Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Free Speech Coalition?
 

I am hoping those aren't words that any of us will be hearing in the future. I am a member and I fully and utterly support them but I do think it is time someone from there told us what is going on with disclosure of the memebership list.

exactly.

"pay your dues, give us your name, you are safe with us."

then the list is turned over to the DOJ :1orglaugh

(not saying it will happen but one must wonder will this come up )

Makes me scared to join almost.

i'm not scared to join - i think they are a great group of people who are fighting hard for us BUT I think they may well get more people joining if they knew for sure what the score was about disclosure.

i'm sure they'd turn you over just like anyone else when the DOJ puts the heat on em

Fear the slippery slope....

Take from this what you will, but at the seminar, they insisted, absolutely, that member names would NEVER NEVER NEVER
NEVER
NEVER
NEVER
NEVER


Be released to anyone.

2257 and the current regime is an understandable product of a nation which flips out when a nipple slips out.

A: From a recent article about 2257 DOJ and FSC 'deal':

As much as I believe that 2257 affects all adult biz operators (worldwide), I'm uncomfortable with the implications behind that kind of 'endorsement'.

B: According to the information in patent applications related to software called 'my2257' same lawyer in 'A' above is also listed as the INVENTOR (First Named). This is not about a lawyer filing an application - the patent indicates that the lawyer is laying claim of ownership to the 'invention' and implies that the lawyer has a financial stake in the 'invention'.

A + B = Conflicting (at best).


I was hoping to see 2257 put down as FSC had indicated was necessary.

Deals usually involve concessions (from both sides). This seems to be getting worse each week.

-Dino

That is what I thought but it follows into everyone's question about 'deals' only for FSC members and how the authorities would know who is a member and who isn't.

Which makes it a great question

Then how would the deal that people are talking about, where supposedly only FSC members are "safe" from prosecution, work? The only way I see that style a deal would work is if they gave up their entire membership list OR when the DOJ selected a target they told them whether they are a member or not.

In many instances where there is a TRO, although only the plaintiffs are technically covered, the government backs off from pursuing others until the issue is decided or the TRO is lifted.

I seriously doubt that FSC would be required to turn over their Membership list. As I recall, the ACLU has never had to do this and they file lots of lawsuits on behalf of their huge Membership.

ADG Webmaster

i admit, this was my first concern.

im like Dale Gribble,... i...i... mean Rusty Shackelford when it comes to turning my name over to the BEast.

How about this question:

If the ruling is that the DOJ will hold off enforcing the new regs against the FSC until a court renders a final decision on the regs, can you STILL get "protection" as a FSC member if you join AFTER today's announcement/ruling is made?

Another good question.