FSC 2257 Lawsuit Has Been Filed Today In Colorado

basschick, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings, I truly am, but you've been stating your opinion for weeks now and you're scaring a lot of people half to death. Yes, this is a very real threat, yes this is very scary, yes this is going to change the face of the adult business, and yes there are going to be consequences. But you are not a lawyer, so how you can make statements like this, "an injunction only applies to those filing for an injunction, which means only members of the fsc ..." is beyond me. It scares people into thinking, "I guess I'd better join the FSC."

Relax! There's nothing any of us can do about this situation. It's out of our hands. A court will decide that this will either go ahead or not, and either way all we can do is react. No amount of chicken-littling or hand-wringing is going to change any of it. And I'm tired of people getting everyone whipped up into a frenzy.

dzinerbear

This 2257 thing is just unworkable and is getting the best of me. (formerly Huskyhunks) Basschick is right that technically, the scope of the ruling involves only the two parties, but in practicality, if a t.r.o were to be granted, it would indicate an emergency remedy to a very bad law. I doubt that any other Court of Appeals or even the Supreme Court would intervene to restrict or otherwise change a t.r.o issued by a Court of Appeals.

I'm assuming that if the 10 Circuit of Appeals issues a t.r.o, then it would only technically apply to those FSC members who reside within the 10th federal district.

So I guess everyone is right in there assessments. We just don't know how this is going to play out. I think we sometimes need a healthy dose of "the sky is falling" to put this into context.

Basschick,

You are probably one of the most zealous conscientious people I've ever "met" on the boards. You are always presenting your views and ideas and getting out as much information as you can. I think that is FANTASTIC! I applaud you for your energy and concern that you have for others.

It's also important to hear all sides of any issue, and especially the one on the filed injunction. One reason the DOJ will not prosecute anyone even if they are not members of the FSC is simply because if these regs are thrown out, ANY convictions of other NON fsc members would be immediately overturned and what an embarassment and incredible financial cost that would be to the Bush administration and especially the DOJ.

She's not a lawyer, but she's right. An injunction covers those who are part of the FSC only. This means the DOJ can go after anyone not part of the FSC, but to do so is a slap in the face of the judge who grants the injunction, so is rarely if ever done.

the government has never expressed this much concern over porn before. our new attorney general talked about obscenity in almost every speech, and in all his first weeks of speeches. it could be bullshit, or he could be very sincere, which would make all the changes we're going through a new ballgame.

what has always been done does not HAVE to be done. a lot of people here have said they think these new regs are there to get us out of business. if that is true, the injunction would be a perfect time. we all think that they won't bother because a conviction would be pretty much impossible to get during an injunction, but they don't necessarily want convictions. they could scare the smaller of us into making a plea while the injunction was in place.

and Dzinerbear - you're WRONG. 100% wrong. there are many things we can do.

we can read the law several times through ourselves. a LOT of people are intimidated by the length, and haven't even tried. i found the comments at the beginning to be extremely informative and helpful in understanding what's going on. people have been asking questions many times a day on some boards that are very clearly answered in the comments or the regs. let's encourage people to inform themselves - knowledge is power!

we can band together to create a legal defense fund now, instead of waiting till it's needed. or fund a lawyer to work with us on some of this stuff. the fsc doesn't have to be the only group working on this issue.

we can figure out ways to work with only non-explicit content. i'm seeing a lot of saleable niches in non-explicit. we can trade information about where to buy the content, and help each other with niches we have experience with.

some of us will decide to become custodians. those people can be extremely careful in setting up their records. the ones who aren't sure, we can help find out where all the new 2257 softwares are to help them find the best ones. and the new custodians can spend some time creating backups that they put in a safe deposit box. that way, if there's a fire or theft, they are legally covered to continue.

we can talk to lawyers, and ask all our questions - not just any lawyer, but the one who seems the calmest and most knowledgeable on the phone. i know people who are basing their entire decisions of what to do on lawyers who they don't know at all, who they only talked with while they were too scared to even get an impression of.

i made my decision. if i'm 99.5% sure of no legal action during the injunction, that .5% is still more risk than i'm willing to take.

but i'm NOT quitting. i have 2 non explicit sites up, and 2 more on the way. i have found a bunch of non explicit content through photographers, and found some photographers who will shoot exclusive for very good prices. i have prepared myself to do my own shoots by buying a camera, finding a studio i can rent that is clean and appropropriate.

remember, obscenity prosecutions may happen, too. 2257 is NOT the only legal challenge to our business!

FSC ASKS FOR RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST 2257
DENVER, CO -- As planned, Free Speech Coalition has filed a complaint and motion in the United States District Court of Colorado seeking a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining enforcement of the recently revised federal record-keeping and labeling requirements, 18 U.S.C. § 2257, which are due to go into effect June 23, 2005. The case is Free Speech Coalition v. Alberto Gonzales, # 05 CV 1126 WDM.
The lawsuit, which was filed on behalf of the membership of the Free Speech Coalition by attorneys representing three law firms -- Colorado-based Schwartz & Goldberg PC; Sirkin, Pinales & Schwartz LLP of Ohio; and the New York-based law firm of Lipsitz, Green, Fahringer, Roll, Salisbury & Cambria -- contains over 20 separate claims on which basis FSC is asking the court to issue a Temporary Restraining Order.
The expectation of the attorneys is that the court will order a hearing on the motion for a TRO before the regulations are scheduled to go into effect, at which time plaintiff attorneys H. Louis Sirkin, Paul J. Cambria, Jr., and Michael W. Gross of Schwartz & Goldberg will present arguments for temporary injunctive relief prohibiting the enforcement of the 2257 law.
Significantly, the U.S. District Court of Colorado falls within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in Sundance Associates v. Reno, 139 F.3d 804 (10th Cir. 1998), that the governments definition of “secondary producer” was invalid because it went beyond the meaning of the original 2257 statute. Many so-called secondary producers, such as Webmasters, have relied on Sundance in deciding their record-keeping obligations under the law. However, the Department of Justice, in their revised interpretations of the 2257 law, have explicitly stated that they believe a decision by the D.C. Circuit in American Library Association v. Reno, rather than Sundance, is the correct view of the law.
From an FSC Press Release, 6/16/05

One thing to keep in mind, even if the FSC covers everyone, they can't do it without help. It's nice to know someone is working on your behalf if you don't have two pennies to rub together, but if you are able to contribute, why not help out, even a little, the people who are fighting for your rights? You can even have your contributions flagged to go specifically to the 2257 fight if you want.

http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/

Basschick makes some great points here. It's not enough to sit back and watch this transpire because in the long run, this is an ongoing issue for years and years to come. It's a wake up call and should also be seen as a rallying cry to this industry.

Maybe we will all have to change the way we do business. Every other industry does - why should we be exempt ? Things don't exist in a vacuum. We can't let this curb our creativity or our desire to do what we do.

Great things in life sometimes get reduced to rubble. Re-build, re-group, re-focus. Hardcore content is going to always be under fire. It always has, it probably always will. I think everyone needs to asses if they have the resources and the will power to defend this type of content.

The internet and the adult industry emerged very quickly. Laws were not in place to govern all the particular and unique situations the internet presents. Now, as time goes by and new regulations are in place, we have to be able to create and support our own agenda. We've always played this defensively. It's time we go on the offensive. Just like Basschick said, it's time to "band together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WWC-DonMike

One thing to keep in mind, even if the FSC covers everyone, they can't do it without help. It's nice to know someone is working on your behalf if you don't have two pennies to rub together, but if you are able to contribute, why not help out, even a little, the people who are fighting for your rights? You can even have your contributions flagged to go specifically to the 2257 fight if you want.

http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/

---

I am now suspicious of the FSC. After seeing how this was all spun in the beginning... and where things are now.. I'm keeping my opinion of them on reserve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squirt

I am now suspicious of the FSC. After seeing how this was all spun in the beginning... and where things are now.. I'm keeping my opinion of them on reserve.

---

Everyone has the right to make thier own opinion, Squirt, and I respect that. However, I do think that any organization who will allow you to make a specific donation that will go to a specific cause within the organization usually gets my respect. It's one thing to give a check and find out that it went to pay for someone's salary or the donuts in the friday meeting. Plus, hearing everything they had to say at Cybernet made me confident that they know what they are doing. This is simply my opinion. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squirt

I am now suspicious of the FSC. After seeing how this was all spun in the beginning... and where things are now.. I'm keeping my opinion of them on reserve.

---

Squirt, surely you know that money makes the world go round ;)

Everything in the industry is said or done for a reason, primarily to get money from people, especially webmasters.

Regards,

Lee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee

Squirt, surely you know that money makes the world go round ;)

Everything in the industry is said or done for a reason, primarily to get money from people, especially webmasters.

Regards,

Lee

---

I can understand that... but I waited to become a member in the beginning because what was being promoted by some didn't ring true.. and now here we are with everyone being covered.

If I would have been told in the beginning.. " Become a member for $500 and support the FSC litigation that will cover all in our industry " I would have done it. I'm really immature in this sense.. I just like everything laid on the table and to be told the truth, as I do to others. No manipulation. No bullshit. You know what I mean?

I support what the FSC is doing legally 100% I'm going to watch them more closely now before giving them money.

Do you see what they have on their homepage now? They've now put "Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, only the parties to litigation are covered by an injunction. Therefore only the Free Speech Coalition and its members will be covered by an injunction and only to the extent the injunction restricts the government enforcement. "

They are playing a very fine line and what their attorney said publicly before is just tricky. They've admitted that all of us are covered.. yet on their website say only members are covered. No wonder people are fighting over this in our industry. I'm glad I kept the link to the attornies statement on the other board. That statement used to be on the front page of FSC too.. but now it's not.

Squirt - i totally agree. i don't want to be a mark - tell me what you have, and then i can make the decision of where to spend my money. but don't mislead or lie to me.

also the fsc hasn't been exactly active in our industry. shouldn't the legal voice of our industry be more involved with us? the only things i hear about them are press releases through xbiz.

on the other hand, they're the only game in town. unless we want to put something together ourselves, they're the closest we get to representation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basschick

also the fsc hasn't been exactly active in our industry. shouldn't the legal voice of our industry be more involved with us? the only things i hear about them are press releases through xbiz.

---

Patti, the thing is, they are active in the industry, when they need money from webmasters.

Until this 2257 stuff happened, when was the last time that ANY of us saw a post by any of the FSC members on a public forum?

Until this 2257 stuff happened, when was the last time that [b]ANY[b] of us saw a request by the FSC for funding?

They are involved in the industry, when it suits their wallets.

Regards,

Lee

Wow, what a surprise. What else do you guys think we should do? Wait and hope things just go away? At least someone is doing something. And I have seen the FSC at every Internext I've been to since I started in this industry. So they have been around, it's just that people didn't seem to think we needed them until now. So they have been thrust to the forefront of all this, and they are working on something that will be a great benefit to our industry. They are also getting involved with the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom because the BDSM community is also suffering because of the 2257 regs.