Greetings:
http://www.avnonline.com/index.php?P...tent_ID=231539
DOJ is reserving the right to go after NON FSC Members.
Quote:
Specifically, the DOJ will not conduct any inspections or pursue any claims with regard to the plaintiffs and their members, but reserves the right to inspect and prosecute anyone who is not a plaintiff or FSC member.
Nice.
That means that the FSC sold out the industry and, most likely provided or will provide the DOJ with names of their members or non-members in the industry.
They sold out its that simple.
However, on the plus side, they will alost certainly gain a shitload more members beause of this, you have to love the way money makes the world go round :)
Glad to see i wasnt wrong about the FSC after all.
Regards,
Lee
According to the stipulation, agreed to and issued as an order of the Court today, the DOJ, will submit any entity it intends to inspect to a Special Master who will then check the entity’s name against a sealed and confidential FSC membership list. The Special Master will be appointed by the Court, with the consent of the parties, and will be under a specific obligation to maintain the confidentiality of the FSC membership list.Quote:
Originally Posted by JustMe
A master list of members will be submitted to the Special Master on Wednesday June 29, 2005, and will include all FSC members as of 2:00 p.m. PST, Saturday June 25, 2005."
THIS IS WRONG..SO WRONG, ON SO MANY LEVELS!
Why..WHY did the FSC cave? WHY did they agree to this! I would love to see a link to any or all of their lawyers as to why they agreed to this. They COULD have had an injunction today that would have ULTIMATELY led to an actual court hearing on these regs.
I hate to say this..but Lee, you may be right, it may be ALL ABOUT THE MONEY!
Is this REALLY the new slogan of the FSC: "SHOW ME THE MONEY!" (MEMBERSHIP!)?
Yeah it does sound like they just want the money. I did hear that you don't have to donate what their website has though. If you make less than 100k you can donate 100.
Mark
Honestly, everyone should have seen this coming 30 days ago. They said it over and over again, join the FSC. How big does the writing on the wall have to be to get people to see this is how the industry and this country work. We're all in it for the money, why single out the FSC.
I don't see how they sold anyone out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee
1. The FSC struck a one-sided deal. Instead of a 10-day TRO which is what they were initially seeking - they got almost a 90-day TRO for their members. No way is this a sell out. They're still going after the full injuction.
2. I have no problem with it applying to only their members. As we all know legal fees are costly. It's not like the FSC lawyers are doing this pro-bono. IMO it's wrong to think other people should fight the fight for you.
companies are paying 1000's of dollars in FSC fees and then others not pay a dime. If you're not willing to cough up a measily $50 for a yearly membership or you say you can't afford it then you shouldn't be in this business.
They would have NOT received an injuction today. The TRO if granted would have been for only 10 days with a followup for lengthier restraining order.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slade
they got a 90-day order when they were initially only seeking a TEMPORARY (10 days) restraining order.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huskyhunks
I'm singling out the FSC right now because I joined BELIEVING that today, June 23rd, 2005, that the FSC would be filing an injunction against the implentation of the new 2257 regs. But at the 11th hour they did a 180 and it appears to simply increase their membership.
But ironically, EVEN if you join or have JOINED the FSC, you are only getting a 45 day "stay of execution".
Someone was to tell me or point me in the direction of LINKS from attornies for the FSC that EXPLAINS why they did a U turn like this at the last minute?
WHY didn't they file the injunction? We could have gotten a MUCH faster hearing on these regs this way. NOW, we actually GIVE THE DOJ more time to prepare NEW and/or BETTER arguments for THEIR case?
WHAT did the FSC and it's members gain from today's settlement? NOTHING! EXCEPT, more memberships for the FSC.
$300 for a 45 day stay of execution. WHAT A DEAL!
Quote:
Originally Posted by djdez
I'm quoting that because it needs to be seen again.
If you live in the real world, what just happened today should make nothing but total sense.
The FSC hasn't suspended or abandoned its legal fight. But what they have done is created some insulation for the people they serve - their members.
I fail to comprehend the overblown sense of entitlement that leads someone to believe that the FSC owes anything to nonmembers. Surely the work they do has the ultimate goal of protecting the entire adult industry and any other webmasters and even non-adult content producers from these oppressive new regulations. But that doesn't change the fact that they're obliged only to their members and if you're gonna sit on the sidelines and bitch about the FSC at every step of the way demanding they win for you a fight you've not stepped in to the ring with them on then that's your choice to do so and no fault of theirs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djdez
Yes, the TRO would have only been for a shorter time..but DURING that time, the regs would be put up for examination, and you can bet your farm that they would then have gotten a lengther injunction for a full court hearing!
THAT is the problem. They in actuality did NOT get a longer restraining order as you state.
That's speculation. Not fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slade
And let me state that as a member, I did not sign up for this type of action that was taken today. So I am not bitching about their obligation to non-members. They have none! (though you and I both know in the real world there will be no prosecution of non-fsc members unless there has been some FLAGRANT violation).Quote:
Originally Posted by BDBionic
I'm sure Chad can chime in hear and correct me if I have anything out of place... but this is what our lawyers told me yesterday. This is what would have happened if things went as originally planned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slade
1. 6-23 TRO granted by the judge for 10 days
2. Sometime within 1-2 weeks the judge would agree to set a preliminary hearing for an injuction - TRO would then be extended.
3. Judge issues/denies Injunction. remember this is a trial or district US judge
4. Defeated parties would then appeal to the 10th circuit court of appeals.
5. Defeated parties would then appeal to the supreme court which they may or may not agree to hear the case.
Any time you go to court, it's always speculation.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDBionic
But some good legal minds felt, and still do feel, that there is an excellent case to be made against these regulations.
Do you disagree with this? Do you really think these regulations are "air tight"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by djdez
Yes, basically that would have been the scenario.
And #3 is the CRUCIAL part here that I believe the FSC could have (and hopefully still will) won/win.