One Thing That I Do Find Interesting About All This 2257 / FSC / DOJ Stuff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee

Ian, the fact is, they have NEVER won ANYTHING for the adult industry.

Yet, they still come to us for 'membership fees' and say they represent our interests LOL

Regards,

Lee

---

Lee, You are wrong about the FSC never winning anything for the adult industry.

The following was published in their May 27th newsletter:

SAN FRANCISO, CA -- The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned a lower court decision which would have rewarded attorney fees incurred by Free Speech Coalition in its challenge of the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA). FSC won the case, in a 2002 landmark Supreme Court decision that struck down portions of the act. A district court judge awarded attorney fees to FSC but the Department of Justice appealed the judgment.

It was the FSC that fought and won the challenge to the CPPA. They fought it all the way to the Supreme Court at a cost of about $200,000. The lost the appeal to have their attorney feels paid by the DoJ.

Like it or not they have been around fighting for the adult industry and the fact of the matter is, it's all we have.

Perhaps one reason that webmasters haven't heard much about them over the past years is that they had an Executive Director who really wasn't all that active and promoted the FSC only within the adult video industry. All of that changed a number of months ago when they got a new Executive Director by th ename of Michelle Freyridge. She has actively been promoting the FSC during her short tenure. She was on the Gay Panel at The Phoenix Forum and has actively been trying to get gay webmasters to join.

I may be wrong, but I believe their website is handled by a volunteer and as such, isn't very well done and isn't very user friendly. From what I understand, that is changing.

Bill

Quote:

---

"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," 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."

---

As i mentioned earlier Bill, you are right they did win that one however, its hardly a case that does anything for the adult industry, its nothing more than a case that protects 'child model' sites which have nothing to do with the adult industry, but it does have everything to do with pedos.

Regards,

Lee

you're wrong, lee. that had nothing to do with underage humans. it was VIRTUAL cp.

it protected virtually every adult toon site out there, and any site with an 18 year old girl in pigtails sucking a sucker. it probably would have affected infantilism sites. more importantly, it upheld freedom of speech.

i'm not saying the fsc did it out of the belief in the constitution, so much as protecting their interests, but the end result was pretty much exactly that. also a belief in rational thought - they wanted it so that they could prosecute a cartoon or a 30 year old woman sucking her thumb in schoolgirl clothes as if it were child porn. jeez!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basschick

you're wrong, lee. that had nothing to do with underage humans

---

It had everything to do with underage kids...

Quote:

---

"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," 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."

---

Regards,

Lee

You exhibit some severe selective - or complete lack of - reading other peoples' posts.

The is part was ALREADY the law.
CPPA added the or appears to be and conveys the impression. And THAT is why it was such landmark ruling to be struck down.

Please review the actual law and actually read the Supreme Court decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee

As i mentioned earlier Bill, you are right they did win that one however, its hardly a case that does anything for the adult industry, its nothing more than a case that protects 'child model' sites which have nothing to do with the adult industry, but it does have everything to do with pedos.

Regards,

Lee

---

Lee, Again, respectfully I disagree with your assesement of what CPPA could have meant to the industry.

In a nutshell, using a model that only looked underage....or was dressed to appear underage or a cartoon showing a character that appeared to look underage was all included in the CPPA. Anytime a blow is stuck to prevent an infringement of anyones 1st Amendment Rights, as in the case of the CPPA, it is a good thing.

I'm afraid that you are not looking at the big picture when it comes to what the CPPA could have done to the adult industry if you believed in only had to do "child model" sites. Many of our sites could have been affected according to our attorneys.

Bill

And we are fighting amongst ourselves because..........?

Come on guys, let's focus on the real enemy here.

Very true. We should be directing our efforts towards the real enemy.

Bill

Wait... the French?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDBionic

Wait... the French?

---

No... the neoreligious right wing heterosexualights :specs:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDBionic

Wait... the French?

---

I think you have enough ennemies in your OWN country and amongst your OWN people that you don't need to "make up" external enemies :)