I guess "inserting" comments might be a little confusing, so I've "Astericked ***" the comments--see below.


Originally Posted by baycouples

Dave,

Can you tell us if you really believe that FSC has really done a good job fighting the 2257

****Yes--as a Plaintiff, I was there in the depositions, meetings, negotiations, court hearing, etc and witnessed FSC attorneys doing a GREAT job on behalf of the Secondary Producers and the Adult Industry.

and the Adam Walsh act?

***IMO, that's a fight that's just starting (keep in mind that Congress passed the 2257 revisions part of it without so much as a hearing).

And if somehow you actually do think so - can you tell us what are the things that could be any worse than they are now if FSC never fought this?

***IMO, had not the FSC won the TRO in 2005, Secondary Producers would have ALREADY been being inspected by the FBI.


Thank you!


***You're welcome:-)

Dave

wtf 3rd page?! Back to the top!

Great point because I have a lot more comments on more than just costs.

Thanks for the updates, Dave. Great thread!

From the FSC Site

or an expense of over $100,000,000 annually to the industry as a whole,

• For secondary producers the difficulty and expense of obtaining records from primaries

I am betting by what we had to throw away,(about a million images), just the content no longer usable because of inability and or refusal by primaries to give the records. That the LEGAL content that has been thrown away industry wide is in excess of 100 million

sadly this isn't about fairness - it's about making it more difficult for the adult industry to survive in a free society. They can't take away the rights we have, but they can sure make it more difficult for us to assert them.

Once again mainstream adult content is being grouped in with underground illegal content and we are all seen as producers of it. Talking to people I mention how much we hate CP and want to stop it and their responses are, "but your in the adult industry, you and your friends there I thought were creating it? Aren't you all the same?"

If they seriously want to stop pedophiles - start putting regulations on the churches.

Everything you said is right on target--thanks! What a shame that FBI "Inspectors" and DOJ employees working on 2257 stuff can't instead go after the Child Porn (and the clergy who take/took advantage of children).

Dave

Most of us do, but please remember that the comments are for the regulations themselves, not the law. Commenting on the unfairness of the law is a waste of your time, because the DOJ doesn't control that.

Dave, what are you judging the performance of the FSC attorney's? I'm judging it by the results, which leads me to ask a question that you didn't really answer: how are we better off now than before this lawsuit?

From where I see it - the FSC's attorney haven't gained a ground. I see no results.

I am really losing any hope that FSC will get this shot down. Why are they only asking for comment on the financial side of things? There are many other issues that they should be seeking comments for such things as privacy. I really have doubt that this will turn out in our favor but I am still going to submit my comments.

I'm not qualified to make a judgment about "the performance of the FSC attorney's", but I did see them get a TRO for Secondary producers (and I have seen Primary producers being inspected, but NO Secondary producers).

FSC success in getting that TRO resulted in Secondary producers NOT being subject to inspection by the DOJ/FBI; IMHO, it's inapporpriate to fault/blame the "FSC attorney's" because the FSC TRO success was thwarted by Congress SUBSEQUENTLY adding the inclusion of Secondary Producers to a subsequent law (Adam-Walsh), something that I understand was slipped in without any Congressional hearings.

Rather than debating the success of FSC, I personally will focus on the present opportunity to provide input to FSC/DOJ that is intended to help the Adult Industry.

Dave

I have very serious doubts that the FSC has asked for these specific comments haphazardly. I feel that one line of reasoning is that this current administration is well versed in justifying their own actions that skirt privacy concerns (FISA, Gitmo, and etc.). Therefore, attacking the regulations on the premise that it creates an enormous and undue financial burden could be a novel and (hopefully) effective method of nipping this in the bud. The First Amendment and privacy concerns are, in my humble opinion, a set of abstract and liquid ideas that change from person to person... but money is money, figures are figures, and you can put objective and concrete figures onto a sheet of paper and say, "look, this won't work and here's why."

This doesn't mean that the privacy issue goes away... hell, it might even be a good idea to keep that in their back pocket and then if the proposed regulations do actually go through, then they can pull it out for when there's (and oh god I hope there is) a Democratic administration.

Just my :2 cents:. Be sure to check out the Xbiz 2257 seminar... very interesting stuff: http://www.xbizforum.com/seminars2.php

Excellent, excellent point.

love the mlf list lol

So where does that leave us now?
Why are they not going after the (adam walsh) ruling?