FSC Grasps at more straws to increase membership

[rabble]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

Well, I had something of a different opinion, at the time.
They were doing SOMETHING. They did create a rally point. And it was not "unfair" to use it as a "hey, don't you want to be a member too?"

But then they started wandering off in different directions, explained how they were just too busy to take my membership fee, and had no interest in hearing any suggestions. Not even politely listening, and then ignoring me. They actually came out and said, "well, we just can't do anything else. We're just so busy."

So, they lost me, and I added that to my FFN membership profile.
I never imagined for a moment the Justice department would deign to "collude" with them.

well ...FSC got into their money-making stance and the feds got out of court
without a constitutional ruling on the 2257. Sounds like Win-Win to me.

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by rabble

well ...FSC got into their money-making stance and the feds got out of court
without a constitutional ruling on the 2257. Sounds like Win-Win to me.

And the music plays on.......
I'm thinking maybe we're in better shape if we ait till President Bush is out of office, the Democrats appoint a couple of new supremes, and we roll the dice then.

Just, not porn hating Democrats......'cause there's a few of those, too.

[o'Jebaba]

All these post are pure conjecture concerning the motivations of the FSC. If you've not served on the Board or volunteered for one of the committees, you are living Plato's "Allegory of the Cave." All you see are the shadows and you try to discern reality based on your personal interpretation of the shadows.

Yes, the FSC is not a perfect organization and it takes money, lots of money to make a real effort to protect this industry. Do you think that sending representatives to Lisbon and Auckland to fight the XXX-TLD, the California Lobbying Days, The XXX University, the legal briefings, the amicus briefs, the lawsuits, etc. are free?

I've seen countless organizations get started and go nowhere and do nothing but suck up time and energy. The funding reality sets in and these well-intending groups disappear like the morning dew on a summer day.

A critical critique of the FSC offering an analysis of a particular problem and alternative solutions would be a useful discussion. Hindsight sniping and criticism without constructive alternatives being offered is counter-productive and demoralizing.

The FSC is not a perfect organization; but, I know their heart is in the right place because I have "been there and done that."

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by o'Jebaba

The FSC is not a perfect organization; but, I know their heart is in the right place because I have "been there and done that."

That isn't the point at all. FSC is suffering from a vision of being the king of the adult world. Much in the same way that ACACP stopping being about CP and started being about the politically more attractive "protecting children from porn", the FSC has attempted to move from Free Speech issues to a whole range of non-speech issues, such as copyright protection.

FSC wants to be the key organization for porn, standing between porn and the government on all issues. Nobody asked them to do it, they have just been trying to jump in front of hot button issues and hope not only to go for a ride, but the end up driving the issue.

The whole "you have to be a member" to be protected thing was a very agressive and very rude way to try to talk people into giving them money. The reality (as any lawyer worth their salt would point out) is that with an agreement such as that in place for the FSC group, the DoJ would be loath to take anyone else to court on the same issues. You wouldn't need to be a member to get effectively the same protections, and you wouldn't have to have your personal information forwarded to the FBI. The only good ruling in our general favor on 2257 had nothing to do with the FSC attempts in court.

In the end, the 2257 issue (like many others), which was FSC's big stand, was OTBE as congress passed the Adam Walsh law(s) and now a new clarification is on the go for 2257A. Perhaps is FSC wants to raise funds they should open an ice cream stand at Moot Point, because it seems to be where they spend much of the their time.

[rabble]

Originally Posted by o'Jebaba

The FSC is not a perfect organization; but, I know their heart is in the right place because I have "been there and done that."

If I'm a business wishing to protect my monetary investment maybe FSC is a valuable service and worth the money to become a member. If however; one is more interested in protecting overall freedom of speech, moneies is better donated to an organization like the EFF

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by o'Jebaba

All these post are pure conjecture concerning the motivations of the FSC. If you've not served on the Board or volunteered for one of the committees, you are living Plato's "Allegory of the Cave." All you see are the shadows and you try to discern reality based on your personal interpretation of the shadows.

Yes, the FSC is not a perfect organization and it takes money, lots of money to make a real effort to protect this industry. Do you think that sending representatives to Lisbon and Auckland to fight the XXX-TLD, the California Lobbying Days, The XXX University, the legal briefings, the amicus briefs, the lawsuits, etc. are free?

I've seen countless organizations get started and go nowhere and do nothing but suck up time and energy. The funding reality sets in and these well-intending groups disappear like the morning dew on a summer day.

A critical critique of the FSC offering an analysis of a particular problem and alternative solutions would be a useful discussion. Hindsight sniping and criticism without constructive alternatives being offered is counter-productive and demoralizing.

The FSC is not a perfect organization; but, I know their heart is in the right place because I have "been there and done that."

They dont want to hear it.
Time to drop out to the admin and see what IP you posted from.