2257 - Only FSC Members covered by injunction

[FightThePatent]

After reading various bits about FSC filing its injunction, and about who it will cover, I gave Michelle Freridge (Executive Director) a call to ask her this direct question:

When FSC is granted its injunction, will it cover only FSC members, or all adult websites?


Her answer is that "the injunction will ONLY cover FSC members. "

She also said that an official PR on this subject should be coming out shortly.

If DOJ knocks on a FSC member door, the company should comply with DOJ requests, and then get on the phone to FSC. It doesn't appear that FSC will be handing over a list of FSC members to DOJ, so when DOJ picks its target(s), those that are FSC members will have a calm reaction.

Does this sound like a reason to join FSC? Sure does. Being an FSC member doesn't get you a legal defense. You still need to have your records straight. Being part of the injunction would mean that while the constitutional issues are being worked out in court, that you won't be bothered (which gives you more time to get your 2257 records in order, if you haven't done so already by June 23rd). I've never been involved in court criminal court proceedings nor dealt with injunctions, so I too will be interested to read the offical word from FSC.... this is atleast a heads-up on this issue.

http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/application.php

This has been a Public Service Annoucement by Fight The Patent.


Fight the PSA!

[Lee]

LOL

Thats a great way for them to recoup some of that $200k they lost out on the other day.

Join us, we'll protect you [somewhat] or dont.

[gonzo]

Originally posted by Lee@May 24 2005, 04:00 PM
LOL

Thats a great way for them to recoup some of that $200k they lost out on the other day.

Join us, we'll protect you [somewhat] or dont.
I have been a member of the EFF for many years. #135 as a matter of fact.
The lawyers and greedheads didnt take long to set the wheels in motion.

[sarettah]

Hmmm..as always I will disclaim with "I am not a lawyer" but, it would seem to me that if a court issues an injunction, that injunction stops enforcement against all or noone, not some select group.

LL or MikeAI, if either of you read this, could you please chime in.

Thanx :)

[Lee]

Right but, at what cost?

Isnt the FSC supposed to be a group who acts in the best interests of the 'industry' as a whole?

How is the government going to know who is and who isnt a member of the FSC? Are the FSC going to hand over your details to the government?

Should make quite an interesting hit list if thats whats going to happen.

[Lee]

Originally posted by sarettah@May 24 2005, 01:12 PM
Hmmm..as always I will disclaim with "I am not a lawyer" but, it would seem to me that if a court issues an injunction, that injunction stops enforcement against all or noone, not some select group.

LL or MikeAI, if either of you read this, could you please chime in.

Thanx :)
That was always my understanding to.

Seems like this is just a way for the FSC to get some more $$$ from adult webmasters to recoup the $200k hit they took a few days ago :(

[FightThePatent]

Originally posted by Lee@May 24 2005, 01:13 PM

Isnt the FSC supposed to be a group who acts in the best interests of the 'industry' as a whole?


sorta, i believe they represent their member's interests which happen to be in the adult biz.

Why would some group look after your own business issues, just because you were lreated by business sector?

Trade Associations look after those that collectively group together.


Fight the Grouping!

[sarah_webinc]

they need to set a membership rate that suits the free site/tgp foot soldiers. I can't figure out on the current form what rate I should be paying if I have hundreds of galleries and free sites but no paysites. I mean I could lie and say I only have one site but then what is the point of lying to join. I want to join..give me a clear option and I will.

(ps..michelle is hot..but then I like plump, liberal women)

[Trev]

Originally posted by sarah_webinc@May 24 2005, 10:26 PM
they need to set a membership rate that suits the free site/tgp foot soldiers. I can't figure out on the current form what rate I should be paying if I have hundreds of galleries and free sites but no paysites. I mean I could lie and say I only have one site but then what is the point of lying to join. I want to join..give me a clear option and I will.

(ps..michelle is hot..but then I like plump, liberal women)
Are you still a US citizen?

[TheEnforcer]

I'm not a lawyer either but an injunction would seem to me to have to be an all or nothing in something like this. I don't blame them for trying to recoup costs (not sure what people are referring to about the $200k) as it won't be cheap to fight the government on this but either the rules are burdensome for all business owners or none. By trying to limit themselves in that matter it seems that might unnecessarily damage their standing.

[Trev]

I’m not sure how it works in the US but here in the UK injunctions can be taken out on individuals and organisations with certain provisions.

However those provisions would never include side stepping laws/rulings/regulations or any of that type of matter.

I don’t see this being of any use to those of you state side and I keep my cash for when the doorbell rings!


Comply or die!

[sarah_webinc]

Originally posted by Trev+May 24 2005, 01:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Trev @ May 24 2005, 01:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-sarah_webinc@May 24 2005, 10:26 PM
they need to set a membership rate that suits the free site/tgp foot soldiers. I can't figure out on the current form what rate I should be paying if I have hundreds of galleries and free sites but no paysites. I mean I could lie and say I only have one site but then what is the point of lying to join. I want to join..give me a clear option and I will.

(ps..michelle is hot..but then I like plump, liberal women)
Are you still a US citizen? [/b][/quote]
yes and even when I get my British citizenship it will be dual

[Trev]

Originally posted by sarah_webinc+May 24 2005, 10:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sarah_webinc @ May 24 2005, 10:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Trev@May 24 2005, 01:27 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-sarah_webinc@May 24 2005, 10:26 PM
they need to set a membership rate that suits the free site/tgp foot soldiers. I can't figure out on the current form what rate I should be paying if I have hundreds of galleries and free sites but no paysites. I mean I could lie and say I only have one site but then what is the point of lying to join. I want to join..give me a clear option and I will.

(ps..michelle is hot..but then I like plump, liberal women)
Are you still a US citizen?
yes and even when I get my British citizenship it will be dual [/b][/quote]
So you have to comply :(

[RyanLanane]

Sorry but

"Free Speech Coalition

Freedom Isn't Free"

Isn't that kind of tacky, or is it just me ? Makes them seem like they are veterans or POW or something along the lines of militia to me ...

[FightThePatent]

Originally posted by Trev@May 24 2005, 01:46 PM


Comply or die!
seems a bit harsher than "freedom isn't free"

:bdance:




Fight the Bumper Stickers!

[RyanLanane]

Using scare tactics, that's the way to go about supporting an industry you are supposed to be protecting I suppose times are changing :unsure:

[Trev]

Originally posted by FightThePatent+May 24 2005, 11:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FightThePatent @ May 24 2005, 11:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Trev@May 24 2005, 01:46 PM


Comply or die!
seems a bit harsher than "freedom isn't free"

:bdance:




Fight the Bumper Stickers! [/b][/quote]
Hell, I'm in the UK so I'm loving this. Lets see the mass culling. :redance:

[FightThePatent]

Originally posted by RyanLanane@May 24 2005, 02:11 PM
Using scare tactics, that's the way to go about supporting an industry you are supposed to be protecting I suppose times are changing :unsure:
Not sure if you are understanding the point of a trade association.

FSC is a trade association that represents its members who happen to all be in the adult biz.

While they may say they are looking out for the adult biz, it's really, and more practically, about the issues that affect their members... who are in the adult biz.

If you watch PBS shows and dont' contribute, it's the same thing as not being an FSC member and letting other businesses pick up the tab on funding the operations.

It doesn't matter what "tactic" you perceive, the real issue is supporting a trade association that represents your interests in a business sector that is regulated by the government (there are other sectors that have government regulations).

If you already have engaged an attorney that has advised you on 2257 and you have your biz in order, then i can understand you viewing people running around with heads cut off.

If not, then my point in postings is to bring awareness and attention to issues, that through some preventive measures (like seeking legal counsel) and having your records in order, you can survive through this hurricane that will pass.


Fight the Messenger!

[gonzo]

Originally posted by FightThePatent+May 24 2005, 05:38 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FightThePatent @ May 24 2005, 05:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-RyanLanane@May 24 2005, 02:11 PM
Using scare tactics, that's the way to go about supporting an industry you are supposed to be protecting I suppose times are changing :unsure:
Not sure if you are understanding the point of a trade association.

FSC is a trade association that represents its members who happen to all be in the adult biz.

While they may say they are looking out for the adult biz, it's really, and more practically, about the issues that affect their members... who are in the adult biz.

If you watch PBS shows and dont' contribute, it's the same thing as not being an FSC member and letting other businesses pick up the tab on funding the operations.

It doesn't matter what "tactic" you perceive, the real issue is supporting a trade association that represents your interests in a business sector that is regulated by the government (there are other sectors that have government regulations).

If you already have engaged an attorney that has advised you on 2257 and you have your biz in order, then i can understand you viewing people running around with heads cut off.

If not, then my point in postings is to bring awareness and attention to issues, that through some preventive measures (like seeking legal counsel) and having your records in order, you can survive through this hurricane that will pass.


Fight the Messenger! [/b][/quote]
Ok Ill give you that its a trade association.
Then why are you looking for "donations"? You can't have it both ways.

[FightThePatent]

Originally posted by gonzo@May 24 2005, 03:36 PM

Ok Ill give you that its a trade association.
Then why are you looking for "donations"? You can't have it both ways.
I'm not looking for donations.. i am not apart of FSC, other than being a member.

I am suggesting that people become members first, to be apart of the trade association by spending $300. For those that have more $$$ to share in the cause, then they could donate to the defense fund that is specifically setup to challenge 2257.

Alot of people were saying there were going to donate.. i say to those people, get your membership card first, then whatever is left from what you wanted to donate, then that truly is a donation.


Fight the card carrying members!

!

[RyanLanane]

Originally posted by FightThePatent+May 24 2005, 02:38 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FightThePatent @ May 24 2005, 02:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-RyanLanane@May 24 2005, 02:11 PM
Using scare tactics, that's the way to go about supporting an industry you are supposed to be protecting I suppose times are changing :unsure:
Not sure if you are understanding the point of a trade association.

FSC is a trade association that represents its members who happen to all be in the adult biz.

While they may say they are looking out for the adult biz, it's really, and more practically, about the issues that affect their members... who are in the adult biz.

If you watch PBS shows and dont' contribute, it's the same thing as not being an FSC member and letting other businesses pick up the tab on funding the operations.

It doesn't matter what "tactic" you perceive, the real issue is supporting a trade association that represents your interests in a business sector that is regulated by the government (there are other sectors that have government regulations).

If you already have engaged an attorney that has advised you on 2257 and you have your biz in order, then i can understand you viewing people running around with heads cut off.

If not, then my point in postings is to bring awareness and attention to issues, that through some preventive measures (like seeking legal counsel) and having your records in order, you can survive through this hurricane that will pass.


Fight the Messenger![/b][/quote]

Sorry man, but I remember the way Mark Tiarra represented what was it UAS (United Adult sites?) hell it may even still be around.

It was a HELL of alot more professional and sure as shit did not use scare tactics, push people into making 'donations', or anything else of the sort. He set it up so you were PROUD to be a part of that community and it stood for something!

You didn't signup because you were scared of being violated, you signed up because it was a good cause giving us a lobbyist who was doing great things and wasn't trying to scare the shit out of us in order to fill his pockets with more money.

That's putting it as simply as I can, if I processed the amounts in the higher brackets, do you really think I would count on some freedom coalition group to protect my rights? Hell no, I have a staff of lawyers on retainer - so why even have that option.

Appeal to the smaller sites who process under $250K a year and have a reasonable membership fee and offer them a real product .....

I've been out of the business for 6 years sure, but I wouldn't signup for a site that used scare tactics if I still was processing 2 million plus a year ... lawyers or no lawyers.

[Nickatilynx]

Originally posted by RyanLanane+May 24 2005, 03:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RyanLanane @ May 24 2005, 03:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by FightThePatent@May 24 2005, 02:38 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-RyanLanane@May 24 2005, 02:11 PM
Using scare tactics, that's the way to go about supporting an industry you are supposed to be protecting I suppose times are changing :unsure:
Not sure if you are understanding the point of a trade association.

FSC is a trade association that represents its members who happen to all be in the adult biz.

While they may say they are looking out for the adult biz, it's really, and more practically, about the issues that affect their members... who are in the adult biz.

If you watch PBS shows and dont' contribute, it's the same thing as not being an FSC member and letting other businesses pick up the tab on funding the operations.

It doesn't matter what "tactic" you perceive, the real issue is supporting a trade association that represents your interests in a business sector that is regulated by the government (there are other sectors that have government regulations).

If you already have engaged an attorney that has advised you on 2257 and you have your biz in order, then i can understand you viewing people running around with heads cut off.

If not, then my point in postings is to bring awareness and attention to issues, that through some preventive measures (like seeking legal counsel) and having your records in order, you can survive through this hurricane that will pass.


Fight the Messenger!

Sorry man, but I remember the way Mark Tiarra represented what was it UAS (United Adult sites?) hell it may even still be around.

It was a HELL of alot more professional and sure as shit did not use scare tactics, push people into making 'donations', or anything else of the sort. He set it up so you were PROUD to be a part of that community and it stood for something!

You didn't signup because you were scared of being violated, you signed up because it was a good cause giving us a lobbyist who was doing great things and wasn't trying to scare the shit out of us in order to fill his pockets with more money.

That's putting it as simply as I can, if I processed the amounts in the higher brackets, do you really think I would count on some freedom coalition group to protect my rights? Hell no, I have a staff of lawyers on retainer - so why even have that option.

Appeal to the smaller sites who process under $250K a year and have a reasonable membership fee and offer them a real product .....

I've been out of the business for 6 years sure, but I wouldn't signup for a site that used scare tactics if I still was processing 2 million plus a year ... lawyers or no lawyers. [/b][/quote]
If you are in this business and you or your employer do not retain counsel , you shouldn't be in this business.

Its simple.

Hell I have litigation , corporate and tax lawyers ALL retained....probablt more...lol

[gonzo]

Originally posted by FightThePatent+May 24 2005, 06:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FightThePatent @ May 24 2005, 06:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-gonzo@May 24 2005, 03:36 PM

Ok Ill give you that its a trade association.
Then why are you looking for "donations"? You can't have it both ways.
I'm not looking for donations.. i am not apart of FSC, other than being a member.

I am suggesting that people become members first, to be apart of the trade association by spending $300. For those that have more $$$ to share in the cause, then they could donate to the defense fund that is specifically setup to challenge 2257.

Alot of people were saying there were going to donate.. i say to those people, get your membership card first, then whatever is left from what you wanted to donate, then that truly is a donation.


Fight the card carrying members!

! [/b][/quote]
..."Send lawyers,guns and money"

Maybe that can be yalls new cutline.
Sorry man but Im with Ryan on this one. I know your a decent guy though I just hope you dont get over enthused like you did in the past and piss off people how might have been interested with a less than sledgehammer approach.

I wish you luck for now Ill keep my EFF membership but I am on a panel [I thinkI still am] in San Diego. Ill be sure and bring this up.

Who knows maybe Ill learn sumpin?

[*KK*]

I'd say it's entirely up to the FSC as to what they want to do with their member base or the industry at large. While they are non-profit (I think), they certainly have operating costs and the like. Giving their members additional benefits doesn't bother me, and if it's reasonably priced memberships then it really shouldn't bother anyone else either.

It's no different than AAA offering special rates on services to their members while lobbying for the automobile driving population at large on issues with the insurance companies and the governments.

No different than the AMA lobbying on behalf of the doctors that pay their dues and the entire medical profession gaining from it.

Of course anyone who doesn't have their house in order should not be relying solely on the FSC to protect them, I'd suggest either spending the money on some quick data entry people or an attorney, whichever you prefer.

[Dravyk]

Originally posted by FightThePatent@May 24 2005, 03:46 PM
Her answer is that "the injunction will ONLY cover FSC members. "

She also said that an official PR on this subject should be coming out shortly.

If DOJ knocks on a FSC member door, the company should comply with DOJ requests, and then get on the phone to FSC.
Ok, I'm missing something. In regards to the following: "the injunction will ONLY cover FSC members." and "If DOJ knocks on a FSC member door, the company should comply with DOJ requests".

Now last I knew the word injunction sorta infers that somebody is legally barred from doing something. How then is it that if there is an injunction a member must allow the DOJ's requests???

An injunction should mean by its very definition that the member would inform the DOJ that they are a FSC member and then the DOJ must legally respond by twirling on their heals and leaving. So, I don't get it.

Mind you, I'm not a member either. It's just those two elements together do not make sense to me as presented here.

[Dravyk]

Despite what KK and others have said, I too don't quite understand this in general either.

While the AAA and other analogies make sense, they don't to me when it comes to a legal matter.

I didn't know one could have an injunction on "just the purple and green members of an industry" and not apply it to every thing (person, company, web sites) in that industry.

[gonzo]

Originally posted by Dravyk@May 24 2005, 11:52 PM
Despite what KK and others have said, I too don't quite understand this in general either.

While the AAA and other analogies make sense, they don't to me when it comes to a legal matter.

I didn't know one could have an injunction on "just the purple and green members of an industry" and not apply it to every thing (person, company, web sites) in that industry.
Because plain and simple its BULLSHIT!!!

A fundraising scheme for lack of a better term.

And Im surprised that Brandon would pimp it up as such. He did a stellar job on a 2257 radio show we had about a year ago. He is always is nice and pleasant in person but really do you think folks on Oprano are gonna fall for a lame ass marketing attempt like this?

I feel like I'm in the early 80's again reading posts from John MacAfee about rampant viruses. "Caution this virus will casue your monitor to refresh so fast it will blow up!"

Where's the ByteBrothers ParaScan 2000 when you need it?

FREE JIMMY PEARSON!!!

[Nickatilynx]

Originally posted by gonzo@May 24 2005, 09:33 PM


I feel like I'm in the early 80's again reading posts from John MacAfee about rampant viruses. "Caution this virus will casue your monitor to refresh so fast it will blow up!"


ahahahahahahhahahahahahaha

yeah what a fucking moron that guy was.... ;-)))

Wonder where he is now???

Probably counting his money....@ $28 a share...

[PornoDoggy]

Never having been one who sticks his finger in the air to see what the prevailing winds are before I voice an opinion ...

In my experience, there is nothing at all unusual about a trade association soliciting donations above and beyond the normal dues for specific lobbying efforts and legal fights. Off the top of my head, I've seen it done in the railroad, banking, and medical supply industries.

Unless you have reason to question the bonafides of the organization doing the funding - in which case you ought to say so - it's pretty pathetic for people who are supposed to be marketers not to recognize marketing when they see it. The idea that use of a slogan like "freedom isn't free" is some form of unreasonable fearmongering is - well - bullshit. That they are fundraising is obvious. Sometimes even trade associations have to market to their members.

Gonzo - do you think they are fundraising with plans to waste (or doing something worse with) the money?

"When FSC is granted its injunction, will it cover only FSC members, or all adult websites?

"Her answer is that "the injunction will ONLY cover FSC members. "

. . .

"...[I]f DOJ knocks on a FSC member door, the company should comply with DOJ requests, and then get on the phone to FSC. It doesn't appear that FSC will be handing over a list of FSC members to DOJ, so when DOJ picks its target(s), those that are FSC members will have a calm reaction."

I am not a lawyer. I have never played one on television. Anyone who makes any decisions based on my opinion is dumber than a box of rocks. However, I did spend five years working for them, and I have been on both sides of an injunction (drafting them and complying with them). My experience is not all encompassing, but something about the above makes NO sense. If relief is granted, I'm pretty sure it would apply to everyone, not just the members of an organization. If injunctive relief is granted, DOJ won't be knocking on any doors, so I have no idea WTF the last paragraph means.

[sarah_webinc]

where is an acutal rep from FSC? Surely at this time it would do them good to have someone that *is* offical with them going to their potential membership base (ie via the boards) and answering questions.

[gonzo]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@May 25 2005, 01:23 AM
Never having been one who sticks his finger in the air to see what the prevailing winds are before I voice an opinion ...

In my experience, there is nothing at all unusual about a trade association soliciting donations above and beyond the normal dues for specific lobbying efforts and legal fights. Off the top of my head, I've seen it done in the railroad, banking, and medical supply industries.

Unless you have reason to question the bonafides of the organization doing the funding - in which case you ought to say so - it's pretty pathetic for people who are supposed to be marketers not to recognize marketing when they see it. The idea that use of a slogan like "freedom isn't free" is some form of unreasonable fearmongering is - well - bullshit. That they are fundraising is obvious. Sometimes even trade associations have to market to their members.

Gonzo - do you think they are fundraising with plans to waste (or doing something worse with) the money?

"When FSC is granted its injunction, will it cover only FSC members, or all adult websites?

"Her answer is that "the injunction will ONLY cover FSC members. "

. . .

"...[I]f DOJ knocks on a FSC member door, the company should comply with DOJ requests, and then get on the phone to FSC. It doesn't appear that FSC will be handing over a list of FSC members to DOJ, so when DOJ picks its target(s), those that are FSC members will have a calm reaction."

I am not a lawyer. I have never played one on television. Anyone who makes any decisions based on my opinion is dumber than a box of rocks. However, I did spend five years working for them, and I have been on both sides of an injunction (drafting them and complying with them). My experience is not all encompassing, but something about the above makes NO sense. If relief is granted, I'm pretty sure it would apply to everyone, not just the members of an organization. If injunctive relief is granted, DOJ won't be knocking on any doors, so I have no idea WTF the last paragraph means.
As KK said what they do with their money isnt any of my business. And in all fairness as Sarah has said noone has been by from there to make a statement. [I think they are hanging out with the movers and shakers on the Zoo].

Dont get me wrong PD . . . its good that somone is taking a stand but I dont think this is the way to call everyone to battle. Selective injunctions... what a crock of shit.

BTW Nick... I never saw a virus until late 1996 but I heard about them 10 years prior!

[jonjayw]

WOW . . . why all the anger at FSC?? the Free Speech Coalition didn't set the rules of what happens if they file action to get an injuction. It's in the federal rules and regulations . . .

"Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, only the parties to litigation are covered by an injunction. Therefore only the Free Speech Coalition and its members will be covered by an injunction issued pursuant to any lawsuit initiated by FSC, and only to the extent the injunction restricts the government enforcement." (quote from AVN article by By: Chip Baker Posted: 1:32 pm PDT 5-25-2005 = FSC Recommends Compliance . . .

Sure it'd be nice to have them spend the money and all of us get the benefits . . . but that's not the way it works. In fact, that's one of the reasons trade associations exist . . . to do for their members what each can not do individually.

My recommendation, if you're upset over what you're going to have to do to comply with the new regulations - - - join the Free Speech Coalition, 'cause unless you're very very rich and can take the expenses of fighting this on your own, you should leverage you anger (which should be directed at the DOJ not at the FSC).

They are advising members to comply because they are not giving DOJ any membership directory/list. Until a FSC lawyer knows the DOJ has stuck, action can not be taken. Fellas, this is the same advice your own lawyer would give you if you individually filed and got an injunction: comply with the DOJ if they show up and call me. ALTHO, the DOJ would know not to approach you 'cause your information would be in the public records of the case you filed to get the injunction. With a site that's a member of FSC, the DOJ doesn't know they are violating an injuction until they get told, and they sure won't take your word that "I'm a member of the FSC".

"Freedom isn't Free" didn't start with the FSC - - it's an old slogan in support of the USA and the flag of freedom. And, please, someone explain why is it wrong for the Coalition to notify the entire adult community of what they are doing and say join and/or contribute?? Who else is doing anything??

[Dravyk]

Originally posted by jonjayw@May 26 2005, 01:19 AM
WOW . . . why all the anger at FSC??
Hello? Did you actually read the thread?

Personally, I am not against the FSC. O contraire! I think it's a great organisation and I will probably get off my ass soon and finally join it.

The problem (or "anger" as you call it) is with the post made about how injunctions would only effect some folks and not others as that set off everyone's bullshit meter!

And it is further stirred by how once it was questioned, neither Brandon nor someone from FSC has come by to set things straight on the matter.

[Far-L]

Brandon is a completely stand up guy who only has the best intentions. He is not coming here to sell everyone FSC. He is coming to let people know what their options are.

FSC is always looking for members and does do many positive things that benefit the entire adult industry.

Gonzo: Just because the FSC can only work on behalf of its members is no reason to get down on Brandon.

I know from the Acacia fight that problems like this require a group coming together and spending cash to deal with a mutual conflict. At the end of the day, someone does have to pay for all this. Everyone who stands on the sidelines and lets others deal with those problems are completely unreasonable to think that they should somehow benefit just because they said "Good work!" while someone paid in blood sweat and tears as well as cold hard cash to effect positive change.

I will be making sure that we are members in good standing.

I thank Brandon for asking those questions and bringing the info to us, yet another in a long line of examples I have of his excellent character. Brandon deserves our thanks and praise.

[Far-L]

Originally posted by jonjayw@May 25 2005, 10:19 PM
WOW . . . why all the anger at FSC?? the Free Speech Coalition didn't set the rules of what happens if they file action to get an injuction. It's in the federal rules and regulations . . .

"Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, only the parties to litigation are covered by an injunction. Therefore only the Free Speech Coalition and its members will be covered by an injunction issued pursuant to any lawsuit initiated by FSC, and only to the extent the injunction restricts the government enforcement." (quote from AVN article by By: Chip Baker Posted: 1:32 pm PDT 5-25-2005 = FSC Recommends Compliance . . .

Sure it'd be nice to have them spend the money and all of us get the benefits . . . but that's not the way it works. In fact, that's one of the reasons trade associations exist . . . to do for their members what each can not do individually.

My recommendation, if you're upset over what you're going to have to do to comply with the new regulations - - - join the Free Speech Coalition, 'cause unless you're very very rich and can take the expenses of fighting this on your own, you should leverage you anger (which should be directed at the DOJ not at the FSC).

They are advising members to comply because they are not giving DOJ any membership directory/list. Until a FSC lawyer knows the DOJ has stuck, action can not be taken. Fellas, this is the same advice your own lawyer would give you if you individually filed and got an injunction: comply with the DOJ if they show up and call me. ALTHO, the DOJ would know not to approach you 'cause your information would be in the public records of the case you filed to get the injunction. With a site that's a member of FSC, the DOJ doesn't know they are violating an injuction until they get told, and they sure won't take your word that "I'm a member of the FSC".

"Freedom isn't Free" didn't start with the FSC - - it's an old slogan in support of the USA and the flag of freedom. And, please, someone explain why is it wrong for the Coalition to notify the entire adult community of what they are doing and say join and/or contribute?? Who else is doing anything??
Just read yours... and it is much better than mine... so thought I should just quote you to hopefully get some of those smarts rubbing off on me...

[Nickatilynx]

I'd have joined if you could take online joins. :(

Seriously...

[gonzo]

Originally posted by Far-L@May 26 2005, 03:03 AM
Brandon is a completely stand up guy who only has the best intentions. He is not coming here to sell everyone FSC. He is coming to let people know what their options are.

FSC is always looking for members and does do many positive things that benefit the entire adult industry.

Gonzo: Just because the FSC can only work on behalf of its members is no reason to get down on Brandon.

I know from the Acacia fight that problems like this require a group coming together and spending cash to deal with a mutual conflict. At the end of the day, someone does have to pay for all this. Everyone who stands on the sidelines and lets others deal with those problems are completely unreasonable to think that they should somehow benefit just because they said "Good work!" while someone paid in blood sweat and tears as well as cold hard cash to effect positive change.

I will be making sure that we are members in good standing.

I thank Brandon for asking those questions and bringing the info to us, yet another in a long line of examples I have of his excellent character. Brandon deserves our thanks and praise.
Far L I like Brandon.
I know how hard he worked to get people to rally against Acacia and hell he did the best 2257 interview Ive heard on the radio show a year ago. And as I said before hes a nice guy in person as well.

Using fear and confusion just doesnt play very well to a lot of us. And as Nick has already said.... some of us tried to sign up but couldnt find an online join form. Maybe they will take a check in San Diego?

[Dravyk]

Originally posted by Nickatilynx@May 26 2005, 08:12 AM
I'd have joined if you could take online joins. :(

Seriously...
Irony!

Protect net freedoms, but no net savvy. Weird.