Why the FSC sucks

[gonzo]

Reprinted from mikesouth.com

Ya I'm Travelling Again But I Have Some Things I Want To Discuss:

Not the least of which is this whole 2257 thing. While I am four square against shooting anyone under the age of 18 (and even some over 18) It really bothers me that we can now be a criminal simply by not being able to prove we ARE NOT a criminal. It bothers me that the federal government has allowed the burden of proof to be shifted from the prosecution to the defense.

Shame Shame Shame on the FSC:

The Free Speech Coalition has led everyone to believe that if you are an FSC member you are exempted from 2257 prosecutions untill the lawsuit has been settled. Well Lo and Behold that is not entirely true. The exemption only applies if you are a "secondary producer". In other words if you shoot your own content, you are NOT protected, this is a small detail the FSC left out when they were lobbying for members.

Is The FSC Chickenshit?:

Now here is what I don't get. Why isn't the FSC challenging 2257 on grounds that would protect all of us from Congress, who has passed this law with the sole intent of shifting the burden of proof mentioned above. 2257 allows the feds to prosecute and convict a pornographer whose ONLY crime is not being able to prove he didn't commit a crime, and for those of you who attended public schools this is ass backwards from our long standing legal premise that the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Why isn't the FSC challenging the law at this level?

Why Burden of Proof Should Be on the Prosecution:

OK, so now porners have to prove they never committed a crime all in the name of keeping our shildren safe. Has anyone considered who will be next? Will beer sales or cigarette sales come next? must a store owner keep a record of every single alcohol or tobacco sale and prove that none were made to minors? And what about the privacy of performers, we have already had one major incidence of hundreds of performers information being placed on the net, including photos of passports and social security cards, everything a REAL criminal needs to steal an identity.

Bottom line is if the FSC wants respect they should be on the side of the entire industry, not just those who pay them, further they should do a better job, a first year law student could make the case that 2257 is way off base from a constitutional standpoint. This SUCKS...

[Rcourt64]

Do you truly believe it's about protecting the minors???
"Come on Man" :hmm: !
It's about control. until they have they're cut, "besides also attempting to raise adult sales tax" ... they will keep bounting & hounding till they get want they want. As long as they're keep playing the "protect the minor crap role" they will continue to have support & funds to fuck with you.

[Hammer]

I agree with much of what Mike said. It's always bothered me that the FSC claims that you're only protected if you're a member. I realize that it helps spur webmasters to join and they need money to maintain their defense though.

Rcourt, he's bitching about the whole guilty until proven innocent thing and the FSC's approach. Where did he say anything that led you to believe that he thinks the law is intended to protect minors?

[spazlabz]

I have to say I agree with the overall premise of this article. Guilty until proven innocent is just about as backwards as you can get in this country.

But consider this, most of us, if we heard so-n-so inc got busted because they could not prove that every one of their models were over the age of 18 at the time of the shoot, would turn on them. Its ugly and we dont like to think of ourselves like that but the specter of underage content is so intimidating to this industry that a lot of people will clammer and scream about it even when they should just be keeping their mouths shut.

we all know that every legitimate company in this industry abhores child porn. It is our common norms and mores. Most of us have children and the exploitation of anyone not of legal age is deeply offensive. But we have also gone off the deep end here.

Dakota Fanning will be appearing partially nude in a new movie she is releasing that examines child sexual abuse. One has to wonder exactly what kind of a reaction that is going to get and will the Federal Government arrest the makers of that movie? probably not

but if you have a 'teen' site and are not extremely careful to make sure you dont forget to have that the girls are legal and a 2257 statement written exactly the way the DoJ says you have to have it written then you will be investigated..... we are targets, big fat tagets because we give Christians shameful erections and the industry makes a lot of money.


spaz

[gonzo]

Cliff Notes from Eyeonadult.com (http://www.eyeonadult.com)

Now, just for MENSA candidates who post on or read GoFuckYourself.com and are curious as to why a member of FSC can be investigated, it’s very simple. Diabolic is a primary producer and the injunction on the additions to the law only protects secondary producers.

A gang of fuckin’ geniuses you guys are. All you have to do is read the article. You should have known that anyway, but I suppose we can’t expect you goofy motherfuckers to pay a lick of attention to what’s going on around you, can we? I dunno what the hell I was thinking.

[Rcourt64]

I agree with much of what Mike said. It's always bothered me that the FSC claims that you're only protected if you're a member. I realize that it helps spur webmasters to join and they need money to maintain their defense though.

Rcourt, he's bitching about the whole guilty until proven innocent thing and the FSC's approach. Where did he say anything that led you to believe that he thinks the law is intended to protect minors?


You people trip me man,
its kinda like people doin alot of bitchin about how there gallon of milk is sour & spoiled. Then complain about the stores service, or the managers skills or the distributors tardiness. When the problem all along is with fucking cow itself.

"And the cow ain't giving good milk till she see her cut" !!
http://designjerk.com/files/del.and.cow.jpg
MOOOOO!!!

[ScottMcGowan]

Mike and I usually agree on shit like this. As it pertains to this topic, there are only a couple of things that I feel compelled to mention.

First there is Mike's statement in regards to how FSC sold memberships by using the guise that secondary and primary producers would be protected under the injunction. I, for one, was never left with this impression and I think don't anyone with any sense of self-preservation or proper business practice lived under that delusion either. Granted, some of those chuckleheads over on GFY might have been misinformed, but that's just par for the course, right?

As far as the constitutional/philisophical argument about 2257 and how it should be enforced if at all, I look at it this way.

I don't mind the idea of producers being required by law to keep records. There are all manner of different types of laws requiring companies of all types to record all manner of transactions. It does create a certain reversal of the burden of proof concept, but it really can be spun either way. Frankly, without any self-regulation or laws to keep vigilant in making sure performers are of age, I feel like we'd end up with a new Traci Lords every year. I think this could largely be attributed to how readily available and inexpensive video technology is these days. Any half-wit with a few hundred bucks and a bottle of cheap gin can "make a movie" these days and plaster it all over the net. Sure, he may not be a pro, but the result ends up being the same should someone ever make the mistake of buying or selling it. The idea isn't that far out of the realm of possibility either when you take into account how careless and misinformed a lot of the motherfuckers in this business can be.

I don't like the idea of random inspections and as far as I'm concerned the section of the law that allows for an inspection without probable cause of wrongdoing is unethical and unconstituional when taking into account the 4th Amendment. Furthermore, I feel the penalties for record keeping errors are outageous as outlined in 2257. It's my feeling that if someone knowingly shoots a minor, they should be punished in the context of actual child abuse and child pronography laws, not laws requiring records to be kept. Enforcement as it is described in 2257 is just plain harrassment.

[Hammer]

Rcourt, you seem to be missing the point and I don't have a clue what you're talking about.

No one is bitching about 2257.

No one is bitching about the fact that 2257 will do nothing to stop CP.

The point of this thread is about the FSC and their handling of the case and the fact that Mike thinks the any law that says you're guilty until proven innocent goes against the typical American justice system's philosophy that we are innocent until proven guilty.

Maybe you'd care to comment on the actual topic of the thread?

[o'Jebaba]

Originally posted by Quentin on GFY in response to Mike South:

In responding to the points you have raised, let me start by making clear that I am not a representative of the FSC, or for that matter, member of the FSC, personally (although 'Nichebucks' is).

That said, I believe there are errors of fact in your posts, which I will try to address below.

Points from your post:

1) "The Free Speech Coalition has led everyone to believe that if you are an FSC member you are exempted from 2257 prosecutions untill the lawsuit has been settled."

I don't think this is an accurate assessment of the FSC's stated position. When the FSC struck an agreement with the DOJ last summer, that agreement covered FSC members, and boiled down to an agreement that the DOJ would not conduct inspections of FSC members until the judge in the case ruled on the FSC's motion for preliminary injunction in the case.

When the judge did issue a ruling, the FSC issued a press release, which is still available on their website, explaining their interpretation of the judge's ruling, and its impact on FSC members.

From that release, dated 1/3/06:

"The FSC legal staff has made a few preliminary determinations regarding the ruling:

The Dec. 28, 2005 ruling by Judge Miller has resulted in a de facto “status quo” situation for all Free Speech Coalition members and other plaintiffs in the case.
The ruling does not define FSC membership according to join date. All up-to-date FSC members are covered under this ruling, whether they joined a year ago, today, tomorrow, or anytime up until a final ruling in FSC v. Gonzales.
The U.S. Department of Justice is enjoined from enforcing 18 USC 2257 against “Producers” under 28 CFR Part 75, unless they engage in activity that involves the “hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the participating of the depicted performer.” In other words, FSC members and other plaintiffs who are “Secondary Producers” are protected under the ruling from 2257 inspection or enforcement until a final ruling in this case.
As always, FSC strongly encourage all members of FSC and the industry to comply with 2257 as much as possible until there is a final adjudication of FSC v. Gonzales. Please visit www.freespeechcoalition.com/2257.htm (http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/2257.htm) for more information."


That statement does not imply, to my reading anyway, that "if you are an FSC member you are exempted from 2257 prosecutions untill the lawsuit has been settled."

Snip #2 from your post:

2) "Why isn't the FSC challenging 2257 on grounds that would protect all of us from Congress..... Why isn't the FSC challenging the law at this level?"

As a matter of fact, the FSC lawsuit does make the very argument that you suggest.

This is from the text of the FSC's lawsuit, as filed last June:

"Plaintiffs also contend that 18 U.S.C. § 2257 and 28 C.F.R. Part 75 violate their First Amendment rights by eliminating the presumption that expression by adult performers is lawful under the United States Constitution, and by conditioning the exercise of Plaintiffs’ rights to create and disseminate nonobscene adult oriented material to other adults on compliance with an onerous recordkeeping system that requires producers to maintain not only detailed personal information dossiers that jeopardize the privacy and safety of adult actors and actresses, but also obligates producers to collect and archive copies of millions of regulated images of adults engaged in sexually explicit conduct with other adults."

and finally, a 3rd snip from your post:

3) "Bottom line is if the FSC wants respect they should be on the side of the entire industry, not just those who pay them, further they should do a better job, a first year law student could make the case that 2257 is way off base from a constitutional standpoint. This SUCKS..."

While I can understand your frustration, I think it is misplaced.

A "first year law student" might also point out than when filing a civil action challenging government regulations, one cannot simply walk in and say "I'm filing this litigation on behalf the 'adult industry' at large."

The FSC is subject to criticism, just like anyone else. It seems only fair to me, though, that such criticism be based on factual information, rather than misinformed conjecture.

No offense whatsoever intended, but I think you didn't do your homework on this one before blasting away.

- Q.
__________________
Q. Boyer


For a fair and balanced discussion.....

[Rcourt64]

Rcourt, you seem to be missing the point and I don't have a clue what you're talking about.

No one is bitching about 2257.

No one is bitching about the fact that 2257 will do nothing to stop CP.

The point of this thread is about the FSC and their handling of the case and the fact that Mike thinks the any law that says you're guilty until proven innocent goes against the typical American justice system's philosophy that we are innocent until proven guilty.

Maybe you'd care to comment on the actual topic of the thread?


Once again Mighty One....
Your all complaining about the issue on hand, when you should be looking at whose pulling the strings.

[pam]

Most people, including myself, felt joining the FSC would protect them from inspections until the lawsuit was settled. Since I don't do hardcore, I didn't pay as much attention to the specifics of the injunction and what was covered. I dealt with 2257 when it first came out so am intimately familiar with it in its original form.

It has always bothered me that so many sites ignore 18 USC 2257, particularly amateur sites, due to the confidentiality factor -- they don't want to list their name or home address and that's why I only produce r-rated movies. But SO many sites are ignoring this law and then when the shit hits the fan, they'll be the first to complain.

Anyone who this affected should have consulted with an attorney to determine if they were exempt by joining the FSC, and from what.

But, this industry unfortunately quite often relies upon keyboard attorneys for their legal advice. Hey, if you read it on GFY it must be true, right?

[TheEnforcer]

Reprinted from mikesouth.com

Ya I'm Travelling Again But I Have Some Things I Want To Discuss:

Not the least of which is this whole 2257 thing. While I am four square against shooting anyone under the age of 18 (and even some over 18) It really bothers me that we can now be a criminal simply by not being able to prove we ARE NOT a criminal. It bothers me that the federal government has allowed the burden of proof to be shifted from the prosecution to the defense.

Shame Shame Shame on the FSC:

The Free Speech Coalition has led everyone to believe that if you are an FSC member you are exempted from 2257 prosecutions untill the lawsuit has been settled. Well Lo and Behold that is not entirely true. The exemption only applies if you are a "secondary producer". In other words if you shoot your own content, you are NOT protected, this is a small detail the FSC left out when they were lobbying for members.

Is The FSC Chickenshit?:

Now here is what I don't get. Why isn't the FSC challenging 2257 on grounds that would protect all of us from Congress, who has passed this law with the sole intent of shifting the burden of proof mentioned above. 2257 allows the feds to prosecute and convict a pornographer whose ONLY crime is not being able to prove he didn't commit a crime, and for those of you who attended public schools this is ass backwards from our long standing legal premise that the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Why isn't the FSC challenging the law at this level?

Why Burden of Proof Should Be on the Prosecution:

OK, so now porners have to prove they never committed a crime all in the name of keeping our shildren safe. Has anyone considered who will be next? Will beer sales or cigarette sales come next? must a store owner keep a record of every single alcohol or tobacco sale and prove that none were made to minors? And what about the privacy of performers, we have already had one major incidence of hundreds of performers information being placed on the net, including photos of passports and social security cards, everything a REAL criminal needs to steal an identity.

Bottom line is if the FSC wants respect they should be on the side of the entire industry, not just those who pay them, further they should do a better job, a first year law student could make the case that 2257 is way off base from a constitutional standpoint. This SUCKS...


Sadly in our country the government, and many of it's people, don't give a shit that the burden of proof that is SUPPOSED to be on the government is often by law trwisted on it's head and made to be on the defendant. The most blatant and abused of this kind of tactic is asset forfeiture laws in drug cases. There are TONS of abuses by the government where assests are seized and people are proven innocent of their supposed crime but yet then have to also prove their assets are not guilty of a crime too. Pisses me off to no ned. The asset forfeiture laws are corrupt as corupt can be and gives government entities an INCENTIVE to seize stuff no matter how flimsy their case is.

[Rcourt64]

Sadly in our country the government, and many of it's people, don't give a shit that the burden of proof that is SUPPOSED to be on the government is often by law trwisted on it's head and made to be on the defendant. The most blatant and abused of this kind of tactic is asset forfeiture laws in drug cases. There are TONS of abuses by the government where assests are seized and people are proven innocent of their supposed crime but yet then have to also prove their assets are not guilty of a crime too. Pisses me off to no ned. The asset forfeiture laws are corrupt as corupt can be and gives government entities an INCENTIVE to seize stuff no matter how flimsy their case is.

:clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

Thank u :)

but we'll sit here and bitch some more about whos fucking guilty till proven inocent