To Everyone Bitching about the FSC. - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

woj · 06-24-2005, 12:38 AM

50.........

Hornydog4cooter · 06-24-2005, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2257-Ben

While there in SD, I attended the FSC symposium where the panel of 4 attorneys spoke, along with Michelle Freridge and Tom Hymnes. The Executive Director of the FSC emphatically stipulated that the membership list of the organization would absolutely remain secret. That was good enough for me. I paid my membership in support of their efforts.

This is my whole beef in a nut shell. How can you argue with that?

will76 · 06-24-2005, 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Centurion

You'll never get an answer to those questions..because the supporters of the settlement don't have an answer to them. These things we know:

1)At the 11th hour, the attornies and/or powers that be behind the FSC abandoned their proposed injunction, the injunction they had been promoting heavily to get webmasters to support by joining the FSC.

2)They then made a private agreement (remember, those who were already FSC members helped finance this..without your approval too!) which allowed the DOJ to pursue legal action against non-fsc members. (Remember when they said originally that this injunction would help everyone?)

3)This is an AGREEMENT, not a legal binding law, which can be broken, amended, or slipped around at any time by the DOJ. They are not bound to this agreement beyond a "gentleman's agreement". With an injunction, you have binding legal action.

4)This is not an argument that people should get a "free ride" or are cheapskates for not joining the FSC.

5)Members of the FSC payed for ALL of the above. Now, did the MAJORITY of the membership APPROVE of the above actions? That's an important question to ask. If you join between now and Saturday, how do you know that YOUR voice is going to be heard and followed by "the powers that be" in the FSC?

6)And before you can say "HEY FREELOADER!"..yes I am a member of the FSC.
And I don't approve of these actions in any way or manner.

1. " the injunction they had been promoting heavily to get webmasters to support by joining the FSC."
either way injuction or not you are still protected if you are a FSC members so what;s the diffence to you as a member ?????????????????????

2. "which allowed the DOJ to pursue legal action against non-fsc members."
WRONG, it allows the DOJ to pursue legal action against all non FSC members and all non plaintiffs. The FSC told everyone to not count on an injuction, do you remember that. Many of you where banking on them getting one, the FSC told you to be compliant by June 23 to be safe, they urged people to do this.

3. 100% wrong, "" The U.S. District Court in Denver will hold a preliminary injunction hearing on August 8, 2005, after which the judge will determine whether to issue a further injunction. "" The District court in Denver set the date for August 8, the DOJ can not change this.

4. people can join or hire their own attorney or do nothing, they have 3 choices. It's pretty simple.

5. Do you think it would be possible or feasable for the FSC to come to the membership for a vote in the 11th hour on every issue. As a member you elect a board, the board makes decissions, etc. that's what we hired them for. LOL I wouldn't want them to come take a poll of what you guys wanted them to do, I rather the professionals make the decissions.

6. can't make everyone happy.

2257-Ben · 06-24-2005, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by will76

... <snip> 3. 100% wrong, "" The U.S. District Court in Denver will hold a preliminary injunction hearing on August 8, 2005, after which the judge will determine whether to issue a further injunction. "" The District court in Denver set the date for August 8, the DOJ can not change this.
...<snip...

This is probably the most salient argument for the decision that was made... Why? Because it gives the adult industry MORE TIME to get compliant. Had the FSC gotten a TRO as they had planned, it would have lasted 10 DAYS. It could POSSIBLY be extended another 10 days, but there would be no guarantee of that happening. At the end of the TRO period, a hearing would have been conducted to determine the merits of a Preliminary Injunction. If the Preliminary Injunction was not granted (for whatever reason, maybe the judge's daughter's husband just got caught by their 10 year old daughter (the judges granddaughter) wankin' off to porn on the computer over the weekend and it pissed him off...) then everyone would be subject to inspection by the DOJ by July 21. At least this way, you all have until September to get your shit together...

2257-Ben · 06-24-2005, 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by will76

BTW, a lot of us believe that looking at porn is not a sin. Do these same people also think masturbation is a sin. Do you think they wouldn't masturabate if there was no internet porn. If people are weak are cheat on their wives because they meet people online then it is the persons fault and the "internet" is an excuse. The whole if it wasn't for internet porn argument is weak. People are human, either you have morals and self control or you don't.

BTW, if their major [worst] sin is looking at porn, i think they have nothing to worry about.

I think you missed the entire point of my post... I wasn't 'complaining' about your rant against right wing organized religious groups who are attacking the adult industry, I was simply saying that...

a) not all Christians hold to the philosophy that your initial post ascribed to them
b) there are some reasonable people in the world, who also happen to be Christians, who don't necessarily 'follow the flock' when it comes to issues.
c) I believe in the issue of free speech enough to embrace the stand promulgated by the adult industry and I have put my money where my mouth is...

Socks · 06-24-2005, 01:49 AM

Masturbation is *clearly* the largest issue facing the United States of America in 2005.

2257-Ben · 06-24-2005, 01:54 AM

Yeah, it's right up there with 'WMDs', Kids going to school hungry and the unconstitutionality of the IRS...

Guitar Riff · 06-24-2005, 02:19 AM

Maybe you should all go read the transcripts from the court see what kind of exact deal was made then maybe ya will see You got sold out.

Hornydog4cooter · 06-24-2005, 02:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guitar Riff

Maybe you should all go read the transcripts from the court see what kind of exact deal was made then maybe ya will see You got sold out.

Got a link?

European Lee · 06-24-2005, 02:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hornydog4cooter

Got a link?

Nobody has, this deal was made in private, not in a court room, thats what makes it all the more shadier.

Regards,

Lee

will76 · 06-24-2005, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2257-Ben

I think you missed the entire point of my post... I wasn't 'complaining' about your rant against right wing organized religious groups who are attacking the adult industry, I was simply saying that...

a) not all Christians hold to the philosophy that your initial post ascribed to them
b) there are some reasonable people in the world, who also happen to be Christians, who don't necessarily 'follow the flock' when it comes to issues.
c) I believe in the issue of free speech enough to embrace the stand promulgated by the adult industry and I have put my money where my mouth is...

I understand your points, but i still had questions inregards to your comment that 1/3 of catholics identify internet porn as their biggest sin. I think that is flawed and a general missconception. I bet these same people think masturbation is a sin. They are just blamming the internet instead of themselves. Seems like the root reason why the fantics don't like us either, we cause them, and their flock to sin. That's BS.

will76 · 06-24-2005, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guitar Riff

Maybe you should all go read the transcripts from the court see what kind of exact deal was made then maybe ya will see You got sold out.

you don't like the deal? get your own attorney and become a plaintiff and make your own deal. Can't get more simple then that.

grumpy · 06-24-2005, 06:54 AM

fsc whyning, doesnt touch us europeans.

besterman · 06-24-2005, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Centurion

You'll never get an answer to those questions..because the supporters of the settlement don't have an answer to them. These things we know:

1)At the 11th hour, the attornies and/or powers that be behind the FSC abandoned their proposed injunction, the injunction they had been promoting heavily to get webmasters to support by joining the FSC.

2)They then made a private agreement (remember, those who were already FSC members helped finance this..without your approval too!) which allowed the DOJ to pursue legal action against non-fsc members. (Remember when they said originally that this injunction would help everyone?)

3)This is an AGREEMENT, not a legal binding law, which can be broken, amended, or slipped around at any time by the DOJ. They are not bound to this agreement beyond a "gentleman's agreement". With an injunction, you have binding legal action.

4)This is not an argument that people should get a "free ride" or are cheapskates for not joining the FSC.

5)Members of the FSC payed for ALL of the above. Now, did the MAJORITY of the membership APPROVE of the above actions? That's an important question to ask. If you join between now and Saturday, how do you know that YOUR voice is going to be heard and followed by "the powers that be" in the FSC?

6)And before you can say "HEY FREELOADER!"..yes I am a member of the FSC.
And I don't approve of these actions in any way or manner.

It's just marketing propaganda. If FSC members will not be prosecuted between now and resolution, *NEITHER* will non-members. Think about it from a practical point of view. If FSC members have an extension, the government will most likely give it to others until resolution. To me this seems to be the likely outcome.

Having said that, support the FSC so we can win.

will76 · 06-24-2005, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by besterman

It's just marketing propaganda. If FSC members will not be prosecuted between now and resolution, *NEITHER* will non-members. Think about it from a practical point of view. If FSC members have an extension, the government will most likely give it to others until resolution. To me this seems to be the likely outcome.

Having said that, support the FSC so we can win.

I don't think the DOJ thinks from a pratical view. A more likely scenerio is that if the DOJ went after a non plaintiff chances are the FSC would still (most likely) come to your aid. They don't want any precedence set, that would only make their case that much harder.

However assume nothing. If you are not a FSC member then you need to hire you own lawyer trying to guess is insaine.

will76 · 06-24-2005, 05:18 PM

bump for those still bitching about the FSC, who continue to ignore the facts.

I'm wearing a bike helmet · 06-24-2005, 05:34 PM

there's no way I'm giving a nickel to FSC

will76 · 06-24-2005, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I'm wearing a bike helmet

there's no way I'm giving a nickel to FSC

thats cool so whats your alternative, give 500,000 nickels to your own attorny or pray the DOJ doesnt come after you ?

scoreman · 06-24-2005, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I'm wearing a bike helmet

there's no way I'm giving a nickel to FSC

I am curious, are you an adult webmaster in the USA? Cause if you are I think you are making a huge mistake. This is the best deal you have been offered in a long time and you dont even realize it.

There is some confusion about the FSC actions in this thread. Misinformation really.

Centurion, the agreement with the DOJ is binding and absent some real misrepresentation by the FSC to the DOJ the deal is rock solid safe. They are not going to cancel this deal because they can't, such agreements have endless caselaw support for holding the Govt to their promises.

Besterman, come Sat at 2pm if you are not an FSC member you are eligible for prosecution. You can believe what you want, but the DOJ is not limited in prosecuting non FSC members. Whether they do or don't its a real crap shoot. You feel like gambling high stakes???? because I really think it doesnt get much higher than this.

As Ben-2257 points out folks the hearing yesterday was for a TRO. Emphasis on Temporary . Repeatedly today I have seen many many intelligent webmasters say that they would have rather seen them pursue the TRO. I believe the FSC would have won that hearing but what if they didnt? They settled for a known result which won us over seven times the amount of time a win at a TRO would have won us. Do you still like the TRO option now?

People seemed pissed that the FSC is basically requiring that you ante up a small part of the bill to share in the benefits. And I do mean SMALL. Full blown litigation with oral arguments, hearings, testimony, motion work, memoranda etc etc costs huge sums. At least several hundred thousand to go all the way and thats a very low estimate.

The more I think about this the more I am convinced that should the FSC and by its nature that means ALL OF US in the biz prevail in this matter, I think that the settlement yesterday will be seen as the key turning point in this litigation. I say this because the way this has gone down, its forcing USA webmasters to take a stand and either say you are with us or you are by yourself. The settlement most of all created a huge cash inflow to the FSC and this in itself may be the one factor that in the end will be seen as the key thing that allowed us to prevail.

We have the firm of Sirkin,Cambria, Schwartz,Kingsley,Wilcox, Gross,Covert and Deal, who out there has a more experienced firm than this collection of minds? And to retain this firm you are looking at entry price starting at $300 a year. Honestly, this is the best deal I have seen in my entire life on retaining legal defense. People should be focusing on the value that joining the FSC offers you. Even if you have many reasons why you don't like the FSC, I just am floored that adult webmasters in the USA can't see that this is the best deal they will ever get for legal representation and jump on this deal before it expires in about 16 hrs from now.

This has been a long post. I dont blame you if you dont read it all.

FightThisPatent · 06-24-2005, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by European Lee

Nobody has, this deal was made in private, not in a court room, thats what makes it all the more shadier.

Regards,

Lee

the agreement was made in court, where it is public record, here is the doc:

-----------------------------------------------------------

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

FREE SPEECH COALITION, et al., :

Plaintiffs, :

v. Case No. 05-CV-1126-WDM-BNB

Honorable Walker Miller

ALBERTO GONZALES,

Defendant. :

STIPULATION REGARDING

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

The parties, by through the their respective counsel, hereby enter into the following stipulation regarding the Plaintiffs? motion for temporary restraining order. The parties agree as follows:

1. The Court will forego ruling on the pending motion for temporary restraining order, treat the motion as a motion for preliminary injunction, and will take up scheduling matters at the time of hearing for temporary restraining order on June 23, 2005, 1:30 P.M.

2. From the date of this agreement until no later than 30 days after the date of the hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction or the date of a decision on the motion, whichever comes first, unless otherwise extended by the Court, the Government agrees: (1) not to conduct any inspections, with regard to the Plaintiffs and their members, under 18 U.S.C. section 2257 and the Attorney General?s new implementing regulations; and (2) not to pursue any claim against Plaintiffs and their members under 18 U.S.C. section 2257 and the Attorney General?s new implementing regulations.

3. The Government takes the position that the regulations codified at 28 CFR, part 75, et seq., are in effect as of June 23, 2005, and reserves the right, after the expiration of this agreement or the denial of a preliminary injunction, to prosecute or otherwise commence enforcement proceedings with respect to any violation that occurs on or after June 23, 2005 (including any violation that may occur during the period of this agreement).

4. The parties mutually propose that the hearing on preliminary injunction occur as close as practicable to one month from the date of this agreement, subject to the Court?s schedule and as convenience permits.

5. By June 29, 2005, Plaintiff Free Speech Coalition, Inc., agrees to provide to a Special Master appointed by the Court a list of the names of those persons or entities who were members of Plaintiff Free Speech Coalition, Inc., as of June 25, 2005, at 2 p.m. The Government shall not be provided with the names of such persons, but shall instead consult with the Special Master before conducting any inspections under 18 U.S.C. 2257 and its implementing regulations, in order to ensure that such inspection would not involve a member of the Free Speech Coalition, Inc. Plaintiff Free Speech Coalition, Inc., shall bear all costs associated with this Special Master. For purposes of paragraph 2, ?the Plaintiffs? shall mean persons or entities on the list, Plaintiff Free Speech Coalition, Inc., as an organization, Plaintiff Free Speech Coalition of Colorado as an organization, David Connors, and Lenjo, Inc. D/B/A New Beginnings Ltd.

Dated: June 24, 2005

/s/ Michael W. Gross

ARTHUR M. SCHWARTZ

MICHAEL W. GROSS

Schwartz & Goldberg, P.C.

1225 17th Street, Suite 1600

Denver, Colorado 80202

(303) 893-2500

PAUL J. CAMBRIA, JR.

ROGER W. WILCOX, JR.

Lipsitz, Green, Fahringer, Roll, Salisbury & Cambria

42 Delaware Avenue

Buffalo, New York 14202

(716) 849-1333

H. LOUIS SIRKIN

JENNIFER M. KINSLEY

Sirkin Pinales & Schwartz LLP

105 West Fourth Street, Suite 920

Cincinnati, Ohio 45202

(513) 721-4876

Counsel for Plaintiffs

PETER D. KEISLER

Assistant Attorney General

CARL J. NICHOLS

Deputy Assistant Attorney General

WILLIAM J. LEONE

Acting United States Attorney

/s/ Kurt J. Bohn

KURT J. BOHN, Assistant United States Attorney

VINCENT M. GARVEY

Deputy Branch Director

SAMUEL C. KAPLAN,

Trial Attorney

United States Department of Justice, Civil Division

Federal Programs Branch

P.O. Box 883

Washington D.C. 20044

20 Massachusetts Avenue

Room 7302

Washington, D.C. 20001

(202) 514- 4686

(202) 616-8202 fax

Counsel for Defendant

APPROVED BY THE COURT

Walker D. Miller

United States District Court Judge

District of Colorado

Fight the Shhhhhh!

scoreman · 06-24-2005, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FightThisPatent

in order to ensure that such inspection would not involve a member of the Free Speech Coalition, Inc. Plaintiff Free Speech Coalition, Inc., shall bear all costs associated with this Special Master.

AWESOME. The Special master being our hire, really increases the chances this person is not going to be some Government Stooge.

dopeman · 06-24-2005, 07:00 PM

this is taken from another board: this is one of the guys from FSC Colorado (one of the plaintiffs)

Quote:

This was a court case, not a law, statue or a constitutional amendment calling for equal protection.

This was a court case between the named Plaintiffs and the named defendents. Period.

Nobody else was represented there, nobody else was listed in the case. Therefore no rulings, settlements, or stipulations (agreements between the parties) are binding on any parties outside those named.

EXAMPLE: Lets say we are both driving down the road and a big ass truck crosses the median and hit us both.

I take the time to hire an attorney, time to meet with him, prepare the case, etc. I go to court and he gets me a settlement.

You don't take those same actions, but rather kick back and wait to see how my case turns out.

In that scenario, do you have a right to part of my settlement?

NO

Should you expect the same treatment because you didn't hire a lawyer and go into court to represent yourself?

NO

Is the other side (lawyers for the truck driver) somehow obligated to just give you exactly what they gave me?

NO

In this case -- FSC managed to get 48 hours to get a bunch more people under their umbrella and into the settlement.

Read what I said above. This deal for FSC members was verbally agreed to Wednesday evening.

It was only late Thursday morning -- at the risk of losing their own deal -- that the FSC team went back to the DOJ guys (including big dogs back in Washington DC) and managed to get the extra 48 hours that would allow more under the FSC umbrella.

The civil procedures rules are complicated in these matters -- and I've personally dealt with them for years (mostly copyright cases) -- but the simple part is... If you had a better way to attack this matter you, acting on your own, could have filed your own action in the same court they did. or any other federal court -- you can do that in the morning (Fed courts are open at all times) if you wish.

Then, with luck, you'll have an agreement that will cover the named parties in your action (suit).

You have equal protection -- all you have to do is take the steps to exercise it that they did.

Jimmy

will76 · 06-24-2005, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dopeman

this is taken from another board: this is one of the guys from FSC Colorado (one of the plaintiffs)

great post.

And once again you guys who are bitching can see in very clear where it says " ?the Plaintiffs? shall mean persons or entities on the list, Plaintiff Free Speech Coalition, Inc., as an organization, Plaintiff Free Speech Coalition of Colorado as an organization, David Connors, and Lenjo, Inc. D/B/A New Beginnings Ltd. "

YOU DON'T need to join the FSC to be protected, you could have been a plaintiff and hired your own attorney. You are also welcome to go try to stike your own deal with the DOJ if you don't like what the FSC did for you. For a whole what $25 you get to cover your ass. I convinced you people bitching are doing so for the sake of bitching. You probably don't make any money, probably a bunch of surfers. I can't see how anyone half way successful can be so clueless.

Atticus · 06-24-2005, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by will76

thats cool so whats your alternative, give 500,000 nickels to your own attorny or pray the DOJ doesnt come after you ?

How about, oh i dont know, stop bitching and just comply with the new regulations.

will76 · 06-24-2005, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atticus

How about, oh i dont know, stop bitching and just comply with the new regulations.

thats kinda the given, if you don't comply you have nothing to worry about. But all the people who are bitching about the FSC are bitching because they *think* they have to join to be protected. I guess complying it not any option for them for whatever reason.

Atticus · 06-25-2005, 10:53 AM

"The only group that backs us up is the FSC so why do some of you shit on them. Instead, we should not only back them 110% but we should be taxing ourselves and creating our own PAC's and other groups to take these religious fuckers head on. Fight toe to toe on all fronts not just stick our tails between our legs and bitch about the FSC. We wait till they back us in a corner and then we let the FSC go after them and we sit back do nothing but bitch about the FSC ??? We should Go after THEM for once. Start Priest Watch Sites, turn up the heat on them and expose all their sins, expose these fuckers everytime they open their mouths about us and show the rest of america how these religious zeolyst are hypocrites. Everytime they stick their nose in our business we need to stick our nose back in theirs 3fold. The come to our work place and mess with us, we should bring it to their fucking churches and their meeting places."

The problem is you're not just fighting the zealots on this one. You're going up against Jane Q soccer mom who doesnt approve of her 13 year old son being able to see free hardcore porn. This industry needs to take a lesson from traditional porn, alcohol, and tobacco industries that self police themselves and take action to please this demographic. Taking away a right to view or distribute sexually explicit images is a violation of free speech, having to put a warning label on it or have proper documentation is not. The more we as an industry fight these regulations the more we polorize the issue with middle America. And fighting a child porn law, (no matter if it will do nothing to stop child porn) is bad for business.

will76 · 06-26-2005, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atticus

"The only group that backs us up is the FSC so why do some of you shit on them. Instead, we should not only back them 110% but we should be taxing ourselves and creating our own PAC's and other groups to take these religious fuckers head on. Fight toe to toe on all fronts not just stick our tails between our legs and bitch about the FSC. We wait till they back us in a corner and then we let the FSC go after them and we sit back do nothing but bitch about the FSC ??? We should Go after THEM for once. Start Priest Watch Sites, turn up the heat on them and expose all their sins, expose these fuckers everytime they open their mouths about us and show the rest of america how these religious zeolyst are hypocrites. Everytime they stick their nose in our business we need to stick our nose back in theirs 3fold. The come to our work place and mess with us, we should bring it to their fucking churches and their meeting places."

The problem is you're not just fighting the zealots on this one. You're going up against Jane Q soccer mom who doesnt approve of her 13 year old son being able to see free hardcore porn. This industry needs to take a lesson from traditional porn, alcohol, and tobacco industries that self police themselves and take action to please this demographic. Taking away a right to view or distribute sexually explicit images is a violation of free speech, having to put a warning label on it or have proper documentation is not. The more we as an industry fight these regulations the more we polorize the issue with middle America. And fighting a child porn law, (no matter if it will do nothing to stop child porn) is bad for business.

actually while some of mainstream may be upset about porn in their child email, these are not the people we are going up against. They are not sponsoring bills, or pushing for legislation to clamp down on us. They are not preaching to the world we are evil. In most cases, mainstream america either subscribes to our services or opts out. The majority of parents police their children and realize it is their responsibilty to protect their kids from all harmfull things out there including pedos. It's only a portion of mainstream that gets brainwashed for the zealots into believing that the new 2257 changes actually protects kids.

I am a 100% in agreement we should police ourselves. This goes hand in hand with us starting groups to combat the zealots and also for us to advertise some good PR to mainstream america so we can offer our side of the story, the truth.

Atticus · 06-26-2005, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by will76

actually while some of mainstream may be upset about porn in their child email, these are not the people we are going up against. They are not sponsoring bills, or pushing for legislation to clamp down on us. They are not preaching to the world we are evil. In most cases, mainstream america either subscribes to our services or opts out. The majority of parents police their children and realize it is their responsibilty to protect their kids from all harmfull things out there including pedos. It's only a portion of mainstream that gets brainwashed for the zealots into believing that the new 2257 changes actually protects kids.

I am a 100% in agreement we should police ourselves. This goes hand in hand with us starting groups to combat the zealots and also for us to advertise some good PR to mainstream america so we can offer our side of the story, the truth.

I agree with you, however the mainstream soccer moms might not introduce legislation nor get signatures on petitions, when it comes time to cast a ballot on a porn issue that they feel can effect their children, you know what side of the fense they are on. And there are more of them then i think you give them credit for. Bush didnt lose the last election. This time he won it by a decent margin.

I fully agree that this industry need their own trade group and needs to organize. My problem is with the FSC and their propaganda machine regarding free speech. This isnt a free speech issue. This is just the government issuing this industry regulations because we cant adopt them ourselves. A better public relations campaign would be to stand up as an industry and say that we agree with the new regulations (however fucked they might be) and introduce even more regulations thata s an industry we are instituting. Fight the bees with honey so to say.

I think the problem that people have with the FSC (i know my problem with them) is they masquerade as a free speech not for profit organization while all they really are is a industry trade group. If they were a legitimate free speech organization they wouldnt have excluded all non members. When the ACLU goes to court to knock down what they feel are unjust laws, and recieve injunctions they dont only apply to paid up members. Dont be so naive to think that this agreement wasnt made with the thought of increasing the membership drive.

69pornlinks · 06-26-2005, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atticus

I think the problem that people have with the FSC (i know my problem with them) is they masquerade as a free speech not for profit organization while all they really are is a industry trade group. If they were a legitimate free speech organization they wouldnt have excluded all non members. When the ACLU goes to court to knock down what they feel are unjust laws, and recieve injunctions they dont only apply to paid up members. Dont be so naive to think that this agreement wasnt made with the thought of increasing the membership drive.

good post

dopeman · 06-26-2005, 02:55 PM

here's a post made by one of the plaintiffs of the suit (FSC of Colorado)

Quote:

As for the idea of attacking the entire law.

1... When you go to buy a car the dealer will ask for full price and you will offer a way lower price. Eventually a deal will be made someplace in the middle.

In this case FSC is saying that ALL of the law, and the burdens it places on us, is an unconstitutional prior restraint on presumptively protected speech.

The DOJ will deny that and say it is ALL perfectly within the contitutional powers of Congress to enact such things, and within the powers of the AG to ceate these new regulations.

The Judge, may very likely stick PARTS of the law and the regulations.

We ask for it all.

They offer nothing.

The Judge settles in the middle. See my third point below.

2... FSC lawyers, and many 1st Amendment lawyers outside of the FSC, have wanted to attack 2257 for years. They almost did in 1999.

In this matter the DOJ's new rulings actually enforce the position that the whole 2257 thing is worthless in the battle against CP.

Now is finally the time to attack 2257 because the new regulations clearly show that DOJ wants to use it to regulate us, not go after 2257.

3... This strategy has worked well before. Back in the 90s Congress changed 2256 to include some terms like "appears to be" when referring to persons under age 18.

Meaning that your model could be 20, but if she happened to be slim and flat chested and look more like 15 or 16, you could be charged and CONVICTED of child porn.

Convicted for a model age 20. No Shit!

Or, if you advertised a 20 year old model in a manner that conveyed the impression that she was under 18 you could be charged and convicted.

The FSC stepped in back then and attacked 2256 in full, and specifically those new terms.

The main question was "appeared to who"

If she appears to be 16 to a cop, but nobody else?

If she appears to be 16 to a pedophile, but nobody else?

The term "appears to be" was vaque and confusing.

FSC sued, just as they have done this time.

They fought, they won. John Ashcroft fought back and it reached the US Supreme Court at 10:00am on October 10th, 2001.

Louis Sirkin -- THE SAME FSC LAWYER working the 2257 matter -- argued in front of the 9 Justices of the Court.

On April 22, 2002, the Court issued a ruling in favor of the FSC and those terms are no longer inforceable within 2256.

Its a battle. It takes tons of time and money.

The attack on all of 2257 is great for us.

I was involved in a case once over laws like this and made it a hobby to read everything about the law and how it all works. Not just a few pages, but hundreds and hundreds of cases about 1st Amendment law going back to the Roth obscenity case in the 50s, right up to the current cases like Extreeme Associates.

FSC actually has a darn good arguement within the 2257 battle -- and they just started.

Jimmy

Drake · 06-26-2005, 02:56 PM

I think the FSC is doing a great job and a much needed one too.

will76 · 06-26-2005, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atticus

I agree with you, however the mainstream soccer moms might not introduce legislation nor get signatures on petitions, when it comes time to cast a ballot on a porn issue that they feel can effect their children, you know what side of the fense they are on. And there are more of them then i think you give them credit for. Bush didnt lose the last election. This time he won it by a decent margin.

I fully agree that this industry need their own trade group and needs to organize. My problem is with the FSC and their propaganda machine regarding free speech. This isnt a free speech issue. This is just the government issuing this industry regulations because we cant adopt them ourselves. A better public relations campaign would be to stand up as an industry and say that we agree with the new regulations (however fucked they might be) and introduce even more regulations thata s an industry we are instituting. Fight the bees with honey so to say.

Complying to these new regulations are almost impossible. Especially if they try to make them retroactive for the secondary producer. No one here can remember what nude banner they had on their sites back in 99 much less could you go back to that company (if they were still in busines) and request the model's info.

Do you see the cigerette ads that actually tell you smoking is bad? kinda weriod, or the gambling hot line number around any gambling machines. Along the same lines WE should educate mainstream america. OUR groups should focus on education for parents by giving them easy to use filter software, by explaining to them how to police their children's internet access, to help them report CP or hardcore images that are pushed on their kids etc.. We should also explain how our websites are meant for adults in the privacy of their own homes and rebut all the BS the govt and realigious zealots preach about us. Things are always a lot different when mainstream america knows what we are all about and they can hear both sides of the story.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atticus

I think the problem that people have with the FSC (i know my problem with them) is they masquerade as a free speech not for profit organization while all they really are is a industry trade group. If they were a legitimate free speech organization they wouldnt have excluded all non members. When the ACLU goes to court to knock down what they feel are unjust laws, and recieve injunctions they dont only apply to paid up members. Dont be so naive to think that this agreement wasnt made with the thought of increasing the membership drive.

The FSC is not the best group to represent us. I appreciate their efforts, and the fact that they are the only group we have. You have to understand without them, right now, the new 2257 regs would be in effect and uncontested. They would be set in stone. IF/When the FSC settles this thing or wins it, EVERYONE will benefit from it. SO they do protect/help everyone. THis is one of the rare cases where they had to file a lawsuit, in the US you can only file a lawsuit as a PLAINTIFF. They couldn't do it on behalf of the entire US adult webmaster population. Also, the membership drive, all of the money from that is going to be going into this lawsuit. 2 things you need to think of, how much do you think they have in expenses to take a case like this on, not counting everything else they are working on. The other thing is, do you think they should work for free. I wouldn't expect that anyone work for free, i absolutly think they should be compensaited for their time, shit for what they are doing for us, (that no one else is) they should be paid a lot. But since they are a NOn Profit ORG, all the extra money (if there is any) will go into other programs. You guys need to cut them some slack. When we have 100 groups looking out for us then you can have the right to critize/scrutinize them, until then be happy for what you have, because the alternative is an anal prob by the DOJ, best case scenerio.

will76 · 06-26-2005, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atticus

I agree with you, however the mainstream soccer moms might not introduce legislation nor get signatures on petitions, when it comes time to cast a ballot on a porn issue that they feel can effect their children, you know what side of the fense they are on. And there are more of them then i think you give them credit for. Bush didnt lose the last election. This time he won it by a decent margin.

I fully agree that this industry need their own trade group and needs to organize. My problem is with the FSC and their propaganda machine regarding free speech. This isnt a free speech issue. This is just the government issuing this industry regulations because we cant adopt them ourselves. A better public relations campaign would be to stand up as an industry and say that we agree with the new regulations (however fucked they might be) and introduce even more regulations thata s an industry we are instituting. Fight the bees with honey so to say.

Complying to these new regulations are almost impossible. Especially if they try to make them retroactive for the secondary producer. No one here can remember what nude banner they had on their sites back in 99 much less could you go back to that company (if they were still in busines) and request the model's info.

Do you see the cigerette ads that actually tell you smoking is bad? kinda weriod, or the gambling hot line number around any gambling machines. Along the same lines WE should educate mainstream america. OUR groups should focus on education for parents by giving them easy to use filter software, by explaining to them how to police their children's internet access, to help them report CP or hardcore images that are pushed on their kids etc.. We should also explain how our websites are meant for adults in the privacy of their own homes and rebut all the BS the govt and realigious zealots preach about us. Things are always a lot different when mainstream america knows what we are all about and they can hear both sides of the story.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atticus

I think the problem that people have with the FSC (i know my problem with them) is they masquerade as a free speech not for profit organization while all they really are is a industry trade group. If they were a legitimate free speech organization they wouldnt have excluded all non members. When the ACLU goes to court to knock down what they feel are unjust laws, and recieve injunctions they dont only apply to paid up members. Dont be so naive to think that this agreement wasnt made with the thought of increasing the membership drive.

The FSC is not the best group to represent us. I appreciate their efforts, and the fact that they are the only group we have. You have to understand without them, right now, the new 2257 regs would be in effect and uncontested. They would be set in stone. IF/When the FSC settles this thing or wins it, EVERYONE will benefit from it. SO they do protect/help everyone. THis is one of the rare cases where they had to file a lawsuit, in the US you can only file a lawsuit as a PLAINTIFF. They couldn't do it on behalf of the entire US adult webmaster population. Also, the membership drive, all of the money from that is going to be going into this lawsuit. 2 things you need to think of, how much do you think they have in expenses to take a case like this on, not counting everything else they are working on. The other thing is, do you think they should work for free. I wouldn't expect that anyone work for free, i absolutly think they should be compensaited for their time, shit for what they are doing for us, (that no one else is) they should be paid a lot. But since they are a NOn Profit ORG, all the extra money (if there is any) will go into other programs. You guys need to cut them some slack. When we have 100 groups looking out for us then you can have the right to critize/scrutinize them, until then be happy for what you have, because the alternative is an anal probe by the DOJ, best case scenerio.

06-24-2005, 12:38 AM	#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

06-24-2005, 01:54 AM	#57
2257-Ben Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Dinuba, CA Posts: 633	Yeah, it's right up there with 'WMDs', Kids going to school hungry and the unconstitutionality of the IRS... __________________ 2257-Ben www.2257ware.com The BEST, most compliant 2257 record-keeping software available. Period.

06-24-2005, 02:19 AM	#58
Guitar Riff Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: USA Posts: 320	Maybe you should all go read the transcripts from the court see what kind of exact deal was made then maybe ya will see You got sold out. __________________ Buy and Sell Your Traffic to US!!

06-24-2005, 06:54 AM	#63
grumpy Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Holland Posts: 9,870	fsc whyning, doesnt touch us europeans. __________________ Don't let greediness blur your vision \| You gotta let some shit slide icq - 441-456-888

06-24-2005, 05:18 PM	#66
will76 Making $$$$ w/ ClickCash Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Location: USA Posts: 18,037	bump for those still bitching about the FSC, who continue to ignore the facts. __________________ ICQ: 86364801 Email: will [at] innovativeassets [dot] com PROGRAM SHIT LIST - DO NOT PROMOTE (click link for gfy thread) FNCash \| Media Revenue

06-24-2005, 01:49 AM	#56
Socks Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2002 Location: Toronto Posts: 8,475	Masturbation is clearly the largest issue facing the United States of America in 2005.

06-24-2005, 05:34 PM	#67
I'm wearing a bike helmet So Fucking Banned Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 52	there's no way I'm giving a nickel to FSC

06-25-2005, 10:53 AM	#76
Atticus Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 1,051	"The only group that backs us up is the FSC so why do some of you shit on them. Instead, we should not only back them 110% but we should be taxing ourselves and creating our own PAC's and other groups to take these religious fuckers head on. Fight toe to toe on all fronts not just stick our tails between our legs and bitch about the FSC. We wait till they back us in a corner and then we let the FSC go after them and we sit back do nothing but bitch about the FSC ??? We should Go after THEM for once. Start Priest Watch Sites, turn up the heat on them and expose all their sins, expose these fuckers everytime they open their mouths about us and show the rest of america how these religious zeolyst are hypocrites. Everytime they stick their nose in our business we need to stick our nose back in theirs 3fold. The come to our work place and mess with us, we should bring it to their fucking churches and their meeting places." The problem is you're not just fighting the zealots on this one. You're going up against Jane Q soccer mom who doesnt approve of her 13 year old son being able to see free hardcore porn. This industry needs to take a lesson from traditional porn, alcohol, and tobacco industries that self police themselves and take action to please this demographic. Taking away a right to view or distribute sexually explicit images is a violation of free speech, having to put a warning label on it or have proper documentation is not. The more we as an industry fight these regulations the more we polorize the issue with middle America. And fighting a child porn law, (no matter if it will do nothing to stop child porn) is bad for business.

06-26-2005, 02:56 PM	#81
Drake Hello world! Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 12,508	I think the FSC is doing a great job and a much needed one too.