I agree with you Basschick. The marketing in my opinion has not been well handled. I still don't know what they have done over the last ten years... other than hold seminars at trade shows. I have seen no one list their legal battles fought nor have I seen their budget for the year... which is a telling sign of what they spend the membership dues on.
Ian, the fact is, they have NEVER won ANYTHING for the adult industry.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaystoryman
Yet, they still come to us for 'membership fees' and say they represent our interests LOL
Regards,
Lee
And you know what... that wouldn't even matter to me. If they said here we are.. we want to help your industry.. here are our credentials etc. etc. I would have put in my $500 no problem... but still kept a close eye on them of course :pimp:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee
It's just the way things are being handled right now... things are a mess. If people are getting busy signals when making calls there to signup.. and fax... then how the hell do they have the manpower to take on the DOJ????
Well I am also not all that concerned with what they have won or not... but as a watchdog of the industry, as outlined in the mission statement, I'd like to know just what have they done over the last ten years?
I mean have they lobbied? What congressmen have they talked to? I know from reading here they have seminars at the trade shows, but what else? Have they for example a press office, to refute the claims of the opposition? Most lobby groups and watchdogs do so, do they? What is the yearly budget and how is it spent? These are issues that should be addressed so that when they do come looking for the cash, its an easier sell than resorting to the same tactics their opponents are using... which is fear. I am no expert, no big shot either, but as a potential member, i'd like to know...
just my thoughts though.
Ian
That's not entirely true. The Free Speech Coalition went all the way to the United States Supreme Court with the Ashcroft vs. Free Speech Coalition case in 2002 (re: CPPA) and won. That was a landmark case, not only for adult content producers but free speech in this country as a whole. Constitutional law students study that ruling in school. Had CPPA been able to proceed as its authors had hoped before the FSC got the Supreme Court to pull out CPPA's teeth, this country would be a very different one than it is today, and who can say whether there'd be a US-based adult industry at all given how vague yet sweeping CPPA was before SCOTUS ruled in favor of the FSC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee
Ah i forot about that one, they basically made it legal for underage 'model' sites to continue posing as non child porn sites, even though thats the crowd they cater to.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDBionic
Not one of their finest moments but you are correct, they did do that for the adult industry.
Regards,
Lee
That's such a horribly simplistic view of that ruling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee
You may wish to view it as having made it legal for "underage model sites to continue posing as nonporn sites". But the reason that ruling has been seen as one of the most significant and even monumental free speech rulings in the history of the Supreme Court is that, among other things, SCOTUS set out in Ashcroft vs. FSC that:
- Observation of content does not lead to the commission of crime (in other words, the government's argument that such content could encourage people to molest children was declared unfounded). Understand the precedent that would have been set for the entire adult industry if SCOTUS had allowed the government to set the precedent or operate under the idea that non-criminal, simulated acts lead to the commission of crimes.
- The government does not have carte blanche to declare what is and is not obscene and that government censorship of content based on the censor's designating it as obscene goes way too far to invite infringement of First Amendment protections of free speech
- That social consensus does not determine what freedoms we have an inherent right to and may in fact serve to limit our freedoms (i.e. if everyone in America thinks porn is dirty, that doesn't abolish our First Amendment right to produce it regardless).
In fact, here are some quotes from the SCOTUS ruling on Ashcroft vs FSC. If you can't see the value in these words and that the case was about way more than what you interpret it as, then so be it.
SCOTUS quotes from Ashcroft vs. FSC:
The prohibitions of §§2256(8)(B) and 2256(8)(D) are overbroad and unconstitutional
The CPPA is inconsistent with Miller (the "community standards" test). It extends to images that are not obscene under the Miller standard, which requires the Government to prove that the work in question, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, is patently offensive in light of community standards, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value, 413 U. S., at 24.
While the Government asserts that the images can lead to actual instances of child abuse, the causal link is contingent and indirect. The harm does not necessarily follow from the speech, but depends upon some unquantified potential for subsequent criminal acts.
The case reaffirmed that where the speech is neither obscene nor the product of sexual abuse, it does not fall outside the First Amendment's protection.
The argument that virtual child pornography whets pedophiles' appetites and encourages them to engage in illegal conduct is unavailing because the mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not a sufficient reason for banning it
Finally, the First Amendment is turned upside down by the argument that, because it is difficult to distinguish between images made using real children and those produced by computer imaging, both kinds of images must be prohibited.
... and on and on and on.
Here is the full text of the ruling
and if anyone in the adult industry can not see how CPPA could have led to the total dissolution of the adult industry and severely curtailed free-speech on the whole, then I'd suggest reading over it again.
Indeed, SCOTUS' ruling in Ashcroft vs. Free Speech Coalition in 2002 is something we should all familiarize ourselves with, especially in the context of the current 2257 debate.
With CPPA the government attempted to use a vague, indirect intent to "protect children" as a means to seriously limit free speech and aggressively regulate First Amendment rights. They created such broad definitions of what constituted harm to children, as well as the potential harm of children as a means to limit expression. They attempted to suggest the inevitable commission of crime where, in fact, no crimes were being committed and even absent the proof of crime past, present or future. They attempted to take unilateral control over what would constitute "obscene" to then enable themselves to target obscenity now absent any First Amendment protection.
Again, a landmark case. Please read through the entire decision to see how far it went beyond how you just tried to characterize it, Lee
Brian,Quote:
Originally Posted by BDBionic
I dont wish to view it like that, that is how it is.
I agree there were other aspects involved to however, the most hurtfull aspect of it to the 'industry' who we are told the FSC is 'fighting for' is how i posted it, it made it legal for 8 years olds to be viewed on the internet by pedos in scantily clad clothing, bikinis, underwear, etc etc.
Regards,
Lee
Again, that's a totally off interpretation of what that case involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee
Perhaps you're thinking about a totally different case or are just unaware of what CPPA was actually about.
CPPA was about the following:
The Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA) expands the federal prohibition on child pornography to include not only pornographic images made using actual children, 18 U. S. C. §2256(8)(A), but also "any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture" that "is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct," §2256(8)(B), and any sexually explicit image that is "advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression" it depicts "a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct," §2256(8)(D). Thus, §2256(8)(B) bans a range of sexually explicit images, sometimes called "virtual child pornography," that appear to depict minors but were produced by means other than using real children, such as through the use of youthful-looking adults or computer-imaging technology. Section 2256(8)(D) is aimed at preventing the production or distribution of pornographic material pandered as child pornography.
That is totally different, nothing like, and completely unrelated to what you're trying to characterize it as. An 8yo in a swimsuit on a website that professes itself to being an "artistic" site is not conveyed as being sexually explicit, nor promoted as such. Simply nothing like what you're saying. In fact, completely different in that a site like you're talking about 1) attempts to convey that it is not sexually explicit 2) actually does use real children.
Whatever law you're referencing has nothing to do with Ashcroft vs. FSC.
You are correct however, the CPPA would have made a BIG difference in that, wouldnt it?Quote:
Originally Posted by BDBionic
Please tell us any legitimate reason why an 8 year old boy (or girl) would need to appear scantily clad on a website where someone needed to 'pay' for access.
Regards,
Lee
No, because the provisions of the CPPA that were struck down had nothing to do with real children. Whatever law it is you're talking about has nothing to do with CPPA, nor Ashcroft vs. FSC. Child pornography - sexually explicit material featuring real children was already illegal, and it still is. That's not what Ashcroft vs. FSC was about. Ashcroft vs. FSC was specifically, explicitly, and particularly about the CPPA extension of what constituted cp to:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee
- material depicting adults posing as minors
- computer generated images made to represent minors engaged in sexually explicit acts where no actual minors were involved.
In other words, fake cp. Involving no actual minors. None. Zero. Not in swimsuits. Not in bikinis. Nowhere. Not a single one. Zip. Zilch.
Whatever law you are referencing is the wrong one. However it is you're interpreting that case is the wrong way.
CPPA and Ashcroft vs. FSC had nothing to do with real children, either in swimsuits or otherwise. It had nothing to do with paysites that have scantily clad children in non-sexual acts and non-sexual poses.
There is certainly something to what you are all saying on the marketing thing.
Now that Tom Hymes is there, I think we'll see a change for the better in short order.
But you're right about one thing.....10,000 webmasters and "signatures" makes more of an impact than 20 or so "big" studios.
To legislators, 10,000 signatures, and the resulting influence on millions of customers, will get their attention more than 20 studios from "Hollywood's Backstreets."
I hope the FSC is actually paying attention.
You don't need to pay for that stuff Lee.... you can see that stuff all over the place and especially at the beaches in Florida!Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee
PapaBear
i believe the law in question would have made a lot of anime illegal - and made 19 year old girls in school girl uniforms and pigtails illegal in the eyes of most judges.
Yes, that's what it was expressly about. "Virtual CP" - computer-generated images and possibly animation - along with material with adults posing as or presented as minors.Quote:
Originally Posted by basschick
The thrust of the DOJ's argument was that "virtual cp" or material in which adults would play or appear to be minors, while not actually involving any children, not harming any children during the production of said material, and violating no laws in its production, would lead to the commission of crimes and molestation of children, or "whet the appetites of child molestors", as they stated. Outlawing protected speech or extending the definition of unprotected speech based on the unproven and indirect possibility that it might lead to immoral and illegal behavior... !!!
Where could that have gone? Would condomless content whet the appetites of those spreading STIs? Would bondage and d/s content lead to rape and abuse? Would run of the mill adult content lead to the development of prurient and deviant desires and crimes? Beyond the express wording of laws, it's important to note the actual wording of the SCOTUS justices in the decision of the court - why they ruled in favor of FSC, why they ruled against DOJ, and why they thought CPPA was a bad idea and unconstitutional. It's in the wording and what they express in the ruling that the real significance is evident. Not that CPPA was declared unconstitional, but why.