Slick Legal Fund - Is FSC taking this case on?
 

Just wondering if the FSC is taking on this case for Slick. Nothing against your lawyer Slick, but you are probably better off with lawyers more experienced in this matter. This isn't going to be a tough case for them.

If they are, please let people know where they can fund it.

I'm willing to contribute and also help raise more funds for this, should it go to court.

I agree, you need to get some experienced adult lawyers on your side

I was just about to ask what is FSC doing for the adult community.
Have they done anything so far ?

If i am correct they did help in one case with a webmaster and he was found guilty or accepted a plea deal. It was over the war photos i think but i could be wrong...

Got an injunction on 2257.

From what I've read that injuction is worth about :2 cents: ?

I haven't read through all the threads entirely. Was he able to obtain the age docs for all those models? If not, would he really want to take this matter into court?

He can sue DN for damage, he doesn't have to prove he's not guilty.
DN (from what it looks so far) took his domains with no court order.

I'm assumming that Slick was using legitimate content from sponsors..... enough said.... he should be fine!

Terry

Not really their fault that the feds don't respect a judge's ruling.

Typical GFY reasoning.

Even if he beat DirectNic, that doesn't change the fact that the court is now aware of the content on his site. Gee nothing bad could happen there, Huh?

So many TGP's think they can post hardcore thumbs and not be liable for any of it. The idea that someone would post hardcore "teeny" content without having age docs is just ridiculous.

To me this is like carrying around flour in plastic bags and then complaining that police detained you. Sometimes the only thing that matters is the appearance.

Slick screwed Slick. I can't believe he even brought this to the boards.

The problem here is a registrar taking your domains with no legal grounds.

This shit was pulled by Joker in Ogrish's case.
and they actually had a government order
they had to let the domain go in the end.

I'll agree with you... BUT the content in question is so scary that nobody should be surprised if hosts, registrars, billers or even the authorities start to ask questions.

Responsible business people using this type of content should be ready, willing and able to answer such questions instead of screaming that their rights were violated.

And let's not forget that an affiliate of Justin Berry's site was recently convicted for using a promo video. His defense was that he had no idea the video featured a 16yo. That wasn't enough. The jury convicted him on that charge. So don't just assume sponsor content is legit, or you may end up in prison.

oh wow you got a link to this?

this is insane what they did

I guess we've all got to be careful... Only use sponsors that you can trust and only post stuff that you believe is legal. If somebody looks too young then don't post or link to it... simple as that.

I think Slick is a really good and honest guy. It's unfortunate what has happened here with his domains and i hope it's just a temp blip for him...

Ter

Man that a big frigin risk and alot of trust to be puting in a sponsor :2 cents:

He is innocent until proven otherwise, its one thing if they give him a month to show all the information and he doesnt...

But in this case, he didnt get the time..
They just pulled the plug. This could be you next time!

Uhm, who says whats too young ? I'm sure that depends by country right ?
The problem here is legal/ilegal not some half assed opinions.
There are girls looking like 20 at 15, you wouldn't have a problem with that ?

I can't find any news stories about his conviction. Going by his published letters from prison (freecasey.com), after Justin had turned 18 he asked him to host his site. He agreed and also used some content to push the site, allegedly having no idea Justin included underage content.

This sort of stuff really spotlights the fact that you need to choose who you do business with very carefully. I for one will not work with 18yo webmasters running sites out of their bedrooms. Nor will I work with sites featuring Eastern European or Russian "18yo but looks younger" type content. You've got to believe there is a high level of risk with this stuff.

how about sites featuring USA "18yo but looks younger" type of content ?
Aren't you beeing a bit hypocrite ?

Good morning everyone ! Thanks for your concern and support for me, it really means a lot at a time like this.

As far as my attorney goes. I was referred to one that's a good friend of someone that I'm good friends with. He has a background in the business, he was an attorney for Adult Check for a while, back in the days, so he definately has experience. He had a LOT of connections to a lot of the bigger adult attorneys including Jeffrey Douglas.

The biggest problem we had though, is that everything going on is out in New Orleans, so in order to get any instant action, we needed to find somene out there to handle it, which is a lot tougher than finding one in L.A.

Anyways, after my attorney busted his balls, checking on a few attorneys out in the New Orleans area, he found one that definately understands where we're coming from. It was kinda late yesterday, so with a fresh full day in front of us, we'll see what happens today.

As far as FSC goes, I am a member, but I myself haven't heard anything about them doing anything.

This part is interesting....

:disgust 14 year old boy hmm.

Why not get the docs to show the girls are of age? If they are not, even if you get your domains unlocked your going to be seriously fucked once you go to court and let the whole world know about this.

Your fucking kidding right, didnt you watch the senate hearings with Paul Cambria. The Senator told him, either you starting regulating yourselves or we are going to do it for you.
That means for those who are a little slow, we dont wait for the police to knock on the door. its hard for many who feel on the net they can do whatever they want til arrested. Self policing is good, a few lose but the majority get to keep doing what they love. Better than when governments starts to get involved.

We are governed by law not a porn industry union lol. or DirectNic

What they did there was NOT for the industry, but for thier own pockets.

Sounds to me that you are a pretty big supporter of this type of content, which is fine as long as the models are 18+.

Do you feel as though the legitimacy of teen content shot in Russia is just as high as that shot in North America?

I don't like how a lot of the age docs from that part of the world are nothing more than laminated pieces of paper. Faking an ID here is a bit more difficult than a trip into the local office supply store.

The first non-rant I have seen in this whole process. Did a good night's sleep rremind everyone that things are not as they seem?

All I can say is "Shitman". Go read history.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

its all about self regulation, I thought gay people were usually very smart. If we don't do it , someone will do it for us. We can use a scalpel or wait until the government uses a board sword. Also why hasnt he come up with the ids yet whats taking so long? Also did you ever think if everyone policed against cp on the net it could cut it down probably 80 percent instead of waiting for police to do it ? OH wait this is the internet where no can be restricted to do anything. Sorry I forgot. My father has a saying "then they wonder why" sadly it will fit for our industry.

Yeah, this is now my second post in this thread. The first one was about something you probably don't even know about and I laughed about it. I haven't said one thing about the case in this thread at all. :upsidedow

You're missing one major point: The primary goal of the Innocent Images division of the FBI isn't to simply "shut down CP sites". It's also to FIND THE CHILDREN THAT ARE BEING ABUSED AND PUT AN END TO THAT ABUSE!

That's something DirectNic, or any other registrar, or any private company, can simply not do.

Truth be told, as far as I'm concerned, unilaterally shutting down CP sites without talking to the authorities first, could very easily hinder active on going investigations.

Just because a CP site is online, doesn't mean the feds don't know about it, it doesn't mean they don't have taps in place, and it doesn't mean they're not watching the people running those sites.

Sometimes the cost of finding children being victimized is allowing a CP site to stay online for a while, so that those responsible for actually producing the content can be tracked down.

Once a site is shut down, or a registrar contacts them, or puts a hold on their domain, the hat is tipped. All too often, children have been "disappeared" because their molesters realize someone's on to them. :(

CERTAINLY I'm not saying that's got anything to do with this particular case, but it's something that could easily take place if these types of policies are allowed to stand.

BoyAlley, a nice long story. Simply put, there is no law in the US that can oblige a company to continue to offer service to, or remain in business with, anyone that they feel is breaking the law. You also have no idea of what contacts (if any) Directnic may have had with authorities on this matter. Rampant speculation has lead this whole deal all over the place.

However, that is not the purpose of this thread.

If you are going to go off on a "raise funds for Slick", I truly recommend that you follow your words carefully... find out who Slick is, maybe have a chat with his lawyer, and perhaps, maybe, contact Directnic and ask them if they care to comment, before you start raising money and end up in an unhappy position of having supported something that either wasn't how it appears or worse was exactly the opposite.

Being better informed would be a very good place for you to start.

Are you saying DirectNIC should police us? How is that self regulation.