Could 2257 finally get defeated?

[LAJ]

FSC to Challenge 2257 from New Direction

http://www.ynot.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=news_article&sid=50958

Thoughts?

[TheEnforcer]

Personally I can't think of a worse way to attack 2257 than using the 4th amendment. If there is one thing that is abundantly clear over the years is that the Supreme Court will ignore the 4th amendment and make a decision, no matter how assinine on it's face, in the name of serving the governments will to forward it's "war' on soemthing in the name of protecting the people. All anyone needs to do is look at the VAST majority of drug rulings over the years. How search and seizure laws were abused beyond belief and the sneak and peek provision of the Patriot Act has been used.

There was a recent article about how only 2 or 3 out of 763 uses of sneak and peek in 2008 were actually terror case related and that is what the laws sole purpose was supposed to be for. The 4th amendment, for the most part, is a joke in this country. From stuff like this to people who are cleared of drug charges then having to prove their property was innocent of a crime the 4th amendment is about as strong as wet toilet paper.

[Notime]

I just know it's a shitload op paperwork and I'm never paid by the goverment to do all that extra work.
And second it's a personal privacy problem for models if such info is semi-public.
I agree with the 18+ as a rule worldwide but that's been a standard in the adult industry worldwide since dozens of years. (The rest are criminals and are in no way a part of the profesional adult industry).

I hope the 2257 will go away but I also hope that it will be replaced by something else less complicated or labour intensive!
One of my ideas would be to "label" the good/honest/18+ adult web sites and get less paperwork from the government but a reward from search engines for having this label. I hope Joan can get the RTA label on such a level.

[Notime]

.

Can you drop me an email please about board advertising?
cybersales@|@hetnet.nl
Thanks,

Jack

[TheEnforcer]

Can you drop me an email please about board advertising?
cybersales@|@hetnet.nl
Thanks,

Jack

Will do. :>))

[pornlaw]

Many of the plaintiffs are individual producers who work out of their homes, and the labeling requirement not only invades their privacy but also allows duly authorized federal representatives to inspect the records without notice or warrant and to seize even unrelated material under the auspices of plain-sight suspicion. Warrantless searches are bad enough, Murray said, but that federal agents can enter an individual’s home and seize materials on a whim is a clear-cut violation of the founding fathers’ intent to safeguard the sanctity of private residences.

In addition, individual artists, photographers, journalists and performers are hampered in their pursuit of employment by the regulations’ requirement that they make themselves and their records available for inspection at least 20 hours per week. Murray said some plaintiffs must travel extensively for work, and the 20-hour requirement forces them to choose between a job and federal law. Some have curtailed allowed professional speech because taking a job would mean they would not be available for the requisite 20 hours.

If this is the heart of their argument, they already lost. When the regs were amended to allow third party record keepers, all these arguments went out the window. I am sure this challenge was anticipated. I dont see this going anywhere. How do you get around the fact that with third party record keeping no one has to list their name or their address nor do thay have to open their homes to an inspection ? Further, the 20 hour requirement is also gone with third party record keepers.

I dont see this being the challenge they think it is.

[RawAlex]

The only very, very narrow way they might be any traction with this is that third party record keepers cost money. Free Speech may be limited to only those who can afford third parties to hold their records, or only those willing to violate the privacy of their home.

The "either or" in this case brings either a financial penalty, or a personal one. Either way, there is some slight basis for a 4th amendment argument - but it is a very narrow attack.

[FSC Diane]

If this is the heart of their argument, they already lost. When the regs were amended to allow third party record keepers, all these arguments went out the window. I am sure this challenge was anticipated. I dont see this going anywhere. How do you get around the fact that with third party record keeping no one has to list their name or their address nor do thay have to open their homes to an inspection ? Further, the 20 hour requirement is also gone with third party record keepers.

I dont see this being the challenge they think it is.


Really Michael?
Then allow me to explain,
The history of the government’s defense of Section 2257 indicates that the Justice Department will not make any real concession until its back is up against the wall in court. Litigation brought in the past by Sundance and continued today by Connections and FSC has already resulted in very substantial gains and improvements-(yes Michael, third-party record-keeping).

And we believe that there is plenty more where that came from.

So the first task of continued litigation will be to narrow or eliminate the remaining ambiguities and confusions. With a new administration and a track record of litigation-inspired government ‘clarifications,’ we may be in a position soon to clear up most of the remaining relatively small interpretation and implementation problems.

But even so, fundamental constitutional questions remain. Why does Section 2257 treat adult businesses so harshly compared to the way Section 2257A now treats Hollywood and other softcore (i.e. simulated) producers?

Does the First Amendment allow the government to force adult businesses to prove that their expression is constitutionally protected (in this case, not child pornography), or do our constitutional traditions place the burden of proof squarely upon those who suggest or suspect that particular speech is unprotected by the constitution?

Even if some minor requirements (such as ‘check all IDs before you shoot’) are trivial or unassuming enough to pass constitutional muster, just how far may a record keeping scheme go in burdening many tens of thousands of people and companies who have not had – and never would have – anything to do with child pornography?

I understand that the "2257 Safe" business model is reliant on the law continuing in it's overburdensome state. Nonetheless, FSC believes that saving the industry and its businesses literally millions of dollars is more than the personal self interest of those who profit from 2257.

[pornlaw]

The history of the government’s defense of Section 2257 indicates that the Justice Department will not make any real concession until its back is up against the wall in court. Litigation brought in the past by Sundance and continued today by Connections and FSC has already resulted in very substantial gains and improvements-(yes Michael, third-party record-keeping).

So I understand this correctly, you are stating that the FSC litigation efforts have resulted in numerous changes in 2257 and 28 CFR 75, one was to allow third party record keeping.

Okay. I can buy that.

However, now one of the FSC's challenges to 2257 completely ignores the positive change you just claimed was a victory. And attacks the law based on the notice requirements, the hours required and possible intrusion at the time of an inspection. Isnt this prior restraint argument offset by third party record keeping victory that the FSC won ? I am confused.

Why even bother with this argument ?


So the first task of continued litigation will be to narrow or eliminate the remaining ambiguities and confusions. With a new administration and a track record of litigation-inspired government ‘clarifications,’ we may be in a position soon to clear up most of the remaining relatively small interpretation and implementation problems.

Okay. I can understand that.

But even so, fundamental constitutional questions remain. Why does Section 2257 treat adult businesses so harshly compared to the way Section 2257A now treats Hollywood and other softcore (i.e. simulated) producers?

I can understand that one as well.

Does the First Amendment allow the government to force adult businesses to prove that their expression is constitutionally protected (in this case, not child pornography), or do our constitutional traditions place the burden of proof squarely upon those who suggest or suspect that particular speech is unprotected by the constitution

I dont agree with this one. You cannot not prove a negative.

Even if some minor requirements (such as ‘check all IDs before you shoot’) are trivial or unassuming enough to pass constitutional muster, just how far may a record keeping scheme go in burdening many tens of thousands of people and companies who have not had – and never would have – anything to do with child pornography?

I cannot comment on this since I am not a producer. However I can tell you that we have had clients tell us that www.2257Safe.com (http://www.2257Safe.com) has made their record keeping much easier, less burdensome and more affordable.



I understand that the "2257 Safe" business model is reliant on the law continuing in it's overburdensome state. Nonetheless, FSC believes that saving the industry and its businesses literally millions of dollars is more than the personal self interest of those who profit from 2257.



Then you dont understand our business model. Our business model is dependent on the fact that the third party record keeping aspect of 2257 remains in place. As for the other aspects that you refer to as overburdensome, they are not pertinent to us other than we might have to re-write some code when the law changes again.

Overall, I really think the FSC is being myopic in regards to 2257. Piracy is considerable more of a problem than record keeping. Piracy is quickly killing this industry. We will not even have to worry about 2257 in a few years if piracy isnt addressed. However I do not think piracy is an issue for the FSC though.

Quite actually I think 2257 might be a valuable weapon in challenging tube sites. Obviously, the DMCA will protect the theft of this industry's content. However, at least with 2257 and its record keeping and notice provisions, we can at least make a claim of unfair business practices. If Vivid didnt settle with Pornotube/AEBN we could have had a decision in this regard already.

Someone needs to step up and start using 2257 as a weapon. The government uses it as a weapon against us. We should take it from their hands and use it against our enemies.

The "overbudensomeness" you refer to can certainly be used to our advantage.

[DannyCox]

I really don't understand the problem some people seem to have with 2257, it's really just common sense. I'm in Canada, and I follow the 2257 requirements just because it's a good standard for a producer to follow. I've had to dig into my records on government request, and what I started years ago made everything so easy to find. And the records weren't even for 2257, but for Revenue Canada! Talent not paying their taxes again ;)

[EmporerEJ]

I really don't understand the problem some people seem to have with 2257, it's really just common sense. I'm in Canada, and I follow the 2257 requirements just because it's a good standard for a producer to follow. I've had to dig into my records on government request, and what I started years ago made everything so easy to find. And the records weren't even for 2257, but for Revenue Canada! Talent not paying their taxes again ;)

Danny, this is one of those areas I simply can't understand you.....
And maybe, you can't understand me. It's probably cultural.

But here it is......I don't have a problem with 2257 as a guideline to running the adult industry. The problem starts when the government ASSUMES I'm breaking the law until I PROVE I'm innocent. THAT, is the problem.

If you've employed someone under 18, you should fry. But only if you intended to commit the crime. Lest we forget Traci Lords, and her little game. I could have easily gone to jail for life over that little deal, and i never intended to commit ANY crime. And who did they hang? The agent. Not her, and not her mom who produced false documents, and swore she was 18. But as a result of her INTENTIONAL breaking of the law, a man served 4 years (was it?) in prison, ruined for life, and this whole little wheel of misery got rolling. We had the meese commission, and ultimately, the 2257 regulation nonsense. People "of the web" forget this all got started from the video biz, not the internet biz.

In any event, in THIS country, I'm supposed to be innocent until PROVEN guilty. Not Guilty, until I prove myself innocent.
And it's really that simple. That's where I draw the line. The constitution is very clear on this.

[pornlaw]

In any event, in THIS country, I'm supposed to be innocent until PROVEN guilty. Not Guilty, until I prove myself innocent.
And it's really that simple. That's where I draw the line. The constitution is very clear on this.

Can I invite you to read the Revenue Code ? The IRS doesnt presume you to be innocent first. The idea that in America you are "innocent until proven guilty" has little to do with compliance law.

2257 is nothing more than a law requiring compliance. If anyone in this industry ever bothered to read some of the federal regs that deal with other industries they would be astonished with how relatively easy we have it.

Go look at what it takes to deal with the FDA... www.fda.gov (http://www.fda.gov) to get cosmetics, medical devices or drugs approved.

How about throwing out some garbage... try dealing with the EPA and hazardous waste.... http://www.epa.gov/osw/laws-regs/regs-haz.htm

Wanna drive a truck across state lines, well here's the DOT's regs on whats required to be compliant ... http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrguide.aspx?section_type=A

Trust me when I say all of those other industries have much more difficult regs to deal with than we do with 18 USC 2257.

[EmporerEJ]

Can I invite you to read the Revenue Code ? The IRS doesnt presume you to be innocent first. The idea that in America you are "innocent until proven guilty" has little to do with compliance law.

2257 is nothing more than a law requiring compliance. If anyone in this industry ever bothered to read some of the federal regs that deal with other industries they would be astonished with how relatively easy we have it.

Go look at what it takes to deal with the FDA... www.fda.gov (http://www.fda.gov) to get cosmetics, medical devices or drugs approved.

How about throwing out some garbage... try dealing with the EPA and hazardous waste.... http://www.epa.gov/osw/laws-regs/regs-haz.htm

Wanna drive a truck across state lines, well here's the DOT's regs on whats required to be compliant ... http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrguide.aspx?section_type=A

Trust me when I say all of those other industries have much more difficult regs to deal with than we do with 18 USC 2257.

Yes, and I fail to see how that does anything but guarantee "your ilk" (i.e. lawyers-no offense intended to present company) a continuing source of income. Once again, the founders thought a country based more on a libertarian society. And that's what I'd like.

Of course, that would kill the record keeping job, but I'm speaking in the abstract here.
Don't worry, we'll find something else for you to do.
:yowsa:

Less law, not more.....
I've been through several of those you listed, including the PA version of the EPA....DER, to the tune of $48,000 for a property cleanup I happen to own when the music stopped playing. Didn't have anything to do with the previous 97 years of "abuse" as they defined it.....I was just stuck cleaning it up.

And I'm with the guys that say the IRS shouldn't exist.

Now, the pharmaceutical industry....now THERE is a winner. It's a wonder ANYTHING ever gets done there.

But you make my point for me. What the F*&k is with all these rules and regulations that are nothing more than an excuse to pick the small business man's pocket? 'Cause that's the guy that pays. The Corps pass it on, and the consumer never pays for it........the squeeze is always on the small business man in the middle.

[miz_wright]

But only if you intended to commit the crime.

Noo... Commiting a crime isn't limited to the intention to commit, and indictments and judgments are passed all the time for guilty parties who "didn't intend" to commit whatever particular crime is up for review.

Drunk drivers don't set out to kill kids or grandparents or someone's mom. But it happens nonetheless, and manslaughter is the result.

I don't think we can use "well, I didn't *mean* to shoot an underage girl!" as a defense.

[EmporerEJ]

Noo... Commiting a crime isn't limited to the intention to commit, and indictments and judgments are passed all the time for guilty parties who "didn't intend" to commit whatever particular crime is up for review.

Drunk drivers don't set out to kill kids or grandparents or someone's mom. But it happens nonetheless, and manslaughter is the result.

I don't think we can use "well, I didn't *mean* to shoot an underage girl!" as a defense.

Not the same thing. Drunk drivers took an affirmative action and committed a crime BEFORE they killed whoever sounds the most sympathetic to the press.

They got publicly drunk, breaking the law, then got behind the wheel, and operated a motor vehicle while drunk, again breaking the law. Both things, likely to have a bad result, long before they "commit the crime" in question.

And, if you'll note, I said if you DO shoot an underage whatever, you should fry. I don't have a problem with either of those laws. I have a problem with applying them FIRST, then checking the facts.

If you want to try to draw some kind of bizarre parallel, then the parallel would be: "Pardon me ma'm, but before I can sell you that can of beer, you have to prove to me that you aren't going to go out with your car and kill little adorable sally and her nanna with your drunk driving. We KNOW that you intend to go out and be a drunk driver EVERY time you pick up a can of beer. And if you want to drink this beer today, you'll have to retain that statement of proof for the next 25 years. And if you can't prove that, I'm going to put you in jail, and take all your property. Even if you only wanted to sit in your living room and drink that beer."

THAT would be a comparable description. Sound ridiculous? Of course it does. As does the entire 2257 argument.

[tony404]

I really don't understand the problem some people seem to have with 2257, it's really just common sense. I'm in Canada, and I follow the 2257 requirements just because it's a good standard for a producer to follow. I've had to dig into my records on government request, and what I started years ago made everything so easy to find. And the records weren't even for 2257, but for Revenue Canada! Talent not paying their taxes again ;)

When I just had to have a info sheet and a copy of an id in a file. I didnt have problem with it. They made very complicated for no other reason than to fuck with pornographers in the america. The point of 2257 is to fuck with us. If someone shot children they wouldnt keep fucking records and Traci lords who the law is called. She had a government issued passport and drivers license stating she was of age. How could you protect yourself from that? You cant. Our industry really hasnt pushed back hard enough that adult porn has nothing to do with CP. When some rightwing douchbag bag tries to connect us to cp, there should be responses calling him a uninformed liar. With all its money this industry has no more pr power then the guy who owns the candy stores on the corners its sad.

[EmporerEJ]

when i just had to have a info sheet and a copy of an id in a file. I didnt have problem with it. They made very complicated for no other reason than to fuck with pornographers in the america. The point of 2257 is to fuck with us. If someone shot children they wouldnt keep fucking records and traci lords who the law is called. She had a government issued passport and drivers license stating she was of age. How could you protect yourself from that? You cant. Our industry really hasnt pushed back hard enough that adult porn has nothing to do with cp. When some rightwing douchbag bag tries to connect us to cp, there should be responses calling him a uninformed liar. With all its money this industry has no more pr power then the guy who owns the candy stores on the corners its sad.

Exactly!

[pornlaw]

Can I ask a sincere question to both Tony and EmporerEJ -- are you guys members of the FSC ? Do you donate to their efforts to fight 2257 ?

[tony404]

Can I ask a sincere question to both Tony and EmporerEJ -- are you guys members of the FSC ? Do you donate to their efforts to fight 2257 ?

We were members for a few years.then I felt they were doing nothing so we didn't rejoin.this may change my mind again.sorry if I killed your point.

[EmporerEJ]

Can I ask a sincere question to both Tony and EmporerEJ -- are you guys members of the FSC ? Do you donate to their efforts to fight 2257 ?

Well, this is going to open an ugly subject.......but if you want, I will.
I WAS a member of the FSC on 2 occasions (Different years, not contiguous)
I tried 2 different times to get involved.

On NUMEROUS occasions, I attempted to engage people from the FSC, because I believe we need a group like the FSC. I withdrew from being a member because of the direction they took. (Which I'll be happy to discuss if you want.) And specifically, for the attitude I got on 3 separate occasions from 2 different FSC people. There's no other way to put it, they were simply Rude.

I'm an east coast guy....(You know, where Washington DC IS?) and we need representation HERE. Where the laws that affect ALL of us are made. There was a guy here in PA trying to get a group started, and I supported that, but it just didn't generate enough interest.


Not just issues in Sacramento, and certainly not pursuing "piracy" in the adult industry. (That IS a bad thing, just shouldn't be the focus of FSC)

So yes, we need an "FSC," just not the one we have. And yea, I know, something is better than nothing, and I can't even support a group I don't fully agree with it, but they are just too far over in the "too far from me" area.

There were also several big policy issues I didn't care for. Shall I go on?


The one right thing they've done that I applaud, was making Regina Lynn a board member. I know there is at least one board member with the right ideas. (Not to be inferred, that there might not be others)

[pornlaw]

No point killed... I just really wanted to know. I always wonder whether those most vocal are just vocal or are do lend the support or the action needed. I applaud both of you and anyone else for being members or for being past members.

[DannyCox]

In any event, in THIS country, I'm supposed to be innocent until PROVEN guilty.

Sorry, I forgot THAT country, the United States, is the greatest country on earth and the only one to have "innocent until proven guilty" ;)

But isn't THAT the same country that suspends Habeas Corpus whenever it feels like it? :whistling

ah, just F'ing with you.

But Michael does bring up a good point on how easy we actually have it in our industry when it comes to regulations and paper work. I came out of Aerospace & Defence and the hoops we had to jump through for any little thing we did was amazing! That's why I don't mind keeping up with these 2257 requirements, it's really a nothing thing.

I do agree that the way the US handles some of these cases like the Traci Lords fiasco is just backwards. In Canada, the underage person supplying the fraudulent documents would be the one charged, not the producers or anyone else caught up in the fraud. About 10 years ago, we had a girl come in for an audition, and things did get explicit. She has ID on her that showed she was 19 years old. We then shoot a scene with her and two guys and put it up on one of our sites. 2 months later, she comes back and this time givs us her correct ID! She had turned 18 the week before. We found out that on her first audition, she had brought in her sister's ID who looked exactly like her. We of course pulled the content, but did not destroy it. My lawyer took possession of it, along with the copies of the original ID and her proper one. He also took affidavits from those involved. If anything had come from it, we would have had proof she defrauded us, and we would have been just fine.

[tony404]

No point killed... I just really wanted to know. I always wonder whether those most vocal are just vocal or are do lend the support or the action needed. I applaud both of you and anyone else for being members or for being past members.

The problem we have micheal in this industry,everyone cant put their agendas aside long enough to have a common goal for the long term of the industry. A good chunk of them think they are brilliant masters of the universe and extremely short sighted.

[gonzo]

No point killed... I just really wanted to know. I always wonder whether those most vocal are just vocal or are do lend the support or the action needed. I applaud both of you and anyone else for being members or for being past members.
Youll find several of us were past members and disappointed.

The shady activity Bill Margolis and some of the past officers plus promises of being safe from 2257 - the group has left a very bad taste in my mouth.
We mostly get to read about another celebrity fund raiser party as the main activity from the group.

And yes we are all aware of the group taking credit for stopping .XXX.

That being said I give my money to Mitch Kapor's group the EFF and have for many years.

Maybe youve heard of him . . . http://www.kapor.com/bio/index.html

I dont know Dianne but maybe we can get a clear answer from her whats going on and how we all can work together for a change.

Ill have to admit theres not much of a choice between the FSC and Joan.

[Hell Puppy]

I've been a member of EFF since 1991. I'm a charter member of the USIIA, I helped get the thing going back when it was the Association of Online Professionals back at One BBSCON the year it was in St. Louis.

And that's why I've been in and out, mostly out, of FSC. I know what a professionally run lobby or activist group should look like, and FSC for the most part hasn't been it. Some good folks there, some good work, but it lacks the effectiveness and transparency to make me throw significant donations at it.

Speaking of EFF, it's odd how the fears change over time. Back in the early 90's you had things like Amateur Action, Rusty 'n Edie's, etc, going on. Amateur Action got busted for mailing porn to some podunk area of Tennessee on postal charges initially. Rusty 'n Edie got punked on copyrights, first off by the SPA and Microsoft, but also by Playboy, yes Playboy, for posting their copyrighted material. Whodathunkit?

Putting aside whether they were guilty or not (Rusty 'n Edie's draw was piracy undeniably), the problem back in the day was the investigation.

Most BBS operations, even huge multinode systems, lived in the basement of people's homes. Hell, I still have the remnants of an old LANtastic based PCBoard system mothballed down in my skunkworks. If you were targeted for investigation, the FBI shows up, knocks on your door, comes in and confiscates ALL of your systems. You've not been proven guilty of anything at that point, but you're effectively shut down and out of business as it might be years before you see your hardware again and who knows what state it will all be in.

2257 is just the latest way to deter porn with fear. Very complex convoluted record keeping laws and if in the eyes of an investigator you are missing something, you can be branded for child porn. that accusation alone will end your life as you know it. Your neighbors will tuck their kids behind them when they see you out and try to drive you out of the neighborhood, no one will do business with you, your family and friends may not even look at you the same way ever again.

Cost of doing business?

[FSC Diane]

First, Emporer EJ, I am sorry to hear that FSC failed to provide you with satisfactory customer service. We are a service provider to our members and member service is an utmost priority to me and my staff. I don’t know when FSC fell short but I would like to follow-up with you to find out the details to make sure that this kind of error does not happen again. If you would be so kind as to contact me at diane@freespeechcoalition.com (diane@freespeechcoalition.com) I would love to arrange a time for us to talk. I appreciate the insight that you share about our industry and FSC and I know I would enjoy further conversation.

Tony404, I am happy to hear that you are open to renewing your membership. I would be happy to talk to you or have Joanne, our membership directo,r talk to you about your membership and how FSC can work to help you and your business.

Gonzo, I have been with FSC for three years. During that time, Bill Margold has not worked for FSC. Bill has an important voice in our industry, but he speaks representing PAWS and not FSC.

When you refer to “Joan,” I assume you are speaking of Joan Irvine, the ED of ASACP, who contributes a great deal to the industry as well. She works tirelessly to separate the industry from the stigma of child pornography that right-wing fundamentalist often brand onto adult entertainment. ASACP and FSC are two different organizations; FSC is the adult entertainment industry’s trade association. The two organizations are not mutually exclusive, but rather compliment each other to serve the industry and ward off unwarranted government intervention.

Yes, Gonzo, FSC does take credit for blocking .XXX. We take credit for it because we (myself and Jeffrey Douglas) were the only ones there in Portugal, literally sitting outside meeting rooms with pictures of ICANN Board members to grab them and plead our case as they left their meeting rooms. I bribed the concierge to slip notes under Board members doors. We made such an impression that ICANN gave us 20 minutes of their Board meeting time to plead our case. One hundred and fifty countries were vying for time on that board agenda and we got 20 minutes--unheard of. In the end, we, the adult entertainment industry prevailed.

Similar stories exist about 2257, tax on adult entertainment, piracy, OSHA, production insurance, member benefits and so much more. You say you don’t know me and that is true. I believe that FSC’s greatest shortcoming is lack of communication. We do a great deal for the industry but you hear about very little. We spend more time working on the issues than talking about them. I do not believe that that is a good thing in that it keeps people like you from being involved in, and communicating about the important issues that we are tackling. Our staff--Keah, Kim and Joanne and I--do all that we have spoken of with a budget of just a little over $500K. To put that in perspective, MPAA, mainstream entertainment’s trade association, has a budget of $120 million.

We have a dedicated volunteer Board of Directors who support our efforts and give a great deal of their personal time and resources to further the work of FSC.

I love my job and am humbled and honored to be a part of this incredible and dynamic industry. I appreciate you providing me with the opportunity to answer your very valid concerns.

[tony404]

I will keep my mouth shut.

[gonzo]

Gonzo, I have been with FSC for three years. During that time, Bill Margold has not worked for FSC. Bill has an important voice in our industry, but he speaks representing PAWS and not FSC.

When you refer to “Joan,” I assume you are speaking of Joan Irvine, the ED of ASACP, who contributes a great deal to the industry as well. She works tirelessly to separate the industry from the stigma of child pornography that right-wing fundamentalist often brand onto adult entertainment. ASACP and FSC are two different organizations; FSC is the adult entertainment industry’s trade association. The two organizations are not mutually exclusive, but rather compliment each other to serve the industry and ward off unwarranted government intervention.

Yes, Gonzo, FSC does take credit for blocking .XXX. We take credit for it because we (myself and Jeffrey Douglas) were the only ones there in Portugal, literally sitting outside meeting rooms with pictures of ICANN Board members to grab them and plead our case as they left their meeting rooms. I bribed the concierge to slip notes under Board members doors. We made such an impression that ICANN gave us 20 minutes of their Board meeting time to plead our case. One hundred and fifty countries were vying for time on that board agenda and we got 20 minutes--unheard of. In the end, we, the adult entertainment industry prevailed.

Similar stories exist about 2257, tax on adult entertainment, piracy, OSHA, production insurance, member benefits and so much more. You say you don’t know me and that is true. I believe that FSC’s greatest shortcoming is lack of communication. We do a great deal for the industry but you hear about very little. We spend more time working on the issues than talking about them. I do not believe that that is a good thing in that it keeps people like you from being involved in, and communicating about the important issues that we are tackling. Our staff--Keah, Kim and Joanne and I--do all that we have spoken of with a budget of just a little over $500K. To put that in perspective, MPAA, mainstream entertainment’s trade association, has a budget of $120 million.

We have a dedicated volunteer Board of Directors who support our efforts and give a great deal of their personal time and resources to further the work of FSC.

I love my job and am humbled and honored to be a part of this incredible and dynamic industry. I appreciate you providing me with the opportunity to answer your very valid concerns.


I am impressed by your tenacity to follow up with the .XXX debacle to the end. I fear that issue isnt quite over just yet.

However I do not share you enthusiasm for Joan and her group. They supported .XXX in the begining and back peddled when it became unpopular and public information that a deal had been cut between the proposed registrar of those names and Joans group.

In short - ya kinda lost me. And after all these years the group has yet to tell em how any of those evil child porn sites they have taken down and remain offline. Youd think that an organization with that level of contributions from this industry would be held accountable for its core mission. Ive always felt it those contributions were made as they play on peoples guilt in this industry.

I was initially involved with your group back when Bill Lyons founded it.

The accounting issues that plagued it back then along with the false expectations of protection from 2257 prosecution just left me with a very bad taste in my mouth.

Thanks for taking the time to clarify some questions and our welcome to do so here anytime youd like.

[EmporerEJ]

Sorry, I forgot THAT country, the United States, is the greatest country on earth and the only one to have "innocent until proven guilty" ;)

But isn't THAT the same country that suspends Habeas Corpus whenever it feels like it? :whistling

ah, just F'ing with you.

But Michael does bring up a good point on how easy we actually have it in our industry when it comes to regulations and paper work. I came out of Aerospace & Defence and the hoops we had to jump through for any little thing we did was amazing! That's why I don't mind keeping up with these 2257 requirements, it's really a nothing thing.


I know...and you're right. doing those things is wrong.
And should be called on it.
But that doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand. We don't just say "Well, they f'd up here, so let's just give up on everything else."

2257 is wrong, it was always wrong, and it needs to be defeated.

[EmporerEJ]

First, Emporer EJ, I am sorry to hear that FSC failed to provide you with satisfactory customer service. We are a service provider to our members and member service is an utmost priority to me and my staff. I don’t know when FSC fell short but I would like to follow-up with you to find out the details to make sure that this kind of error does not happen again. If you would be so kind as to contact me at diane@freespeechcoalition.com (diane@freespeechcoalition.com) I would love to arrange a time for us to talk. I appreciate the insight that you share about our industry and FSC and I know I would enjoy further conversation.


I appreciate you responding here. And I'll talk with you then. But is was something more than "customer service."
There's no point flaming the FSC on the board, but I feel a bit like Gonzo's response.
You kinda lost me along the way......(for different reasons)

At the expense of sounding Not politically correct, I don't care about chasing kiddie porn people.
It's a horrible thing, and those people are evil and all ought to be hung up by their balls. But we pay for an FBI, let them chase 'em. I'm not paying twice to do it.

The FSC should be about one thing: (Primarily) Protecting Free Speech.
Not local issues in California, except as they affect the rest of the country.

And if you don't have a lobbyist in Washington, you're simply chasing your tail. You are RE-acting to things happening to the industry. We need to be PRO-active. That's how Government works. By the time it gets to "enforcement," the big wheel of government is already rolling. It's 100X easier to stop it's momentum BEFORE it gets rolling.

That's the basis of my argument.
I really believe it's a west coast/east coast way of thinking.

[Hell Puppy]

Nice font.

typed up in Word?

How many had to sign off on it before you posted? ;)

[tony404]

Nice font.

typed up in Word?

How many had to sign off on it before you posted? ;)

you are too jaded. lol

[Hell Puppy]

you are too jaded. lol

Indeed I am.

....and I still bet they worked on that response all afternoon.

[pornlaw]

You may not like the FSC but Diane is good people. While we may have our differences, her heart is in the right place and she has done a lot of positives with the FSC in her tenure.

She is a staunch defender of the industry and for that she will always have my respect.

[pornlaw]

Here is a link to a copy of the complaint filed by the FSC ....

http://randazza.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/fsc-v-holder-2257.pdf

The most interesting aspect of the complaint, at least to me, is Paragraph 55. Which reads in relevant part...

55. There is presently no realistic market for third party record keeping services because the Defendant's (the US government) predecessors have long delayed in providing for them and because Defendant and his predecessors insist on articulating a strict liability standard for producers concerning any failing, however minor or unforseeable, on the part of the third party record keeper whom they might employ. So long as it stands, such a strict liability standard will substanially inhibit the development of third party record keeping services.


It does appear that the graveman of FSC's argument is that producers of adult content need to post their name and address on the compliance notice as well as the need to be available for 20 hours per week and open one's home or business to a warrantless search.

With that in mind, I have to ask -- with the advent of third party record keepers such as www.2257Safe.com (http://www.2257Safe.com) and other services like it, (http://www.informationlaw.com (http://www.informationlaw.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=58&Itemid=86) http://www.heliosdatasystems.com/ ) how can the FSC expect the US Attorney's Office not to know that there are third party record keepers and if they do - not to use that as a potential defense to this complaint and request for an injunction ?

The statement that there are no viable third party record keepers now commercially available for the use of the plaintiffs in this case may be considered misleading by the court.

Why not make the attack in a way where victory appears to be more easy achieved ?

Are there not better arguments that can be made against 2257 that can get around the new regs and changes allowing third party record keeping ?

[tony404]

Here is a link to a copy of the complaint filed by the FSC ....

http://randazza.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/fsc-v-holder-2257.pdf

The most interesting aspect of the complaint, at least to me, is Paragraph 55. Which reads in relevant part...



It does appear that the graveman of FSC's argument is that producers of adult content need to post their name and address on the compliance notice as well as the need to be available for 20 hours per week and open one's home or business to a warrantless search.

With that in mind, I have to ask -- with the advent of third party record keepers such as www.2257Safe.com (http://www.2257Safe.com) and other services like it, (http://www.informationlaw.com (http://www.informationlaw.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=58&Itemid=86) http://www.heliosdatasystems.com/ ) how can the FSC expect the US Attorney's Office not to know that there are third party record keepers and if they do - not to use that as a potential defense to this complaint and request for an injunction ?

The statement that there are no viable third party record keepers now commercially available for the use of the plaintiffs in this case may be considered misleading by the court.

Why not make the attack in a way where victory appears to be more easy achieved ?

Are there not better arguments that can be made against 2257 that can get around the new regs and changes allowing third party record keeping ?

name four companies that are third party 2257? One company does not an industry make.

[tony404]

also micheal whats your icq i have question for u?

[EmporerEJ]

Here is a link to a copy of the complaint filed by the FSC ....

http://randazza.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/fsc-v-holder-2257.pdf

The most interesting aspect of the complaint, at least to me, is Paragraph 55. Which reads in relevant part...



It does appear that the graveman of FSC's argument is that producers of adult content need to post their name and address on the compliance notice as well as the need to be available for 20 hours per week and open one's home or business to a warrantless search.

With that in mind, I have to ask -- with the advent of third party record keepers such as www.2257Safe.com (http://www.2257Safe.com) and other services like it, (http://www.informationlaw.com (http://www.informationlaw.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=58&Itemid=86) http://www.heliosdatasystems.com/ ) how can the FSC expect the US Attorney's Office not to know that there are third party record keepers and if they do - not to use that as a potential defense to this complaint and request for an injunction ?

The statement that there are no viable third party record keepers now commercially available for the use of the plaintiffs in this case may be considered misleading by the court.

Why not make the attack in a way where victory appears to be more easy achieved ?

Are there not better arguments that can be made against 2257 that can get around the new regs and changes allowing third party record keeping ?

I understand you are promoting your new business segment, and I don't really have a problem with that.
And from a practical standpoint, the bulk of the industry will roll over and sign up for a service like that because it's easier.
So, I think that's great for you, and I don't mean to attack you in any way on this.

But the thing that pisses me off about lawyers is their immediate desire to "settle." Your business model is a "settlement" of what the government wants, and something much worse: the creating of a new specialty business to "comply" with the government's censorship.

I'm sorry, I just don't bend that way. It would be the easiest thing in the world to say, "Ok, the government has offered us a way out, we'll sign up for this service. Then we can sleep at night." And even if their is a tiny flaw in the wording of the law, (and here's where I make a sales promotion for you,) the customer that DOES have a lawyer service for compliance is Waaaaaaayyyy down on the list of the government's people to attack. They will go after the extreme edges in a bid to win their case. So, while people may slice and dice your service as not protecting them from "sub paragraph 23, subsection U, line 256, word 58," the simple fact is, your service will make people safer from prosectuion risk.

But you understand, it's still a compromise. And this is one of those things I feel is either right, or wrong.

2257 is wrong. It is an assumption of guilt, where there is none, and in the history of the adult industry, (At least since 1983 when I've been in it) I have NEVER heard of an intentional case of using underage performers by any of the "industry" people.

There are NO other industries that can make such a claim. For shit's sake, there's a movie in the theaters about corruption in the genetically engineered food industry. IF the fed is looking for someone to chase that breaking real laws, and hurting people, they would do better to pursue other industries. The fact is, we are a fairly safe industry, that polices itself. We deserve to be treated with respect.

[pornlaw]

name four companies that are third party 2257? One company does not an industry make.

Ummm... I named three in my post. There are two others that I know of but I dont remember their URLs. Perhaps 5 doesnt make an industry either but it makes it very difficult for the FSC to say that it doesnt exist at all.

I dont have ICQ... I am never in front of a computer for that long for it to be useful. Call me though (310) 666-3100.

But the thing that pisses me off about lawyers is their immediate desire to "settle." Your business model is a "settlement" of what the government wants, and something much worse: the creating of a new specialty business to "comply" with the government's censorship.

I'm sorry, I just don't bend that way. It would be the easiest thing in the world to say, "Ok, the government has offered us a way out, we'll sign up for this service. Then we can sleep at night." And even if their is a tiny flaw in the wording of the law, (and here's where I make a sales promotion for you,) the customer that DOES have a lawyer service for compliance is Waaaaaaayyyy down on the list of the government's people to attack. They will go after the extreme edges in a bid to win their case. So, while people may slice and dice your service as not protecting them from "sub paragraph 23, subsection U, line 256, word 58," the simple fact is, your service will make people safer from prosectuion risk.

But you understand, it's still a compromise. And this is one of those things I feel is either right, or wrong.


No insult taken. And I completely understand your point. However we arent settling. We are merely taking what the government has given and turned into a business model. We have monetized 2257.

While I understand your point that you want 2257 completely abolished, I really dont think that is going to happen. This is were we differ. I deal with other laws that are problematic. Laws that are unfair and unjust are common. Its not just 2257, there numerous state and federal laws not to mention case law that are not just. As an attorney we just take what is given to us and do the best with it. Thats what lawyers are trained to do.

As for the issue, its not whether the FSC should attack 2257. Its how. And if you read the complaint, the issue is whether their approach is the correct one. I have no issue with the FSC attacking 2257. Thats their job and mission.

However, if you are going to attack 2257 shouldnt it be with your strongest and best arguments ?

[MikeSouth]

The FSC cant beat their meat, they have exosted for years and their list of accomplishments is abysmal

There is no financial oversight or disclosure, they talk a good game but whenever they involve themselves in something they lose.

your money is better spent elsewhere until they overhaul it completely, its a joke that tries to be too many things to to many people, they have no focus and no planned attacks, a first year law student should have been able to defeat 2257 and they dicked with it for years milking it as a way to get members fuck the FSC

[EmporerEJ]

As an attorney we just take what is given to us and do the best with it. Thats what lawyers are trained to do.


That is precisely my point.
We don't need an appeaser, we need a hero.

(I'm not blaming you specifically, mind you, you just happen to be the guy in the room. I applaud you for standing and talking about it)

[MikeSouth]

http://www.mikesouth.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/fscposter1.jpg

[EmporerEJ]

http://www.mikesouth.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/fscposter1.jpg

I'm not clear Mike......are you an FSC supporter, or not?

:yowsa:
:rotflmao1:lmao1:

[MikeSouth]

LOL I have a long history with the FSC...dont let those dirtbags fool you if not for a LOT of outside pressure they would have supported .xxx because ICMRegistry was gonna give em 8 bucks per domain sold for their support. The much hated Bill Lyon was the ONLY reason that was defeated despite what Diane may tell you. When Bill told me he would go to all lengths to block it I told him to be ready because they will do whatever it takes to get rid of him if he did

and lo and behold