why did the DOJ do this deal? - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

woj · 06-23-2005, 10:09 PM

50.........

Centurion · 06-23-2005, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

And they do need this law to fight CP.. If they didn't that NY case would have ended with a CP bust. For some reason it didn't and it ended with a 2257 bust.

That's pretty clear cut.

Um..guess what? These new regs weren't running then.
They used the OLD 2257 regs for that.
I rest my case.
THAT..is pretty clear cut.
And you think that the only law on the books to fight cp is 2257???????????

scoreman · 06-23-2005, 10:11 PM

shhhhhhh Doc

i like being in a knifefight with a few guns hidden

Centurion · 06-23-2005, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scoreman

shhhhhhh Doc

i like being in a knifefight with a few guns hidden

Damn..that means you passed the bar exam! Congrats!

TheDoc · 06-23-2005, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Centurion

Um..guess what? These new regs were running then.
They used the OLD 2257 regs for that.
I rest my case.
THAT..is pretty clear cut.
And you think that the only law on the books to fight cp is 2257???????????

I know 2257 isn't the only CP law.. .. Did you read the court case? He did get nailed using some parts of the new regs.

scoreman · 06-23-2005, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Centurion

Damn..that means you passed the bar exam! Congrats!

Fla Bar number 0976229
active since 1993

TheDoc · 06-23-2005, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scoreman

Fla Bar number 0976229
active since 1993

Az Bar number: 01010101
Active since 1969

S.L.L.D · 06-23-2005, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scoreman

shhhhhhh Doc

i like being in a knifefight with a few guns hidden

C'mn. You always have more than that hidden.

FSC! an opening for David, please. Needed in your team.

scoreman · 06-23-2005, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.L.L.D

C'mn. You always have more than that hidden.

FSC! an opening for David, please. Needed in your team.

Oh man please. Those guys runs circles around me. I run websites, those guys are the real attorneys.

LOL Doc, heheh

tony286 · 06-23-2005, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scoreman

Oh man please. Those guys runs circles around me. I run websites, those guys are the real attorneys.

LOL Doc, heheh

I heard thats not true and you changed your last name .It used to be Mason

S.L.L.D · 06-23-2005, 10:25 PM

Well.

You convinced me tonight. I was determined not to join the FSC till I read your comments here. So...

dopeman · 06-23-2005, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

And they do need this law to fight CP.. If they didn't that NY case would have ended with a CP bust. For some reason it didn't and it ended with a 2257 bust.

That's pretty clear cut.

that was a plea bargain. that guy probably had some serious fucking laywers. wasn't he some famous writer with money?

LadyB · 06-23-2005, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by will76

All of you are missing it.

The FSC felt they had a good case, but where they 100% confident? Hell no. They might have had a great "game face" on, but I bet you none of them felt it was a "LOCK". They had, how long a month or two to prepare. Then went in to yesterday prepared for a fight, they were confident, BUT you never know how courts will rule. An extention is not a loss. It's small victory. They bought more time to prepare. The smart (and safe) thing to do it to take the extra time, and not risk walking out a loser. Keep puting it off and give yourself more time to build an even stronger case.

If they would have turned down the offer and lost, you guys would have wanted to hang them for doing that.

What does the DOJ get from this. A chance to save face and by more time themselves. They also got a chance to get a preview of what they were up against. It's better for them to keep the pressure on us, and then to lose the battle. Intimidation is a powerful thing and now they have more time to do it. Think of how they have been playing with your emotions (and income), the DOJ sees this as a win most likely too for them.

BUT THE REAL REASON WHY THEY AGREED TO PUSH IT BACK!

AND YOU HEARD IT FIRST HERE. THE DOJ WANTED TO KEEP THE FSC PREOCCUPIED WITH 2257 THE NEXT COUPLE MONTHS AND DIVERT ALL OF OUR ATTENTION FROM .XXX

IF ANYONE THINKS IT'S A COINCIDENCE THAT .XXX AND 2257 POPED UP AT THE SAME TIME, THEN YOUR NIEVE IMO.

will76 - very good post imo. Makes sense to me anyway. Although I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on tv lol ..the FSC already has my money and I do support them. They are the only one's who are fighting for us right now.

On the surface this "deal" may not appear to be the greatest thing, but after reading some of the point of views in this thread I'm thinking that maybe it's not so bad. Time will tell I guess. All we can do is hope for the best.

I also agree with you on the .xxx issue btw.

Have a good one.

Redrob · 06-23-2005, 11:00 PM

As I understand FSC's position, the 2257 Regs are unconstitutional. The regs need to be totally eliminated. The regs do not do what they are alleged to do. Child Porn is evil and need to be eliminated. This goal can be accomplished if current CP laws are vigorously enforced.

Nuff said.

V_RocKs · 06-24-2005, 12:20 AM

I have been in and out of a lot of class actions suits... I have found that it is better to have your name on the list and be in getting something then to be out hiding under a rock...

Join the FSC!

Bladewire · 06-24-2005, 12:38 AM

"If the DOJ truly believed it had a winner, it would not have made this deal,? said Bernstein. ?If the government thinks it?s going to win, why would it make a deal??

Well logically speaking then.. Why would the FSC make a deal if they thought they were going to win the case today? Did the FSC think they were going to lose, were they not prepared, did they want to get more members? Any answers from the FSC on this and WHY they would deal if they were going to win?

Centurion · 06-24-2005, 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

I know 2257 isn't the only CP law.. .. Did you read the court case? He did get nailed using some parts of the new regs.

How could he be nailed by regs that were not yet enforceable?

2257-Ben · 06-24-2005, 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

<snip> ... All this deal did was to buy a few weeks from being investigated. And it also made sure that your name will be given to the DOJ so they have a nice list to go by when they do start investigating. And if you think that by handing this list to a so called "non partial" 3rd party means the DOJ doesn't get the list you are completely ignorant to how this government works and what it will to to get it's way. ... <snip>

The Special Master, who will have custody of the membership list from the FSC is bound by an oath of secrecy, as an officer of the court, to NOT reveal the list to anyone. The DOJ has to submit the name(s) of the people they want to investigate to the Special Master, who will then tell the DOJ whether or not they can proceed against the 'intended victim'. If the Special Master were to reveal the contents of the list they would face severe penalties, perhaps even disbarrment and quite possibly prison time. So just as you are motivated to not go to jail by becoming compliant with the 2257 regulations, the Special Master has the same motivation to keep his end of the bargain.

While there is nothing to stop the DOJ from creating their own list of 'ineligible defendants' based upon the results from the Special Master, this does not mean that the FSC has relinquished their membership list to the DOJ.

will76 · 06-24-2005, 01:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squirtit

"If the DOJ truly believed it had a winner, it would not have made this deal,? said Bernstein. ?If the government thinks it?s going to win, why would it make a deal??

Well logically speaking then.. Why would the FSC make a deal if they thought they were going to win the case today? Did the FSC think they were going to lose, were they not prepared, did they want to get more members? Any answers from the FSC on this and WHY they would deal if they were going to win?

please read my post which was quoted three post above yours for those answers.

European Lee · 06-24-2005, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2257-Ben

The Special Master, who will have custody of the membership list from the FSC is bound by an oath of secrecy, as an officer of the court, to NOT reveal the list to anyone. The DOJ has to submit the name(s) of the people they want to investigate to the Special Master, who will then tell the DOJ whether or not they can proceed against the 'intended victim'. If the Special Master were to reveal the contents of the list they would face severe penalties, perhaps even disbarrment and quite possibly prison time. So just as you are motivated to not go to jail by becoming compliant with the 2257 regulations, the Special Master has the same motivation to keep his end of the bargain.

While there is nothing to stop the DOJ from creating their own list of 'ineligible defendants' based upon the results from the Special Master, this does not mean that the FSC has relinquished their membership list to the DOJ.

The DOJ only needs to use that list if they are going to inspect somebody.

The DOJ already has a list of 'targets' they have in their sights, most likely, they already know these 'targets' do not have the records needed for even one image, if that is the case, no inspection is needed, arrest and charge, lather, rinse, repeat.

Regards,

Lee

will76 · 06-24-2005, 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeHawk

BINGO...............................you are so on the money its scary.

Believe it....this is the exact conversation i had on the phone today, with someone who is so close to the whole deal.

People from our industry that support .XXX that is the smoke.....the Fire is the Govt...

yeap, that is 110% correct. and look it is working. no one is talking .xxx anymore, just 2257 and some people are more concerned about the membership fee the FSC is charging then anything else... this industry is so clueless and easy pickings for the govt it is not even funny.

2257-Ben · 06-24-2005, 01:12 AM

Well, here in the USA, the DOJ has to provide EVIDENCE that the records do not exist. The only way they are going to get that evidence is to do an inspection... and since they have to check with the Special Master before they do the inspection, then they may or MAY NOT be allowed to proceed... it just depends upon whether the intended 'targets' are members of the FSC or now... The DOJ can't go into court without evidence and there's only one way to get it... Inspection. If they try to go into court without the evidence, no matter how much they protest, the judge will simply throw it out...

DWB · 06-24-2005, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

Sorry gang, I have a few years of experience in negotiation under my belt, and my feeling are if the FSC thought they had a winner, they would not have made this deal.

I don't really see how today is a victory, except maybe for the FSC. An injunction being granted would have been a victory, and it more than likely would have been honored by all, and everyone would have enjoyed the fruits of said victory.

The government agreed to this deal because now they can proceed against anyone that is not a member of the FSC, pretty much with the blessing of the FSC. The government lost nothing by agreeing to this 45 day delay.

You nailed it.

DWB · 06-24-2005, 01:23 AM

"Special Master" sounds so old school slave owner-ish.

Temp1 · 06-24-2005, 02:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

All this deal did was to buy a few weeks from being investigated. And it also made sure that your name will be given to the DOJ so they have a nice list to go by when they do start investigating. And if you think that by handing this list to a so called "non partial" 3rd party means the DOJ doesn't get the list you are completely ignorant to how this government works and what it will to to get it's way.

This argument bears weight. The $300 FSC coalition is a non-issue; having your name on a list that the DOJ can access from the 3rd party with a victorious motion is a legitimate concern, IMO.

mardigras · 06-24-2005, 02:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squirtit

Well logically speaking then.. Why would the FSC make a deal if they thought they were going to win the case today? Did the FSC think they were going to lose, were they not prepared, did they want to get more members? Any answers from the FSC on this and WHY they would deal if they were going to win?

My guess is that they went in with the plan to make a deal. They've been talking about "members-only" "protection" since they first announced their lawsuit.

Temp1 · 06-24-2005, 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2257-Ben

The Special Master, who will have custody of the membership list from the FSC is bound by an oath of secrecy, as an officer of the court, to NOT reveal the list to anyone. The DOJ has to submit the name(s) of the people they want to investigate to the Special Master, who will then tell the DOJ whether or not they can proceed against the 'intended victim'. If the Special Master were to reveal the contents of the list they would face severe penalties, perhaps even disbarrment and quite possibly prison time. So just as you are motivated to not go to jail by becoming compliant with the 2257 regulations, the Special Master has the same motivation to keep his end of the bargain.

While there is nothing to stop the DOJ from creating their own list of 'ineligible defendants' based upon the results from the Special Master, this does not mean that the FSC has relinquished their membership list to the DOJ.

And if the DOJ files an ex parte motion to gain access to that list, and is granted?

Correct me if I'm wrong, the Special Master is a court appointed 3rd party, so if the DOJ files a successful motion requesting access to the list, wouldn't the Special Master need to comply with the Court?

European Lee · 06-24-2005, 03:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Temp1

And if the DOJ files an ex parte motion to gain access to that list, and is granted?

Then the FSC basically gave away every one of their members personal information for free to the DOJ

Whilst every member of the FSC paid upwards of $300 for the privellage

Regards,

Lee

2257-Ben · 06-24-2005, 03:27 AM

Not likely they would get this... There was a case in the '50's regarding a similar situation and the NAACP. The US Supreme Court ruled against the release of the infomration regarding the membership list.

TheSwed · 06-24-2005, 03:30 AM

It's a great deal for both parts

FSC= plenty of dollars

DOJ= a complete working list

Tat2Jr · 06-24-2005, 03:32 AM

Maybe it's just me....

We're all on a list anyway. The DOJ has had all these extra obsenity lawyers for a few years... they haven't been straighting up their desks all this time. It's not like the governmment is going to get the FSC list, and go... "damn, we've been looking for this Cumshot Suzie for years... thank god we got THE list". I'm sure every post on any adult message board puts ya on a list. I'm not so sure being on the FSC list isn't a bad thing for the DOJ to see. It shows you've got the sense to spend a little money to protect yourself. Then follow that up by having a first ammendment attorney on retainer. I want to be the most sour grapes on the vine.... they're much sweeter down below.... pick from down there!

ok, so I may be the only one on this too - I don't think the next shot fired is going to be .xxx migration as much as obsenity busts. I like the most gonzo, how many dicks can you stick in your ass, porno, but when a chick starts puking, or even worse puking on each other.... Even me as a fellow webmaster would honestly have to say, "man, I hate to say it, but that was just obscene".... and to think... I'd be your BEST shot on the jury..... and the other jurors aren't going to be as forgiving as me about the double anal or 20 guys on 1 girl gangbang.

GatorB · 06-24-2005, 03:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2257-Ben

Well, here in the USA, the DOJ has to provide EVIDENCE that the records do not exist. The only way they are going to get that evidence is to do an inspection... and since they have to check with the Special Master before they do the inspection, then they may or MAY NOT be allowed to proceed... it just depends upon whether the intended 'targets' are members of the FSC or now... The DOJ can't go into court without evidence and there's only one way to get it... Inspection. If they try to go into court without the evidence, no matter how much they protest, the judge will simply throw it out...

Yes and if they can't do an inspection on you it can only mean that YOU must be a member of the FSC. So even without actually seeing the list they know you are a memebr. Now who are they going to target first when the 10 weeks are up?

Tat2Jr · 06-24-2005, 03:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

Now who are they going to target first when the 10 weeks are up?

Yeah, but as soon as I read the new regulations back in summer of last year I just planned on having inspections every 4 months. That's the intent, so when they come - you're compliant, and then you wait 4 months for them to come do it again. If you're targeted first that just means you get to get it over with, and get the clock ticking for the next 4 months to start.

GatorB · 06-24-2005, 03:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tat2Jr

Yeah, but as soon as I read the new regulations back in summer of last year I just planned on having inspections every 4 months. That's the intent, so when they come - you're compliant, and then you wait 4 months for them to come do it again. If you're targeted first that just means you get to get it over with, and get the clock ticking for the next 4 months to start.

That's fine for you, but I suppose the people joining the FSC and the ones that like this deal are the ones that are not currently compliant and really don't wish to be and really are hoping for an injunction that may very well not happen and in 10 weeks they still won't be compliant.

Major (Tom) · 06-24-2005, 03:48 AM

im sure the DOJ will go back to the drawing board and come up with a more reasonable solution. I dont think we are against some tighter regs within reason. If V2 is just as bad the same thing will happen.

I just hope all the time i put into getting my records straight for this version of the law wont become useless in v2 lol
Duke

Tat2Jr · 06-24-2005, 03:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

I suppose the people joining the FSC and the ones that like this deal are the ones that are not currently compliant and really don't wish to be and really are hoping for an injunction that may very well not happen and in 10 weeks they still won't be compliant.

Well, they'd be just as crazy as anyone who didn't join in my book.

European Lee · 06-24-2005, 03:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tat2Jr

Well, they'd be just as crazy as anyone who didn't join in my book.

Except those that didnt join, wouldnt have their names and addresses handed to the DOJ at a cost of $300+

Yep, crazy stuff indeed go join the FSC people, its the right thing for you all to do

Regards,

Lee

Tat2Jr · 06-24-2005, 04:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by European Lee

Except those that didnt join, wouldnt have their names and addresses handed to the DOJ at a cost of $300+

I guess my whole point is that I figure they already have our names and addresses on their own list.

European Lee · 06-24-2005, 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tat2Jr

I guess my whole point is that I figure they already have our names and addresses on their own list.

What if they DONT?

Regards,

Lee

Rui · 06-24-2005, 04:19 AM

FSC is like the new mafia of the Adult Industry...pay the fee and be "protected"...yuuupii

scoreman · 06-24-2005, 06:48 AM

Some of you guys act as if the DOJ are clueless bumbling idiots who need the FSC list to target people. No, I think the DOJ already has a list of people its looking to investigate and has had that list for some time.

Others of you seem to believe that adding your name to the list makes you a bigger target. I can see where this would be a concern, but really, the DOJ has a list already of people it wants to see put down. You think for a moment the DOJ will shift gears and put you higher on their to do list, effectively knocking down the list those whom they have always wanted to get, just because you support the FSC?

Lee and others talk like its a given the entire list is in the DOJ's hands now. Well its not suppose to be, and this talk like its already a given is not only subversive to the goals that would should be having at this point but it also makes you look like a fear monger. Lee, stop trying to convince others by stating complete guesses as if you were speaking known facts, you are doing a big disservice to the industry right now by doing so.

will76 · 06-24-2005, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mardigras

My guess is that they went in with the plan to make a deal. They've been talking about "members-only" "protection" since they first announced their lawsuit.

thats because it was always non member protection "technically" even if they got an injunction it would be for the PLAINTIFFS and the FSC, technically. In most cases the DOJ would not go after someone else if there was an injunction on the table. However, this agreement is not an injuction. The law went into effect yesterday for those who were not PLAINTIFFS and aparty to the agreement.

The FSC didn't sell anyone out, you sold yourself out.

will76 · 06-24-2005, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rui

FSC is like the new mafia of the Adult Industry...pay the fee and be "protected"...yuuupii

Come on Rui, how many times is someone going to post this shit. I typically agree with you and your post seem to pretty intelligent.

But what you posted is not correct, you could have been a plaintiff you could have hired yoru own attorney to represent you. They did what they thought was best for their clients period. You don't have to join the FSC. Hire your own attorney.

The only group that is backing us up don't cover the freeloaders this time and the freeloaders bitch. They are still taking the fight to the DOJ, but they wanted more time to make sure to win. If they win you benefit from it. They made the decission they thought was best for them to win, I am 100% they didn't say " oh lets push this off so we can collect more money".

If you want to be protected then join the FSC or hire an attorney. But don't bitch about the only group that is, and has been, protecting our asses.

dopeman · 06-24-2005, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Centurion

Um..guess what? These new regs weren't running then.
They used the OLD 2257 regs for that.
I rest my case.
THAT..is pretty clear cut.
And you think that the only law on the books to fight cp is 2257???????????

right. and also that guy actually took the photos of those girls. he was a primary producer. nobody is arguing the requirement of primary producers to maintain records.

FilthyRob · 06-24-2005, 09:36 AM

It's all scary

dopeman · 06-24-2005, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FilthyRob

It's all scary

indeed. there's nothing wrong with regulations that are actually aimed at protecting minors from exploitation. but you can't start ransacking private homes and businesses without a warrant BEFORE the images are proven to be illegal. not even the IRS does unannounced audits.

fuelcell · 06-24-2005, 10:59 AM

This discussion is fascinating simply for the illustrations of human psychology. It seems most or all people are inherently convinced of their intelligence, ability to reason correctly, and absolute correctness in the face of facts and reasoning that would otherwise seem to contradict everything they espouse. It seems most or all people are unable to discern the difference between an opinion and fact or to properly weight the value of an opinion. It seems most or all people value paranioa and fear over reasoning and logic - guess there's more emotional bang for the buck.

Sorry for the interruption. Commence spinning your wheels uselessly again.

Snake Doctor · 06-24-2005, 12:36 PM

LADY B!!!!!!

Long time no speak woman, how have you been?

Give me a shout sometime and let's do some biz together.
ICQ 78465690, lenny at projectrevenue.com

Interesting discussion here BTW.
My money is on Scoreman in the knife fight, the courtroom, and in the pool hall

06-23-2005, 10:09 PM	#51
woj <&(©¿©)&> Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 47,882	50......... __________________ 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

06-23-2005, 10:11 PM	#53
scoreman Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Miami, Florida Posts: 1,491	shhhhhhh Doc i like being in a knifefight with a few guns hidden __________________

06-24-2005, 12:38 AM	#66
Bladewire StraightBro Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Monarch Beach, CA USA Posts: 56,229	"If the DOJ truly believed it had a winner, it would not have made this deal,? said Bernstein. ?If the government thinks it?s going to win, why would it make a deal?? Well logically speaking then.. Why would the FSC make a deal if they thought they were going to win the case today? Did the FSC think they were going to lose, were they not prepared, did they want to get more members? Any answers from the FSC on this and WHY they would deal if they were going to win? Last edited by Bladewire; 06-24-2005 at 12:40 AM..

06-24-2005, 01:12 AM	#72
2257-Ben Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Dinuba, CA Posts: 633	Well, here in the USA, the DOJ has to provide EVIDENCE that the records do not exist. The only way they are going to get that evidence is to do an inspection... and since they have to check with the Special Master before they do the inspection, then they may or MAY NOT be allowed to proceed... it just depends upon whether the intended 'targets' are members of the FSC or now... The DOJ can't go into court without evidence and there's only one way to get it... Inspection. If they try to go into court without the evidence, no matter how much they protest, the judge will simply throw it out... __________________ 2257-Ben www.2257ware.com The BEST, most compliant 2257 record-keeping software available. Period.

06-24-2005, 03:27 AM	#79
2257-Ben Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Dinuba, CA Posts: 633	Not likely they would get this... There was a case in the '50's regarding a similar situation and the NAACP. The US Supreme Court ruled against the release of the infomration regarding the membership list. __________________ 2257-Ben www.2257ware.com The BEST, most compliant 2257 record-keeping software available. Period.

06-23-2005, 10:25 PM	#61
S.L.L.D Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 119	Well. You convinced me tonight. I was determined not to join the FSC till I read your comments here. So...

06-23-2005, 11:00 PM	#64
Redrob Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: In a refrigerator box by the tracks. Posts: 4,791	As I understand FSC's position, the 2257 Regs are unconstitutional. The regs need to be totally eliminated. The regs do not do what they are alleged to do. Child Porn is evil and need to be eliminated. This goal can be accomplished if current CP laws are vigorously enforced. Nuff said.

06-24-2005, 12:20 AM	#65
V_RocKs Damn Right I Kiss Ass! Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Cowtown, USA Posts: 32,428	I have been in and out of a lot of class actions suits... I have found that it is better to have your name on the list and be in getting something then to be out hiding under a rock... Join the FSC!

06-24-2005, 01:23 AM	#74
DWB Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Encrypted. Access denied. Posts: 31,779	"Special Master" sounds so old school slave owner-ish.

06-24-2005, 03:30 AM	#80
TheSwed Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Sweden. Posts: 3,483	It's a great deal for both parts FSC= plenty of dollars DOJ= a complete working list __________________ Cheap Viagra and Cialis Erectionpills

06-24-2005, 03:32 AM	#81
Tat2Jr Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Sunny California Posts: 4,882	Maybe it's just me.... We're all on a list anyway. The DOJ has had all these extra obsenity lawyers for a few years... they haven't been straighting up their desks all this time. It's not like the governmment is going to get the FSC list, and go... "damn, we've been looking for this Cumshot Suzie for years... thank god we got THE list". I'm sure every post on any adult message board puts ya on a list. I'm not so sure being on the FSC list isn't a bad thing for the DOJ to see. It shows you've got the sense to spend a little money to protect yourself. Then follow that up by having a first ammendment attorney on retainer. I want to be the most sour grapes on the vine.... they're much sweeter down below.... pick from down there! ok, so I may be the only one on this too - I don't think the next shot fired is going to be .xxx migration as much as obsenity busts. I like the most gonzo, how many dicks can you stick in your ass, porno, but when a chick starts puking, or even worse puking on each other.... Even me as a fellow webmaster would honestly have to say, "man, I hate to say it, but that was just obscene".... and to think... I'd be your BEST shot on the jury..... and the other jurors aren't going to be as forgiving as me about the double anal or 20 guys on 1 girl gangbang. __________________ NICHE MONEY >> Ass Worship • Panties • Solo Teen • Pantyhose Serving up exclusive fetish sites since 1997!

06-24-2005, 03:48 AM	#85
Major (Tom) White Pride Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Null Posts: 32,186	im sure the DOJ will go back to the drawing board and come up with a more reasonable solution. I dont think we are against some tighter regs within reason. If V2 is just as bad the same thing will happen. I just hope all the time i put into getting my records straight for this version of the law wont become useless in v2 lol Duke __________________ WHITE LIVES MATTER

06-24-2005, 04:19 AM	#90
Rui web Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: On icq: 85-483-060 Posts: 9,533	FSC is like the new mafia of the Adult Industry...pay the fee and be "protected"...yuuupii

06-24-2005, 06:48 AM	#91
scoreman Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Miami, Florida Posts: 1,491	Some of you guys act as if the DOJ are clueless bumbling idiots who need the FSC list to target people. No, I think the DOJ already has a list of people its looking to investigate and has had that list for some time. Others of you seem to believe that adding your name to the list makes you a bigger target. I can see where this would be a concern, but really, the DOJ has a list already of people it wants to see put down. You think for a moment the DOJ will shift gears and put you higher on their to do list, effectively knocking down the list those whom they have always wanted to get, just because you support the FSC? Lee and others talk like its a given the entire list is in the DOJ's hands now. Well its not suppose to be, and this talk like its already a given is not only subversive to the goals that would should be having at this point but it also makes you look like a fear monger. Lee, stop trying to convince others by stating complete guesses as if you were speaking known facts, you are doing a big disservice to the industry right now by doing so. __________________

06-24-2005, 09:36 AM	#95
FilthyRob Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Anaheim - CA Posts: 6,741	It's all scary __________________ AKA - Clubsexy

06-24-2005, 10:59 AM	#97
fuelcell Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Las Vegas, NV Posts: 1,525	This discussion is fascinating simply for the illustrations of human psychology. It seems most or all people are inherently convinced of their intelligence, ability to reason correctly, and absolute correctness in the face of facts and reasoning that would otherwise seem to contradict everything they espouse. It seems most or all people are unable to discern the difference between an opinion and fact or to properly weight the value of an opinion. It seems most or all people value paranioa and fear over reasoning and logic - guess there's more emotional bang for the buck. Sorry for the interruption. Commence spinning your wheels uselessly again. __________________ Beat it. Nothing to see here.

06-24-2005, 12:36 PM	#98
Snake Doctor I'm Lenny2 Bitch Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: On top of my soapbox Posts: 13,449	LADY B!!!!!! Long time no speak woman, how have you been? Give me a shout sometime and let's do some biz together. ICQ 78465690, lenny at projectrevenue.com Interesting discussion here BTW. My money is on Scoreman in the knife fight, the courtroom, and in the pool hall __________________ sig too big