Printable View
Just wondered what you folks think the outcome of their request for an injunction will be?
Personally, im not all that sure it will be granted and, if thats the case a lot of webmasters are going to be hung out to dry so far as the amount of 'catch up' they will have to play to be in compliance with these new regulations.
That being said, i do think they could get a partial injunction but, that still remains to be seen. I do however wish them luck.
Your thoughts?
Regards,
Lee
wonder if we could get a "jury" hearing from Michael Jacksons jury. surely there is enough reasonable doubt about this new version of 2257 to justify it... :)
Too bad we can't work it that way though...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee
How do you get a "partial injunction"? I thought that they were going after very specific parts of the regs..and the injunction would be either approved or dismissed.
And when are they filing the injunction btw?
i think they said by friday...
The one and only hope is that Sundance comes back to haunt them.
Also, once this request is made the mainstream media may put a spin on it since the DoJ has promoted 2257 as something that prevents CP from being made.
I heard from the lawyer that they were filling tomorrow. I am hoping they get it..but this country is so fucked up you never know!
Anyone want to stick their necks out here and say publicly as to whether they believe you have to be a member of the FSC to be protected by the injunction if one is indeed granted? Or would the injunction cover all?
i don't want to venture to guess that one, however, i do know that there has been a LOT of new members to FSC since 2257 came out...
okay, here's my neck.
i believe the injunction will apply to fsc members only, but the general belief is that law enforcement will not bother with anyone if the injunction is granted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slade
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slade
This has already been addressed a few times. The FSC has already made a statement on another board. Here's a partial quote:
"As a last matter, no one from the FSC has said or meant to suggest that someone should become a member of the FSC in order to be protected under an injunction that does not even exist. While it is a fact that under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure only parties to litigation are covered by an injunction, it has also been amply explained by now that while technical limitations apply, the practical result of some injunctions is that no one is prosecuted while the injunction is in effect, as has happened with COPA.
At any rate, the FSC press release of May 25, 2005 makes clear that “being a member of the Free Speech Coalition does not mean that compliance is unnecessary. Every producer of actually sexually explicit conduct is covered by the existing regulations and the new regulations (which take effect June 23, 2005).” "
So basically.. as a matter of legal history, the injunction will benefit everyone, not just FSC members.
Sure I'll stick my neck out and say that if the injunction is granted it will apply to all despite the FSC hype. From what I have seen by other lawyers who specialize in it, this type of injunction prohibts enforcement of a law deemed unconstitutional and until reviewed by a trial judge any injunction granted would be against the government from enforcing the law as detailed in the injunction.
I'll also stick my neck out to say that it isn't a lock on the injunction being granted as the applicants must prove that they have a reasonable case for winning...
Now me gonna go hide... :uhoh:
Greetings:
One would think that all they would need to do to prove that they have reasonable cause of winning, is to point to a previous ruling showing just such a win....Quote:
Originally Posted by gaystoryman
If anyone's been burying their head in the sand when it comes to law and the adult entertainment industry, it's been the DOJ imho....