View Full Version : FSC Injunction Question...
US law states that temporary restraining orders and injunctions only apply to "officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys". The Free Speech Coalition didn't make this law. It applies to everyone.
Does that mean that if the FSC does get granted an injunction, it actually doesnt cover FSC members just the FSC staff?
So that, in effect, FSC members are paying for the protection of the FSC staff only?
TheEnforcer
06-01-2005, 03:42 PM
No clue but I would think that an injunction on an issue such as this would HAVE to include everyone as the law is burdensome no matter whether you are a FSC member or not.
Originally posted by TheEnforcer@Jun 1 2005, 11:43 AM
No clue but I would think that an injunction on an issue such as this would HAVE to include everyone as the law is burdensome no matter whether you are a FSC member or not.
Id think so to but apparently not.
F.R.C.P 65 (d) provides that injunctions and restraining orders shall be "binding only upon the parties to the action, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and upon those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the order by personal service or otherwise." A TRO or preliminary injunction is binding only on those "who receive actual notice of the order by personal service or otherwise." Successors or assigns of persons bound by an injunction may also be bound in proper cases. Golden State Bottling Co., Inc. v. NLRB, 414 U.S. 168, 94 S.Ct. 414, 38 L.Ed.2d 388 (1973).
The law, as i read it (and im by no means a lawyer) does say that persons participating with the parties are covered however, as i recall, the FSC have already stated that FSC members arent going to be named in the injunction.
This whole thing just gets more confusing with each passing day :(
gonzo
06-01-2005, 03:49 PM
They got to pay for hiring the editor of such a high and mighty publication such as AVNonline.
TheEnforcer
06-01-2005, 03:57 PM
Well... that's just fucked up if that is the case because the law effects more than just FSC people and why the fuck should anyone give FSC any money to fight this if they aren't even gonna cover their members?
Dravyk
06-01-2005, 03:58 PM
The ACLU injunction is what stopped COPA from going into effect initially.
TheEnforcer
06-01-2005, 04:03 PM
Where the hell is the ACLU on this one anyways?
Originally posted by TheEnforcer@Jun 1 2005, 11:58 AM
Well... that's just fucked up if that is the case because the law effects more than just FSC people and why the fuck should anyone give FSC any money to fight this if they aren't even gonna cover their members?
I could be wrong TE, its been known before.
Im trying to find where i read the FSC wasnt going to name their members to see if it actually was an 'official' statement from the FSC or whether it was someone posting and making it look 'official'.
This whole thing just makes me glad our 'porn' business has been operating out of the UK for the past few years, one less thing for us to worry about as a company.
Dravyk
06-01-2005, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by TheEnforcer@Jun 1 2005, 03:04 PM
Where the hell is the ACLU on this one anyways?
I think its FSC's turn at bat.
Dravyk
06-01-2005, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by Lee@Jun 1 2005, 01:34 PM
US law states that temporary restraining orders and injunctions only apply to "officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys". The Free Speech Coalition didn't make this law. It applies to everyone.
Does that mean that if the FSC does get granted an injunction, it actually doesnt cover FSC members just the FSC staff?
So that, in effect, FSC members are paying for the protection of the FSC staff only?
Those are who an injunction goes against .... "officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys" -- not whom it effects from relief.
The Attorney General is quite obviously an attorney. The injunction goes against him. Same as the ACLU injunction was against Reno as the name on the docket.
* This has been an uninformed layman's opinion only.
DrGuile
06-01-2005, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by Dravyk+Jun 1 2005, 03:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Dravyk @ Jun 1 2005, 03:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Lee@Jun 1 2005, 01:34 PM
US law states that temporary restraining orders and injunctions only apply to "officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys". The Free Speech Coalition didn't make this law. It applies to everyone.
Does that mean that if the FSC does get granted an injunction, it actually doesnt cover FSC members just the FSC staff?
So that, in effect, FSC members are paying for the protection of the FSC staff only?
Those are who an injunction goes against .... "officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys" -- not whom it effects from relief.
The Attorney General is quite obviously an attorney. The injunction goes against him. Same as the ACLU injunction was against Reno as the name on the docket.
* This has been an uninformed layman's opinion only. [/b][/quote]
I believe you are right drav, Lee seems to have understood it in reverse. This paragraph explains who the injunction is "against"
Nickatilynx
06-01-2005, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by DrGuile+Jun 1 2005, 12:29 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (DrGuile @ Jun 1 2005, 12:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Dravyk@Jun 1 2005, 03:18 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Lee@Jun 1 2005, 01:34 PM
US law states that temporary restraining orders and injunctions only apply to "officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys". The Free Speech Coalition didn't make this law. It applies to everyone.
Does that mean that if the FSC does get granted an injunction, it actually doesnt cover FSC members just the FSC staff?
So that, in effect, FSC members are paying for the protection of the FSC staff only?
Those are who an injunction goes against .... "officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys" -- not whom it effects from relief.
The Attorney General is quite obviously an attorney. The injunction goes against him. Same as the ACLU injunction was against Reno as the name on the docket.
* This has been an uninformed layman's opinion only.
I believe you are right drav, Lee seems to have understood it in reverse. This paragraph explains who the injunction is "against" [/b][/quote]
when Lee gets a bee in his bonnet about something...
;-))
Originally posted by DrGuile+Jun 1 2005, 12:29 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (DrGuile @ Jun 1 2005, 12:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Dravyk@Jun 1 2005, 03:18 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Lee@Jun 1 2005, 01:34 PM
US law states that temporary restraining orders and injunctions only apply to "officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys". The Free Speech Coalition didn't make this law. It applies to everyone.
Does that mean that if the FSC does get granted an injunction, it actually doesnt cover FSC members just the FSC staff?
So that, in effect, FSC members are paying for the protection of the FSC staff only?
Those are who an injunction goes against .... "officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys" -- not whom it effects from relief.
The Attorney General is quite obviously an attorney. The injunction goes against him. Same as the ACLU injunction was against Reno as the name on the docket.
* This has been an uninformed layman's opinion only.
I believe you are right drav, Lee seems to have understood it in reverse. This paragraph explains who the injunction is "against" [/b][/quote]
Ah okay cool :)
At least i admitted a few posts up that i could be wrong ;)
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.