|
Quote:
We should be able to choose which union we want to be in shouldn't we? All this was toady was away for the FSC to get more membership fees. That's all. The government wouldn't even have gone for this if they think they might lose. So why not just let the case go forward odds are the judge would have issued an injunction anyways and it would have laster A LOT longer than 2-3 months. |
Quote:
Colin, Nice to see you here. To be clear, I'm not dissing FSC, I support them. I only think it is very unfair that non-paying webmasters are going to get the shaft on this short term deal. They have my money and my support, but I don't think this deal was very fair and makes them look like less of someone who is fighting for everyone's rights, and more like a big business who is out for big bucks. With a name like Free Speech Coalition, one would think they would try to protect everyone and not just those with money. Yes, long term they will do this, but short term there will be a lot of people who may be put through the ringer. I just don't think that's right. :2 cents: |
Some of the questions in this thread are the wrong questions, but at least they are questions. This past month has seen a dramatic illustration of the willingness of webmasters, even when something hugely important is at stake, to jump on the nearest passing bandwagon without asking who is driving or where it is going.
"FSC is a membership based industry organization". Undoubtedly. But what exactly does that mean? Most trade associations have constitutions which more-or-less transparently allow for the election of committees and officers, and for members to provide input as to association policies. Is FSC that kind of association, or is "member" a euphemism for "donor"? Either way, people are subscribing to activities already under way. So does anyone know exactly who is instructing the legal team or what are their specific instructions to the team? FSC initially represented video producers, who have concerns such as whether 2257 statements must be attached to their movies or can be displayed separately (on DVD's): quite different priorities from the average webmaster. What priorities has the legal team been given? Which issues has the team been told can be treated as bargaining chips and which are considered make or break? I have asked these questions several times over the past month. I'm even boring myself. But why is it so difficult to get answers, whether from FSC people or from the many webmasters who have joined in recent weeks? I have no issue whatsoever with FSC and I'm not even suggesting they may not prove to be everything people are hoping for. I'm just dismayed that (I assume) hundreds of webmasters have paid up without asking similar questions. And of course, as soon as FSC was touted as the answer to all our problems, that effectively stopped dead any discussion of potential alternatives. Several people have suggested that a willingness and ability to pay money towards an industry cause, is a sign of professionalism and worthiness to be part of the industry in question. I would be a lot more impressed if people cared more about what their money was buying and if they made decisions based on analysis rather than convenience. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
You have some serious anger issues. |
Please tell me people aren't whining over $300? That's less than the first day of business would cost in any B&M. Jesus. :disgusted:
|
We are business people who have tried to create a meaningful organization with a limited budget. We are novelty manufactures, retailers, video producers, talent, website operators, gentleman's club owners and video company owners. Freedom of Speech is something we all believe in.
Truthfully, for the past year, our real focus has been on hiring a new executive director, hiring a person to represent our industry in Washington DC, building a quality staff, and dealing with legal issues as they have arisen such as these 2257 Regs. We have also studied such diverse issues as Adult Industry Best Practices, STD protocols, RFID, Blue Ray V. Red Laser for DVDs, and more. We, the Board Members, are not paid for our time or travel expenses. We live all over the nation and come together to try and solve problems for our industry. And, we listen to our members suggestions and appreciate everyones support. And, most importantly, we do it out of our respect for the ideal of "Freedom of Speech" knowing without free speech, there are no other rights. Now that we have a significant web membership base as a result of 2257 concerns, look for more attention to be focused on the FSC website and our internet members' needs. Your input will guide FSC's direction. We thank you. |
I think what DWB is trying to say is the that the "free speech coalition" in name referencing the current situation implies that free speech and first amendment rights are being bought, paid for, when they should be just that - a right; Colin (bless his heart) is saying that "freedom isn't free" and the true pioneers put their wallets on the line to protect and enable people to even earn pin money in the adult industry. I can see both sides very clearly; these are some very tough times. We do what we can and move forward with the best intentions (we hope) we have in common. Think postive thoughts. Solstice sets the tone for the season of changes to come.
|
pretty disturbing 2257...
those are some good points you have there guys |
I could have sworn I saw on their membership application a monthly payment plan. For the small guys, thats like $25 a month. If thats a burden, then wow I feel for you, that really sucks ass.
|
50,.........
|
Quote:
|
[QUOTE=jayeff
Several people have suggested that a willingness and ability to pay money towards an industry cause, is a sign of professionalism and worthiness to be part of the industry in question. I would be a lot more impressed if people cared more about what their money was buying and if they made decisions based on analysis rather than convenience.[/QUOTE] Jayeff, You always have very intelligent posts. Kudos man, I enjoy GFY so much when its real discussion. Your questions about the FSC are very valid and just trying to sit in their shoes for a moment I can see where in the past month or so they have had so much of their resources dedicated towards 2257 I can see where it would be easy for their previous mostly 1st amendment work to lose a bit of traction. Its hard to answer questions you pose when other aspects of their normal mission statement get passed aside for such a period as this last 4 weeks have been. I would think many project lie near abandonment, I know in my own office I had to do triage on staff hrs that left projects high and dry because, lets face it, none of those projects can put me in jail if they remain uncompleted. We should give the FSC time to get their house in order after this 2257 upheaval before we start asking too much more of them than they are already doing. You asked what is the money buying? Yknow we dont know this, but what I can tell you is certain is that having a defense team going toe to toe with the DOJ certainly costs a whole helluva lot more than any one of us have given to them. They had positive results already too. Whoa thumbs up imo, we gave them a five figure amt and you know what? I feel like a million bucks today because we got off CHEAP. |
For the love you don't have to pay $300 to join. If you go to this page it is based on your income. You can join for as little as $100
http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/c...es=Corpora te Mark |
Quote:
Naw man, I understand it all, I just don't think it's right. :2 cents: |
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:37 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123