeling that it's VERY unlikely that ANY secondary producer, FSC member or not, would need to keep records at this point. While technically the injunction is issued on behalf of the party that is challenging the law, I just can't imagine how the government could determine who is and who isn't an FSC member... or when they joined... so, seems secondary producers are in good shape all the way around. BUT... and I said this before... it also makes no sense to me to NOT be an FSC member, especially now that we've all seen the benefit of the industry having this kind of united voice.
Lightspeed affiliates are enjoying one of the benefits right now, in fact.
Pussy shots return!