No Inspections For FSC Until September 7, DOJ: Non FSC Members May Be Inspected!

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

06-23-2005, 06:43 PM
BDBionic

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).

I wasn't directing those statements toward you.
What I will say is that from our perspective, on the sidelines and none of us being a lawyer, it's easy for us to sit here and second guess, doubt, criticize and monday morning quarterback what's going on here.
But I think it's a safe assumption that given all things, the FSC's lawyers firmly felt that what took place today was in the best interests of the people they represented in the action.

People may feel free to accuse them of only seeking to bolster their membership list and someone's more than welcome to be a conspiracy theorist like that if they so choose.

But I don't think any of us is a lawyer or fully and completely familiar not only with the law but legal proceedings and the specifics of what took place in CO today to make such a blanket statement as "They fucked up".
06-23-2005, 06:44 PM
djdez

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slade

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.

I disagree with this. I never expected an injunction hearing till around mid august anyway. so as far as i can see they're right on target as far as that hearing goes. the nice thing is that we don't have to worry weather a longer restraining order would have been issued. judges have been know to not further restrain law and deal with it at the injuction hearing only.

this is more than i expected.
06-23-2005, 06:44 PM
chadknowslaw

An injunction would just be against enforcement while the case is going on. It would/will likely be granted in the Colorado Court, upheld in the 10th Circuit, and the Supreme Court would refuse to hear it leaving the injuction intact during the proceedings.
I do NOT like this agreement, nor the fact that anyone that signs up between now and Saturday gets to be in on the deal--it seems so transparent that they are on a furious membership drive.
In my >OPINION< the agreement they have laid out would result in an unconstitutional violation of equal protection _if_ the DOJ tries to enforce new 2257 regs against a non-member of the FSC. The government cannot selectively enforce laws!!

As a proud member [and former Board Member] of the ACLU, I cannot think of any case that the ACLU went to bat or fashioned an agreement that would only benefit its members. I cannot think of any case where Lambda Legal went to bat or tried to fashion an agreement that would only benefit its members. In fact, I cannot think of any advocacy group that has gone to court to fight ONLY for the rights of its members--they always benefit ANYONE in the plaintiff's class, whether they are a member of the group or not. However, the adult industry is not known for its cohesiveness or community spirit.
06-23-2005, 06:45 PM
BDBionic

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slade

Any time you go to court, it's always speculation.
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"?

I don't agree with you that what happened today prevents an excellent case against these regulations from being made.
06-23-2005, 06:49 PM
JustMe

Greetings:

Chad, to me, this seems more indicative of the FSC attorneys fearing that they wouldn't get the TRO granted. So they say, hey, better we at least get protection for our CLIENTS who are actually PAYING us, than for no one at all.

Am I off base here?

I mean, let's not forgot, the FSC hired attorneys to protect THEIR members. Therefor, the attorneys are obligated to do what is in the best interest of THEIR clients, who in this case are the FSC members.

So really, I don't think you can fault the FSC here. What seems more strange to me, is the DOJ's position in all of this.
06-23-2005, 06:50 PM
djdez

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadknowslaw

An injunction would just be against enforcement while the case is going on. It would/will likely be granted in the Colorado Court, upheld in the 10th Circuit, and the Supreme Court would refuse to hear it leaving the injuction intact during the proceedings.
I do NOT like this agreement, nor the fact that anyone that signs up between now and Saturday gets to be in on the deal--it seems so transparent that they are on a furious membership drive.
In my >OPINION< the agreement they have laid out would result in an unconstitutional violation of equal protection _if_ the DOJ tries to enforce new 2257 regs against a non-member of the FSC. The government cannot selectively enforce laws!!

As a proud member [and former Board Member] of the ACLU, I cannot think of any case that the ACLU went to bat or fashioned an agreement that would only benefit its members. I cannot think of any case where Lambda Legal went to bat or tried to fashion an agreement that would only benefit its members. In fact, I cannot think of any advocacy group that has gone to court to fight ONLY for the rights of its members--they always benefit ANYONE in the plaintiff's class, whether they are a member of the group or not. However, the adult industry is not known for its cohesiveness or community spirit.

Chad it sounds like you don't like this deal because of the unequal protection. If it did have equal protection would you consider this deal a good one? The way I see it now it's more than what they bargained would happen today originally.
06-23-2005, 06:54 PM
Slade

Quote:

Originally Posted by djdez

I disagree with this. I never expected an injunction hearing till around mid august anyway. so as far as i can see they're right on target as far as that hearing goes. the nice thing is that we don't have to worry weather a longer restraining order would have been issued. judges have been know to not further restrain law and deal with it at the injuction hearing only.

this is more than i expected.

The problem is that originally, the FSC plans for an injunction would have given PRACTICAL protection to ALL webmasters if an injunction was granted..even for 10 days.

What the FSC did today was to AGREE with the DOJ that they can prosecute non-fsc members. That is what I find patently WRONG!
06-23-2005, 06:55 PM
Slade

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadknowslaw

An injunction would just be against enforcement while the case is going on. It would/will likely be granted in the Colorado Court, upheld in the 10th Circuit, and the Supreme Court would refuse to hear it leaving the injuction intact during the proceedings.
I do NOT like this agreement, nor the fact that anyone that signs up between now and Saturday gets to be in on the deal--it seems so transparent that they are on a furious membership drive.
In my >OPINION< the agreement they have laid out would result in an unconstitutional violation of equal protection _if_ the DOJ tries to enforce new 2257 regs against a non-member of the FSC. The government cannot selectively enforce laws!!

As a proud member [and former Board Member] of the ACLU, I cannot think of any case that the ACLU went to bat or fashioned an agreement that would only benefit its members. I cannot think of any case where Lambda Legal went to bat or tried to fashion an agreement that would only benefit its members. In fact, I cannot think of any advocacy group that has gone to court to fight ONLY for the rights of its members--they always benefit ANYONE in the plaintiff's class, whether they are a member of the group or not. However, the adult industry is not known for its cohesiveness or community spirit.

The nail hit SQUARELY on the head here!
06-23-2005, 06:57 PM
Slade

Quote:

Originally Posted by JustMe

So really, I don't think you can fault the FSC here. What seems more strange to me, is the DOJ's position in all of this.

It's interesting that you bring up the "Doj's position".

Do you think if the DOJ honestly thought they could have beaten a TRO today that they would have agreed to this settlement with the FSC?

I think the DOJ knew they were in trouble and frankly bought themselves more time.
06-23-2005, 06:58 PM
chadknowslaw

I think the FSC had a very strong case for TRO and injunction here--they had a solid precedent IN THAT CIRCUIT that was controlling law--from my outside point of view, the FSC had a slam dunk going in today. So, why they caved in to this agreement is beyond me. It was a strong case and they caved. Plus, the agreeement discloses their membership list--and you cannot tell me just because it is "sealed" means it is not going to get out. I have seen a lot of "sealed" court documents that I was not supposed to see.

Is the FSC out to protect only its members? Possibly. Then it should consider a new, more appropriate name. They are not out to protect free speech, they are out to protect speech they are paid to protect. Shame on them.
06-23-2005, 07:01 PM
GPallan

Quote:

Originally Posted by djdez

I don't see how they sold anyone out.

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.

AGREED!!! Very well put, djdez! In fact, i think as many webmasters as possible should join the FSC to support this cause. Besides sitting around and complaining about all this 2257 stuff, what are you guys doing to actually contribute?

The FSC is fighting on our behlaf...HOW DOES JOINING THEM NOT MAKE SENSE???
06-23-2005, 07:03 PM
djdez

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slade

The problem is that originally, the FSC plans for an injunction would have given PRACTICAL protection to ALL webmasters if an injunction was granted..even for 10 days.

What the FSC did today was to AGREE with the DOJ that they can prosecute non-fsc members. That is what I find patently WRONG!

Yeah, I don't necessarily like that part either... but i also don't think other people/companies should pay the way for others to sit idly by either. It's not like the ACLU. ACLU or Lambda or Disability advocacy groups are protecting races, classes, orientation... generally a class of people that don't have a choice.
On the other hand FSC is fighting for an industry. You do have a choice to work in porn. In my book it's not the same thing. Nonetheless I would have prefered everyone was covered.
06-23-2005, 07:03 PM
GLBTcity

The Good, The Bad & The Ugly

I would just like to say this regarding this particular post:

Everyone has an opinion! Everyone is entitled to their opinion!!

Opinions are like assholes... Everybody has one!!!

It's just some opinions sound like they're coming from an asshole and not a mouth!!!!

PapaBear
06-23-2005, 07:03 PM
chadknowslaw

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slade

It's interesting that you bring up the "Doj's position".

Do you think if the DOJ honestly thought they could have beaten a TRO today that they would have agreed to this settlement with the FSC?

I think the DOJ knew they were in trouble and frankly bought themselves more time.

The agreement is GREAT for the DOJ--the members of the FSC are really small compared to the number of companies, and this agreeement gives the DOJ free reign to terrorize the majority of adult web masters. The DOJ lost almost nothing today--they claim victory, the FSC claims victory and gets to make one more pass for new memberships. But free speech lost today.
06-23-2005, 07:10 PM
Slade

Quote:

Originally Posted by GPallan

The FSC is fighting on our behlaf...HOW DOES JOINING THEM NOT MAKE SENSE???

When they don't do what they say they are going to do and that is the reason you joined! For example, from their own website, this is what the FSC posted:

Free Speech Coalition Files Motion Seeking 2257 TRO
Posted: June 20, 2005
CANOGA PARK, Calif. - The Free Speech Coalition (FSC) today filed a complaint and motion in the United States District Court of Colorado seeking a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) enjoining enforcement of the recently re-issued 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 Buffalo, N.Y.-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 why temporary injunctive relief prohibiting the enforcement of 18 U.S.C. § 2257 should be granted by the court.
-------------------------------

THIS is why I joined->
"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"

Not an agreement with the doj to go after non fsc members.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page