I am hoping those aren't words that any of us will be hearing in the future. I am a member and I fully and utterly support them but I do think it is time someone from there told us what is going on with disclosure of the memebership list.
-
-
exactly.
"pay your dues, give us your name, you are safe with us."
then the list is turned over to the DOJ
(not saying it will happen but one must wonder will this come up )
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 -
Makes me scared to join almost.AKA - ClubsexyComment
-
i'm not scared to join - i think they are a great group of people who are fighting hard for us BUT I think they may well get more people joining if they knew for sure what the score was about disclosure.Comment
-
i'm sure they'd turn you over just like anyone else when the DOJ puts the heat on emComment
-
Fear the slippery slope....Comment
-
Take from this what you will, but at the seminar, they insisted, absolutely, that member names would NEVER NEVER NEVEROriginally posted by sarah_webinc
NEVER
NEVER
NEVER
NEVER
Be released to anyone.Raven
~RETIRED~
Comment
-
2257 and the current regime is an understandable product of a nation which flips out when a nipple slips out.
A: From a recent article about 2257 DOJ and FSC 'deal':
As much as I believe that 2257 affects all adult biz operators (worldwide), I'm uncomfortable with the implications behind that kind of 'endorsement'.Fellow First Amendment attorney Gregory Piccionelli added, "I cannot state in more emphatic terms that you have to be out of your mind if you don't become a member of the FSC immediately."
B: According to the information in patent applications related to software called 'my2257' same lawyer in 'A' above is also listed as the INVENTOR (First Named). This is not about a lawyer filing an application - the patent indicates that the lawyer is laying claim of ownership to the 'invention' and implies that the lawyer has a financial stake in the 'invention'.
A + B = Conflicting (at best).
I was hoping to see 2257 put down as FSC had indicated was necessary.
Deals usually involve concessions (from both sides). This seems to be getting worse each week.
-DinoComment
-
That is what I thought but it follows into everyone's question about 'deals' only for FSC members and how the authorities would know who is a member and who isn't.Originally posted by RavenComment
-
Originally posted by sarah_webinc
Which makes it a great questionComment
-
Then how would the deal that people are talking about, where supposedly only FSC members are "safe" from prosecution, work? The only way I see that style a deal would work is if they gave up their entire membership list OR when the DOJ selected a target they told them whether they are a member or not.Originally posted by RavenHit me up below for all your advertising needs!
Comment
-
In many instances where there is a TRO, although only the plaintiffs are technically covered, the government backs off from pursuing others until the issue is decided or the TRO is lifted.
I seriously doubt that FSC would be required to turn over their Membership list. As I recall, the ACLU has never had to do this and they file lots of lawsuits on behalf of their huge Membership.
ADG WebmasterComment
-
i admit, this was my first concern.
im like Dale Gribble,... i...i... mean Rusty Shackelford when it comes to turning my name over to the BEast.
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 meComment
-
How about this question:
If the ruling is that the DOJ will hold off enforcing the new regs against the FSC until a court renders a final decision on the regs, can you STILL get "protection" as a FSC member if you join AFTER today's announcement/ruling is made?
Comment
-
Another good question.Originally posted by CenturionComment
Comment