Considering Free Speech Coalition Donation - Please list their accomplishments - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

woj · 05-27-2005, 01:17 PM

50 donations..

tony286 · 05-27-2005, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by After Shock Media

Maybe opening the eyes of the public on how the Government is labeling things under the guise of protecting children when they have very little to nothing to do with it. Or how they are attempting to circumvent the rights of adults viewing habits by using scare tactics by grouping adult entertainment with child pornography.

Thank you another thinker

xxxjay · 05-27-2005, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

No explain how this really isnt a anti child porn law and then explain how there are no child in adult porn and how we are very vigilante on protecting children. Also talk about how most child predator are in aol, yahoo chat groups. Talk about clergy attacking children. Explain how they are using child as a shield to hide their real motives to decide what adults can and can not watch in the privacy of their own homes.Come on guys use your heads and that was just of of the top of mine.

Start explaining, Tony! You have 27 days left. Best of luck!

TheGoldenChild · 05-27-2005, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

No explain how this really isnt a anti child porn law and then explain how there are no child in adult porn and how we are very vigilante on protecting children. Also talk about how most child predator are in aol, yahoo chat groups. Talk about clergy attacking children. Explain how they are using child as a shield to hide their real motives to decide what adults can and can not watch in the privacy of their own homes.Come on guys use your heads and that was just of of the top of mine.

tony286 · 05-27-2005, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxjay

Start explaining, Tony! You have 27 days left. Best of luck!

THis should of been done starting ten years ago my friend.The reason they can do this is because they have public support if they didnt they wouldnt touch it .No I have a lawyer and have been working on being compliant Im depending on no one but myself. THey get a injunction great ,they dont thats fine too.

After Shock Media · 05-27-2005, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxjay

Start explaining, Tony! You have 27 days left. Best of luck!

Jay your a resonable person and have a brilliant business mind. They questions being asked here are really not attacks and I would presume you would see that. Some of us that are asking these questions are also supporters to boot.
This goes beyond the 2257 injunction, which in itself would not cost much to file and have heard by a court. Some of us are trying to look at the whole picture and have very reasonable questions and concerns about any organization we send money to.

TheGoldenChild · 05-27-2005, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by After Shock Media

Jay your a resonable person and have a brilliant business mind. They questions being asked here are really not attacks and I would presume you would see that. Some of us that are asking these questions are also supporters to boot.
This goes beyond the 2257 injunction, which in itself would not cost much to file and have heard by a court. Some of us are trying to look at the whole picture and have very reasonable questions and concerns about any organization we send money to.

WELL SAID.

Aly · 05-27-2005, 01:30 PM

Sent this thread to the FSC people.Hopefully somebody will respond.

KB, you've got one hell of a chip on your shoulder these days! ;)

TheGoldenChild · 05-27-2005, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aly_AVN

Sent this thread to the FSC people.Hopefully somebody will respond.

KB, you've got one hell of a chip on your shoulder these days! ;)

Just calling shit as I see it hun-
call me a pessimist, call me cynical, call me anything you want-
I know and see more than people think.

My momma didn't raise NO DUMMY
:-))

TheGoldenChild · 05-27-2005, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aly_AVN

Sent this thread to the FSC people.Hopefully somebody will respond.

KB, you've got one hell of a chip on your shoulder these days! ;)

Looking forward to Tom Hymes first official response as Communications Director-

He is the best thing to happen to FSC in years- that I think we can agree on.

xxxjay · 05-27-2005, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by After Shock Media

Jay your a resonable person and have a brilliant business mind. They questions being asked here are really not attacks and I would presume you would see that. Some of us that are asking these questions are also supporters to boot.
This goes beyond the 2257 injunction, which in itself would not cost much to file and have heard by a court. Some of us are trying to look at the whole picture and have very reasonable questions and concerns about any organization we send money to.

Flattery will get you nowhere - lol...my point is the FSC is doing A, B, and C to fight 2257. They are composed of and are hiring the best 1st ammendment lawyers out there to take this case to the goverment. Jeffery Douglas is the attorney for OCCash and also the chairman of the FSC. Truth is, there are very few lawyers that truely understand the online business and are qualified to defend it. Either as members of the FSC or working for the FSC, we have some of the most brilliant legal minds working together, along with a lobbiest in Washington, and a good PR guy for the industry. Do you really think is time for schism?

If you choose not to support them, fine -- but, I can't see what good slamming them on the boards and dividing us further will do. If you think you have a better solution go for it!

If you want to be so smug as to say "I'm not worried about 2257 becasue all of my shit is in order..." -- if you think that is true: good for you! But I am here to tell you that most likely you are not as well off as you think you are. 2257 is a beauroratic minefield set out before you. I know when someone is trying to use scare tactics and I also know when someone is spelling something out the ugly truth...the new regs were not designed for complicity, they were designed for destrection. There are no "good faith attempts" at complying. If you have 99,999 records and good order and 1 that is not, then you are not complying and that is a felony!

Our best bet is to destroy the regs and the FSC is the most organized, best trained, and (god willing) the best funded group to do that and, quite frankly, they seem to be the only ones that are willing to take up the cause. Even if they might have imperfections or there is this or that that you don't like about them -- they are the best fight we've got and I don't know why that is so hard to see.

After Shock Media · 05-27-2005, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxjay

Flattery will get you nowhere - lol...my point is the FSC is doing A, B, and C to fight 2257. They are composed of and are hiring the best 1st ammendment lawyers out there to take this case to the goverment. Jeffery Douglas is the attorney for OCCash and also the chairman of the FSC. Truth is, there are very few lawyers that truely understand the online business and are qualified to defend it. Either as members of the FSC or working for the FSC, we have some of the most brilliant legal minds working together, along with a lobbiest in Washington, and a good PR guy for the industry. Do you really think is time for schism?

If you choose not to support them, fine -- but, I can't see what good slamming them on the boards and dividing us further will do. If you think you have a better solution go for it!

If you want to be so smug as to say "I'm not worried about 2257 becasue all of my shit is in order..." -- if you think that is true: good for you! But I am here to tell you that most likely you are not as well off as you think you are. 2257 is a beauroratic minefield set out before you. I know when someone is trying to use scare tactics and I also know when someone is spelling something out the ugly truth...the new regs were not designed for complicity, they were designed for destrection. There are no "good faith attempts" at complying. If you have 99,999 records and good order and 1 that is not, then you are not complying and that is a felony!

Our best bet is to destroy the regs and the FSC is the most organized, best trained, and (god willing) the best funded group to do that and, quite frankly, they seem to be the only ones that are willing to take up the cause. Even if they might have imperfections or there is this or that that you don't like about them -- they are the best fight we've got and I don't know why that is so hard to see.

I will not dissagree there, and as I have stated I am a supporter. I just did not feel that my or others questions and comments were that out of wack or unjustified.

TheGoldenChild · 05-27-2005, 01:52 PM

Does anyone remember when the GIA got involved with the FSC

Whatever happened to the GIA?
Was it self serving or was it intended to be for the good pf the entire industry?

I think a lot of educated webmasters know the answer to that question..or those who were around to remember that organization anyway

tony286 · 05-27-2005, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by After Shock Media

I will not dissagree there, and as I have stated I am a supporter. I just did not feel that my or others questions and comments were that out of wack or unjustified.

Thank you, we cant question its a problem we have no postives in the media. I would gladly pay for that because whether you believe it or not its worth alot more than a brief because jurys watch the news and in the end a jury will decide your fate.

xxxjay · 05-27-2005, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kBizzle

Does anyone remember when the GIA got involved with the FSC

Whatever happened to the GIA?
Was it self serving or was it intended to be for the good pf the entire industry?

I think a lot of educated webmasters know the answer to that question..or those who were around to remember that organization anyway

Ok then KB -- who do you suggest should fight what is going on with these new regs?

I've been around, I'm no newbie -- tell me! You obviously have a personal problem with the FSC.

AsianDivaGirlsWebDude · 05-27-2005, 02:05 PM

Jay, I respect your passion on this issue, and I certainly want the FSC and whoever else might challenge the 2257 to win.

I sincerely hope that the courts will eventually strike down the most onerous provisions of the new 2257 regulations.

If FSC would set a lower Membership fee, they could then use their much larger Membership list to solicit money for their specific causes (such as striking down provisions in the 2257 regs).

I know the ACLU is always sending me issue-based appeals, which I don't mind contributing to, since they only charged me $25 for Membership.

The FSC might also consider a monthly fee, instead of requiring a lump sum amount.

If nothing else, a victory on 2257 should get the FSC lots of new Members, and considerably bolster their credibility.

ADG Webmaster

TheGoldenChild · 05-27-2005, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxjay

Ok then KB -- who do you suggest should fight what is going on with these new regs?

I've been around, I'm no newbie -- tell me! You obviously have a personal problem with the FSC.

I think we should get Al Sharpton to fight for all of us-
:-))
He gets more done in a day than most people in this industry.

And I have no personal beef with the FSC- I was the first one they solicited to help get them webmasters back in 2000
Your attorney should remember meeting me with Bill Lyons back at the Doubletree Hotel in Santa Monica.

He should also remember that I helped to raise over $2500 that day with two webmasters alone.

I then tried to help gather webmasters for their COPA meeting and was part of the meeting with Marc Klass and Perry Aftab as well as net nanny

I still have no idea what was accomplished that day or whatever became of any of them.

oh and I never received as much as a THANK YOU FROM THEM as well-

xxxjay · 05-27-2005, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

Jay, I respect your passion on this issue, and I certainly want the FSC and whoever else might challenge the 2257 to win.

I sincerely hope that the courts will eventually strike down the most onerous provisions of the new 2257 regulations.

If FSC would set a lower Membership fee, they could then use their much larger Membership list to solicit money for their specific causes (such as striking down provisions in the 2257 regs).

I know the ACLU is always sending me issue-based appeals, which I don't mind contributing to, since they only charged me $25 for Membership.

The FSC might also consider a monthly fee, instead of requiring a lump sum amount.

If nothing else, a victory on 2257 should get the FSC lots of new Members, and considerably bolster their credibility.

ADG Webmaster

I'm sure if you called them and explained your situation, they would allow you to join for less -- even they agree that there is strength in numbers.

TheGoldenChild · 05-27-2005, 02:16 PM

I just don't buy into this "sky is falling" attorney crap
I have seen this too many times before where the ambulance chasing starts and collective paranoia begins..

Just like the Cambria List.

xxxjay · 05-27-2005, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kBizzle

I think we should get Al Sharpton to fight for all of us-
:-))
He gets more done in a day than most people in this industry.

oh and I never received as much as a THANK YOU FROM THEM as well-

Al Sharpton would do geat, but no mainsteam politician is going to take up our cause especially when the goverment is waving the "child porn" banner. You've gotta give me something better than that. Can't you see you don't have anything?

And, I'm sorry about the THANK YOU thing...that sucks, but it also shows that you do have a personal grudge with them.

There are 3 sides to every story:

1. My side.
2. Your side.
3. And the truth.

xxxjay · 05-27-2005, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kBizzle

I just don't buy into this "sky is falling" attorney crap
I have seen this too many times before where the ambulance chasing starts and collective paranoia begins..

Just like the Cambria List.

I've been in the business for 7 or 8 years now. I've seen the trouble come and go, but I've never seen the industry in such dire straits as it is now.

TheGoldenChild · 05-27-2005, 02:28 PM

Also I truly believe when the people/ attorneys associated with these organizations can show where they are working for our best interests- ( pro bono work) and not free BJ's
we'll have a chance.

I'll bet you any amount of money you want that these attorneys do things you'll never hear about publicly and special favors are given to them as form of payment-

I know what I have seen and heard from a myriad of great sources and also being around for 7-8 yrs as yourself, I have see our business at the best of times and the worst of times-

No doubt these are the worst of times for a lot of people- but not everyone.

It definitely sucks for those who own plug ins from what I have read

Scootermuze · 05-27-2005, 02:32 PM

From what I understand the FSC is to base their case on issues that were already discussed throughout the 2257/DOJ party.. Such as the new regs possibly putting performers in harm's way.. which the DOJ struck down as being less important than the protection of children..

If a judge can over-ride it, then.. well... guess we'll see...

tony286 · 05-27-2005, 02:40 PM

Jay I wish I met you when you were living in Atlanta, you would know im not just breakig balls. The reality is if you pull the cash you say you do and if you didnt blow it , you can walk away from this industry and have alot of options. A little guy like me that makes a good living but nothing in your range. I have to get ready for the shit storm if need be because this is how I make my living and my only real other option at this point would be a shitty day job. FSC should be creating a positive image for the industry out there in the media and they are not that is a problem. They do after liquor and drunk driving there is someone there from the bar owners assoc, talking about all that their membership is doing. Making virtual cp legal is not a big victory its a another strike against us.

tony286 · 05-27-2005, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scootermuze

From what I understand the FSC is to base their case on issues that were already discussed throughout the 2257/DOJ party.. Such as the new regs possibly putting performers in harm's way.. which the DOJ struck down as being less important than the protection of children..

If a judge can over-ride it, then.. well... guess we'll see...

if they are doing it based on protecting models then they will lose big time, being a porn model is a choice and now those girls will have to find something esle to do for a living that doesnt put them in danger. Also no one cares about porn models in the nonadult world.

TheGoldenChild · 05-27-2005, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

if they are doing it based on protecting models then they will lose big time, being a porn model is a choice and now those girls will have to find something esle to do for a living that doesnt put them in danger. Also no one cares about porn models in the nonadult world.

Who are you kidding?
No one in the PORN world cares about porn models either

tony286 · 05-27-2005, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kBizzle

Who are you kidding?
No one in the PORN world cares about porn models either

I do and they love me for it

xxxjay · 05-27-2005, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scootermuze

From what I understand the FSC is to base their case on issues that were already discussed throughout the 2257/DOJ party.. Such as the new regs possibly putting performers in harm's way.. which the DOJ struck down as being less important than the protection of children..

If a judge can over-ride it, then.. well... guess we'll see...

No they simplily commented back that the rights of the performers are not as important as the rights of kids. It's up to a judge now to stike it down.

xxxjay · 05-27-2005, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kBizzle

Also I truly believe when the people/ attorneys associated with these organizations can show where they are working for our best interests- ( pro bono work) and not free BJ's
we'll have a chance.

I'll bet you any amount of money you want that these attorneys do things you'll never hear about publicly and special favors are given to them as form of payment-

I know what I have seen and heard from a myriad of great sources and also being around for 7-8 yrs as yourself, I have see our business at the best of times and the worst of times-

No doubt these are the worst of times for a lot of people- but not everyone.

It definitely sucks for those who own plug ins from what I have read

You still never answered my question seriously: Who is going to take up this fight then?

tony286 · 05-27-2005, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxjay

You still never answered my question seriously: Who is going to take up this fight then?

I will field this one if your making a million dollars a year you should be fighting for yourself, all the big fish should be fighting this fight because your millions depend on winning. Larry didnt fight for us ,he fought for his business model we just all happened to benefit along the way. Larry had balls ,which is very absent in leaders of our industry today.

TheGoldenChild · 05-27-2005, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

I will field this one if your making a million dollars a year you should be fighting for yourself, all the big fish should be fighting this fight because your millions depend on winning. Larry didnt fight for us ,he fought for his business model we just all happened to benefit along the way. Larry had balls ,which is very absent in leaders of our industry today.

AMEN

And Jay leave me out of this
I don't shoot content-
don't sell content-
and have no worries over this matter whatsoever-
I worry about the webmasters who constantly get bad information- it ends up costing all of us.

xxxjay · 05-27-2005, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

I will field this one if your making a million dollars a year you should be fighting for yourself, all the big fish should be fighting this fight because your millions depend on winning. Larry didnt fight for us ,he fought for his business model we just all happened to benefit along the way. Larry had balls ,which is very absent in leaders of our industry today.

Larry Flynt is also a member of the Free Speech Coalition.

xxxjay · 05-27-2005, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kBizzle

AMEN

And Jay leave me out of this
I don't shoot content-
don't sell content-
and have no worries over this matter whatsoever-
I worry about the webmasters who constantly get bad information- it ends up costing all of us.

You work for Mobbucks...an affiliate company. You have sites. You have affilaites that will be effected by this. If you've published one naked picture on the internet...this effects you.

You, KB, are the source of bad info my friend.

tony286 · 05-27-2005, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxjay

Larry Flynt is also a member of the Free Speech Coalition.

ok but Larry has Paul Cambria already in his corner, if I had big fish money I would of had my own brief presented already and hired a pr firm to get my face on every news show that would have me. I wouldnt be hoping others fight for me.

Sly · 05-27-2005, 03:06 PM

For those of you whining about the price, I'm pretty sure they have a low monthly fee. Its like $30. I spend that when I go out to eat.

Sly · 05-27-2005, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kBizzle

AMEN

And Jay leave me out of this
I don't shoot content-
don't sell content-
and have no worries over this matter whatsoever-
I worry about the webmasters who constantly get bad information- it ends up costing all of us.

You are being very naive.

TheGoldenChild · 05-27-2005, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxjay

You work for Mobbucks...an affiliate company. You have sites. You have affilaites that will be effected by this. If you've published one naked picture on the internet...this effects you.

You, KB, are the source of bad info my friend.

I am a marketing company Jay -
No sites I currently promote are owned by me in any way
I work for sharp guys who are very intelligent and have access to great attorneys it's their job to comply not mine

It's my job to get you to send me some traffic as well as get them national press and more exposure.

KB Consults is in every press release I write-
That's me.

tony286 · 05-27-2005, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly

For those of you whining about the price, I'm pretty sure they have a low monthly fee. Its like $30. I spend that when I go out to eat.

please post link to it didnt see it ,we are joining but I have opinions and I dont expect them to save me. I have a adult lawyer and a local criminal lawyer at my adult lawyers advice and a bail bondsman picked and Im disney compared to most of the hard stuff that is out there lol I have no problem spending money just dont want to throw it away.

TheGoldenChild · 05-27-2005, 03:13 PM

Once again I am for a lobbying group in our industry
I support that they are trying to fight the good fight for pornographers-

I just feel that it's a Herculean task, and I feel they are underqualified

Is Paul Cambria fighting as part of the Free Speech Coalition?

If he is -then they have someone who is really qualified-
I simply don't know

xxxjay · 05-27-2005, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly

You are being very naive.

I agree.

Sly · 05-27-2005, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

please post link to it didnt see it ,we are joining but I have opinions and I dont expect them to save me. I have a adult lawyer and a local criminal lawyer at my adult lawyers advice and a bail bondsman picked and Im disney compared to most of the hard stuff that is out there lol I have no problem spending money just dont want to throw it away.

I don't have a link. My friend called me the other day to tell me that he just joined and the lady he spoke with was very nice and setup a payment plan for him, something like $30. Just call them and see what they can do, I highly doubt they're going to turn away your money. I tried joining online but their form doesn't work, going to call Tuesday and get everything taken care of.

Seriously, $30 a month? That's nothing. Eat in one night and there's the $30 membership fee.

TheGoldenChild · 05-27-2005, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxjay

I agree.

Call me naive, call me selfish-
I only get worried about things that can end up costing me a lot of money or put me in jail.

My attorneys agree that my business model is the safest in the industry.

YOU CAN'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER.

tony286 · 05-27-2005, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly

I don't have a link. My friend called me the other day to tell me that he just joined and the lady he spoke with was very nice and setup a payment plan for him, something like $30. Just call them and see what they can do, I highly doubt they're going to turn away your money. I tried joining online but their form doesn't work, going to call Tuesday and get everything taken care of.

Seriously, $30 a month? That's nothing. Eat in one night and there's the $30 membership fee.

$30 for a meal you eat cheap lol, I spend a $100 at fogo for lunch at least once a week lol

Sly · 05-27-2005, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

$30 for a meal you eat cheap lol, I spend a $100 at fogo for lunch at least once a week lol

I'm a little guy. The $30 is actually dinner for 2. :-)

TheGoldenChild · 05-27-2005, 03:22 PM

I have never had a worry in this business other than getting fucked over by webmasters who shave or simply are thieves-

I have never attached myself to CP sites or even sites that can be misconstrued as such-
I have never SPAMMED a piece of email down anyones throats.
I have never stolen any content.
I have never violated any copyright laws
I have never infringed on a patent

So how can I be regarded as naive?

Cautious, legal , and ethical are better words that befit me.

xxxjay · 05-27-2005, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kBizzle

Call me naive, call me selfish-
I only get worried about things that can end up costing me a lot of money or put me in jail.

My attorneys agree that my business model is the safest in the industry.

YOU CAN'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER.

Sure, that might be true, but can the people you work for run their business from jail?

Sly · 05-27-2005, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kBizzle

I have never had a worry in this business other than getting fucked over by webmasters who shave or simply are thieves-

I have never attached myself to CP sites or even sites that can be misconstrued as such-
I have never SPAMMED a piece of email down anyones throats.
I have never stolen any content.
I have never violated any copyright laws
I have never infringed on a patent

So how can I be regarded as naive?

Cautious, legal , and ethical are better words that befit me.

I've never done any of those things and have yet to be fucked over.

Maybe you're a bad judgment of character?

TheGoldenChild · 05-27-2005, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxjay

Sure, that might be true, but can the people you work for run their business from jail?

Of course not,
but they'd need to be convicted first of an offense.
I can tell you that I have spoken to all my clients about 2257 and they seem to be confident that they'll comply fully with it as it stands

xxxjay · 05-27-2005, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kBizzle

Of course not,
but they'd need to be convicted first of an offense.
I can tell you that I have spoken to all my clients about 2257 and they seem to be confident that they'll comply fully with it as it stands

So, you don't think it is better to fight it then? If for no other reason than the increased administrative costs.

Do you or your employers really want to mail out 30000 2257 docs to your affiliates?

TheGoldenChild · 05-27-2005, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly

I've never done any of those things and have yet to be fucked over.

Maybe you're a bad judgment of character?

The l"aws of averages" apply here Sly
I have done business with more people in this business than anyone

I have been doing what it is I do for almost 8yrs
My companies have run the gamut-
from sextoy companies, to affiliate programs, penis pills, to webmaster resources to selling companies for millions of dollars

U may be happy with never being fucked over- but I can tell u I have collected in every case where I was wronged
and for a lot more $$$ than people would ever imagine.

05-27-2005, 01:17 PM	#51
woj <&(©¿©)&> Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 47,882	50 donations.. __________________ Custom Software Development, email: woj#at#wojfun#.#com to discuss details or skype: wojl2000 or gchat: wojfun or telegram: wojl2000 Affiliate program tools: Hosted Galleries Manager Banner Manager Video Manager Wordpress Affiliate Plugin Pic/Movie of the Day Fansign Generator Zip Manager Last edited by woj; 05-27-2005 at 01:19 PM..

05-27-2005, 01:30 PM	#58
Aly President, ePufferProfits Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,881	Sent this thread to the FSC people.Hopefully somebody will respond. KB, you've got one hell of a chip on your shoulder these days! ;) __________________ . . Aly's ICQ: 51504163 . Aly's Email: [email protected]

05-27-2005, 01:52 PM	#63
TheGoldenChild Confirmed User Join Date: May 2002 Location: Pacific Palisades Posts: 6,940	Does anyone remember when the GIA got involved with the FSC Whatever happened to the GIA? Was it self serving or was it intended to be for the good pf the entire industry? I think a lot of educated webmasters know the answer to that question..or those who were around to remember that organization anyway __________________

05-27-2005, 02:05 PM	#66
AsianDivaGirlsWebDude Purveyor, Fine Asian Porn Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: San Francisco Bay Area Posts: 38,323	Jay, I respect your passion on this issue, and I certainly want the FSC and whoever else might challenge the 2257 to win. I sincerely hope that the courts will eventually strike down the most onerous provisions of the new 2257 regulations. If FSC would set a lower Membership fee, they could then use their much larger Membership list to solicit money for their specific causes (such as striking down provisions in the 2257 regs). I know the ACLU is always sending me issue-based appeals, which I don't mind contributing to, since they only charged me $25 for Membership. The FSC might also consider a monthly fee, instead of requiring a lump sum amount. If nothing else, a victory on 2257 should get the FSC lots of new Members, and considerably bolster their credibility. ADG Webmaster __________________ Asian Diva Girls - Exclusive Photos and Videos Asian Diva Girls Affiliate Program (50% ccBill Revshare)

05-27-2005, 02:16 PM	#69
TheGoldenChild Confirmed User Join Date: May 2002 Location: Pacific Palisades Posts: 6,940	I just don't buy into this "sky is falling" attorney crap I have seen this too many times before where the ambulance chasing starts and collective paranoia begins.. Just like the Cambria List. __________________

05-27-2005, 02:28 PM	#72
TheGoldenChild Confirmed User Join Date: May 2002 Location: Pacific Palisades Posts: 6,940	Also I truly believe when the people/ attorneys associated with these organizations can show where they are working for our best interests- ( pro bono work) and not free BJ's we'll have a chance. I'll bet you any amount of money you want that these attorneys do things you'll never hear about publicly and special favors are given to them as form of payment- I know what I have seen and heard from a myriad of great sources and also being around for 7-8 yrs as yourself, I have see our business at the best of times and the worst of times- No doubt these are the worst of times for a lot of people- but not everyone. It definitely sucks for those who own plug ins from what I have read __________________ Last edited by TheGoldenChild; 05-27-2005 at 02:30 PM..

05-27-2005, 02:32 PM	#73
Scootermuze Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 4,513	From what I understand the FSC is to base their case on issues that were already discussed throughout the 2257/DOJ party.. Such as the new regs possibly putting performers in harm's way.. which the DOJ struck down as being less important than the protection of children.. If a judge can over-ride it, then.. well... guess we'll see...

05-27-2005, 02:40 PM	#74
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	Jay I wish I met you when you were living in Atlanta, you would know im not just breakig balls. The reality is if you pull the cash you say you do and if you didnt blow it , you can walk away from this industry and have alot of options. A little guy like me that makes a good living but nothing in your range. I have to get ready for the shit storm if need be because this is how I make my living and my only real other option at this point would be a shitty day job. FSC should be creating a positive image for the industry out there in the media and they are not that is a problem. They do after liquor and drunk driving there is someone there from the bar owners assoc, talking about all that their membership is doing. Making virtual cp legal is not a big victory its a another strike against us.

05-27-2005, 03:06 PM	#85
Sly Let's do some business! Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 31,328	For those of you whining about the price, I'm pretty sure they have a low monthly fee. Its like $30. I spend that when I go out to eat. __________________ 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.

05-27-2005, 03:13 PM	#89
TheGoldenChild Confirmed User Join Date: May 2002 Location: Pacific Palisades Posts: 6,940	Once again I am for a lobbying group in our industry I support that they are trying to fight the good fight for pornographers- I just feel that it's a Herculean task, and I feel they are underqualified Is Paul Cambria fighting as part of the Free Speech Coalition? If he is -then they have someone who is really qualified- I simply don't know __________________

05-27-2005, 03:22 PM	#95
TheGoldenChild Confirmed User Join Date: May 2002 Location: Pacific Palisades Posts: 6,940	I have never had a worry in this business other than getting fucked over by webmasters who shave or simply are thieves- I have never attached myself to CP sites or even sites that can be misconstrued as such- I have never SPAMMED a piece of email down anyones throats. I have never stolen any content. I have never violated any copyright laws I have never infringed on a patent So how can I be regarded as naive? Cautious, legal , and ethical are better words that befit me. __________________