2257 TRO Announcement?

Well, that's damned unusual if it's factual. Normally a TRO would prevent any enforcement.

Sure doesn't seem to me that the FSC coaliton "sold out the industry". Their duty, as a trade organization, is to protect their members and it appears that they have been successful in accomplishing that. Sure makes me glad that all of my companies choose to join the FSC many months ago.

So, if a list is going to be given to a "Special Master", and that list consists of members of the FSC and they are not going to be targeted for inspections, it gives the members of the FSC coalition breathing room to see what is going to happen and to get compliant. Seems that the FSC coalition has won this battle for their members. Those companies that chose to join the FSC are going to be mightly glad they did and those who chose not to join the FSC are going to be sweating bullets.

I am shocked however that the DoJ will be going after adult webmasters and producers who don't belong to the FSC.....first time I've ever heard of such selective enforcement. Assuming what is being reported is accurate, I stand corrected.

Bill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Huskyhunks

I'd rather be on the master list than a court docket anyday.

---

Here here I can only hope they get more peeps to work the phone and faxs so more of us can be on that list not the court docket..
You don't have time to mail your cash. They have to have it by Saturday. :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Huskyhunks

I'd rather be on the master list than a court docket anyday.

---

Damn right. Thank God our companies made the decision to join the FSC.

What's interesting in the ruling is this:

"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."

"At no time will the DOJ have direct access to the FSC membership list, which will remain under seal."

The FSC is NOT providing a list of it's members to the DoJ but rather to a Special Master who is under oath to maintain it's confidentiality. And secondly, any adult webmaster or producer (primary or secondary) has until June 25th to join the FSC and get on the list. Since membership can be obtained for a low as $50, sure seems like a wise investment.

Bill

Now it makes sense. A TRO was not issued which is why "selective enforcement may occur. This was a negotiated agreement between the FSC and the DoJ.

Some will call it selling out the industry, others (me included) will say that the FSC coalition, under the circumstances, did just what they should have done which is to protect their members. Exactly what a trade organization should do.

All of us had the opportunity to decide whether or not to join the FSC. For those that did not, they still have until June 25th to join and not have to worry about the risk of inspections until at least September 7th. Sure seems like an easy decision to make if the regs affect you. If you want to join, here is their contact info:

Michelle Freridge,
Executive Director - ExecDir@freespeechcoalition.com
Phone: 530-888-1554
Toll-free: 800-476-7813


The court has agreed to hold a preliminary injunction hearing on August 8th. Until that time the DoJ has reserves the right to inspect and prosecute anyone who is not a plaintiff or FSC member.

Bill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hdkbill

Some will call it selling out the industry, others (me included) will say that the FSC coalition, under the circumstances, did just what they should have done which is to protect their members. Exactly what a trade organization should do.

---

Under what circumstances? The circumstances as we know it was that the FSC fully planned to go for the tro today, which they would have probably gotten (and to those that say it's pure speculation..I assure you, I'm not just saying this with no legal precedence to back up MY speculation).

Instead, they agreed to allow the DOJ to prosecute adult webmasters that are not members of the FSC.

You call this "what a trade organization should do"???
What do you think it does to our trade?

Slade, what a trade organization should do it what is best for it's members. That is exactly what they are paid by its members to do.

They may or may not have won the TRO. What they did is negotiate a good deal for their members which was their only obligation. I'm sure that they fully planned to go for the TRO today but seems they were offered a deal which was good for their members.....a sure thing as opposed to a "maybe". You say they would have gotten the TRO, but others, specifically Lee, stated that he didn't believe they would have gotten it.....so, the FSC went for a sure thing that was good for their members. As a member, I very pleased with the results. We've been a member for 3 years and this is exactly why......a trade organization fights for its members.

Those of us that are members know we have until September 7th before we are open for enforcement and we know that a hearing on a permanent injunction will be heard on August 8th. We now have the time to prepare properly in the event the injunction hearing is not successful.

I certainly understand where those that are not members of the FSC coalition aren't happy with the settlement, but heck, everyone had, and still does have until the 25th, the opportunity to join the FSC. It's a free world and we are all free to make whatever decisions we choose. We chose to join because we believe that it is best to belong to an industry association who fights for our rights. Seems we were correct in that decision.

Bill

Just one question for you Bill (and I've asked others, and so far, no one seems to want to answer it).

If the DOJ thought they could clearly have won the argument today against the TRO, *WHY* did they (the DOJ) make this agreement with the FSC?

What is best for it's members? a 60 day "stay" or heading IMMEDIATELY to court to find out if these regs will stand or not?

I've been told by you and others we had a lot of time to get compliant. Why do we need another 60 days then?

(Ok..so that's three questions..not one..grin)

there's something i'd love to know - if the list is sealed so the doj can't read it, how will law enforcement officials know which webmasters to inspect and which ones to leave alone?

The DOJ list will be checked against the master list which will be in the hands of an arbiter.

You might want to check this article at AVN. The DOJ seems to be on a fucking rampage. They are being very aggressive. It's very unnerving.

2257

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slade

Just one question for you Bill (and I've asked others, and so far, no one seems to want to answer it).

If the DOJ thought they could clearly have won the argument today against the TRO, *WHY* did they (the DOJ) make this agreement with the FSC?

What is best for it's members? a 60 day "stay" or heading IMMEDIATELY to court to find out if these regs will stand or not?

I've been told by you and others we had a lot of time to get compliant. Why do we need another 60 days then?

(Ok..so that's three questions..not one..grin)

---

Slade,

I'll be happy to answer your questions. First, for the record, I never said we had a lot of time to get compliant. One of my biggest complaints about the new regs is that the bastards at the DoJ took a full year to come out with the regs and then gave us only 30 days to comply. I operate 10 websites with about 100,000 photos, 70 videos we have produced and another 20 or so that we sell. Their is literally no way I could get compliant in just 30 days, especially when it comes to saving copies of each url where the photos appeared.

My own opinion is that the DoJ most likely believe today that they would in fact lose in court which I'm guessing is why they wanted to negotiate an agreement. I really believe that the attorneys for the FSC most likely believed that they would be successful with their TRO but when offered a deal which would protect their members, they most likely felt that they were better off accepting the agreement on behalf of their members as opposed to taking a chance in court. Not sure I can blame them. As the old saying goes, " a bird in hand is worth more than two in the bush". Was the agreement good for the adult industry as a whole......NOPE.....but then, they were not there representing the entire adult industry....they were there representing their plaintiffs which happened to be the members of the FSC. They ultimately decided to do what was best for their members.

Is a 60 day stay best for the members of the FSC....yep, sure is. At minimum it gives us the time to get compliant. And, it gives the attorneys for the FSC time to better prepare for the hearing which is now scheduled for August 8th.

Ok Slade....did my best to answer....but keep in mind that these are nothing but my opinions and I can only guess as to what was actually said today in Denver and to what the attorneys for the DoJ and for the FSC were actually thinking. But the bottom line is that the members of the FSC can rest comfortably tonight knowing that tomorrow morning we aren't going to have some inspector seizing our records. Actually, the entire industry can rest well tonight knowing that tomorrow some inspector isn't going to be knocking on their doors since the DoJ isn't going to make any moves until at least Monday when the FSC will give the "Special Master" the list of FSC members who were members as of June 25th.

Reality is, if I wasn't a member of the FSC and for $50 I could become one tomorrow and then know that I had at least until September to get my records in order.....I'd jump at the chance. Fifty bucks is a cheap price for sixty days of peace of mind.

And, please don't take me wrong, it isn't that I'm against having accurate record keeping....for the most part, all of ours are in good shape, it's just the new stuff in the regs that we didn't anticipate that we are still trying to rectify, and 30 days just isn't enough time to get it all together. I want the time to get it together, and then check it, and then check it one more time.

Bill

Just received in an email from the Free Speech Coalition:

In response to the flood of new members, Free Speech Coalition is pleased to announce that all membership and 2257 litigation contributions can be processed over the telephone as of 6:00 a.m. Pacific Time, Friday morning, June 24, 2005, through 2:00 p.m, Saturday, June 25, 2005. Call 800.681.0403. Credit cards will be processed over the telephone. Feel free to inform anyone whom you believe will benefit from this information.

Jeffrey J. Douglas, FSC Board Chair,
for Michelle Freridge, FSC Executive Director

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hdkbill

My own opinion is that the DoJ most likely believe today that they would in fact lose in court which I'm guessing is why they wanted to negotiate an agreement. I really believe that the attorneys for the FSC most likely believed that they would be successful with their TRO but when offered a deal which would protect their members, they most likely felt that they were better off accepting the agreement on behalf of their members as opposed to taking a chance in court.

---

Not wanting to beat a dead horse here, but if the "smart money' was on FSC winning tro and doj losing, why would you accept something that protects you ONLY for 60 days, and if you then lose the case, they can come right after the members then?

Seems to me the best thing to do is get this into legal challenge asap and find out if these regs have merits or not.

As for not enuf time, yep..you do sound busy, but the outlines for these regs have been around for what..about a year now? They just got the official OK 30 days ago.

Ill be blunt (again) this isnt even good news for FSC members.

Think about this for a second, how does the DOJ know who is on the FSC master list? They dont, the only way they are going to know is by starting a case, even if that case then gets dropped because someone is a FSC member, it still puts the person under investigation at severe financial risk.

On the other hand, all its going to take now is for the DOJ to get a court order and that master list will HAVE to be unsealed.

These new 2257 regulations were apparently made in the name of 'child protection' no judge in the land is going to deny a court order from the DOJ if they have reason to beleive one of the companies on that master list is dealing in CP or doesnt have their paperwork in order, they need to find 1 company, just one and, when they do, that entire master list gets given to the DOJ.

The FSC basically fucked its members with this 'deal' no matter how much they 'spin' it.

Your names and addresses are now on file, where the DOJ if they so chose, can get access to the list.

Regards,

Lee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee

Sounds like the FSC just handed over a list of their members to the government :eek:

Those members will now become 'known targets' in the governments mind, good going FSC :thumbsup:

Regards,

Lee

---

I agree with you Lee. A friend and I were talking about that just last week. He was wondering about joining the FSC but had the same reservation that you brought up. It seems to us that when you "sue" the government, you are basically painting a big bullseye on your butt and saying "Here I am." Because the government is going to be watching you closely. Now had the FSC not turned over the list of members then it might be different. But in our opinion and as you said, The members of the FSC will now be "known targets" to the government. :boo:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Huskyhunks

The DOJ list will be checked against the master list which will be in the hands of an arbiter.

---

Which to me, makes me beleive the DOJ already has a list of 'targets'.

FSC member or not, you are already 'marked'.

If the government beleives you have broken the law, the fact that they have an agreement saying they wont go after you for 60-90 days means absolutely nothing, a private agreement between two parties doesnt stop law enforcement officials from arresting and, charging you with a crime.

Regards,

Lee