2257 Regs vs Injunction - Can someone clarify?

I keep seeing thread posts that are saying that if you are not a member of the Free Speech Coalition, and they do indeed succeed in getting an injunction on the new 2257 regs, that you are not "covered" by that injunction.

From where I sit, it's a legal proceeding to halt the implementation of a law, and would cover any US based webmaster that would be affected by that law, regardless if you're a member of whatever group funds the lawyers to try and block, change, nulify, etc.

Can anyone clarify on this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bec

I keep seeing thread posts that are saying that if you are not a member of the Free Speech Coalition, and they do indeed succeed in getting an injunction on the new 2257 regs, that you are not "covered" by that injunction.

From where I sit, it's a legal proceeding to halt the implementation of a law, and would cover any US based webmaster that would be affected by that law, regardless if you're a member of whatever group funds the lawyers to try and block, change, nulify, etc.

Can anyone clarify on this?

---

Hi,

Yes, that is true. If you are not a member of the FSC you are NOT covered in case there is a Temporary Restraining Order issued by the judge. However, if there is a TRO then the prosecutors most likely wont prosecure anyone becasue of 2 reasons:
1) they dont know who is part of the FSC and who is not
2) wont be smart to waste time and money on a case that a judge has a TRO against.

This is what FSC told me. But please NOTE that this is by no means any advise or anything like that. I highly recommend joining the FSC.
One can never tell what the administration is going to do.

Well I haven't a clue what the answer is but logic would dictate that it would apply to everyone and could not be limited to members of those who filed the request for a restraining order.

It would be like if the vegetarians got a restraining order against MacDonalds to serve Big Macs... it would mean simply no Big Macs anywhere... like common sense dictates that in my mind.

And if I am right on that assumption, then I am very very suspicious of the Free Speech Coalition for even suggesting that only 'members' could claim safety from their action. To me that just stinks. It is scare tactics designed to force people to shell out money, irrespective of the validity of the ultimate goal.

In fact it would be like say they win the injunction, the court rules the law is not constitutional or valid, would that in turn mean only for members of the FSA? Kind of doubt that...

just my opinion though, certainly not fact, certainly not even close to being a legal beagle... :goofy:

i have nothing against organizations for a better america! , but exactly how many organizations do i have to join before it gets better?
there seems to be a "feeding-frenzy" of "lawyers & organizations" jumping on the "are you confused and lost and need assistance?" bandwagon.
you'll excuse me if i "sit this one out!" , i gave at the office already!

sincerely ~ ..."i have sold my hair! , i have sold my body! , i have nothing left to sell!"... - les miserables

FSC has been defending adult webmasters since 1992. They are the only group that goes to bat for this industry. They took the government to court on the COPA laws that were ruled unconstitutional. I believe they are the reason why you are still doing what you are doing in the US today. They spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in members fees to help fight for our first amendment rights. But I guess that doesn't mean much to alot of folks out there.

Restraining orders only apply to parties involved. Just like if I was to get a restraining order against someone who threatens me with violence. The restraining order will only involve myself and the other party. Not his brother, his friends or his co-workers.

Here's the actual wording:

F.R.C.P 65 (d) provides that injunctions and restraining orders shall be "binding only upon the parties to the action, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and upon those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the order by personal service or otherwise." A TRO or preliminary injunction is binding only on those "who receive actual notice of the order by personal service or otherwise." Successors or assigns of persons bound by an injunction may also be bound in proper cases. Golden State Bottling Co., Inc. v. NLRB, 414 U.S. 168, 94 S.Ct. 414, 38 L.Ed.2d 388 (1973).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Huskyhunks

They are the only group that goes to bat for this industry.

---

Quote:

---

Restraining orders only apply to parties involved.

---

So they bat for the industry but, only apply restraining orders / injunctions to their members.

Sounds like a marketing plan to me on their part.. 'we defend the industry, if you are a fsc member' ;)

Regards,

Lee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Huskyhunks

FSC has been defending adult webmasters since 1992. They are the only group that goes to bat for this industry. They took the government to court on the COPA laws that were ruled unconstitutional. I believe they are the reason why you are still doing what you are doing in the US today. They spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in members fees to help fight for our first amendment rights. But I guess that doesn't mean much to alot of folks out there.

Restraining orders only apply to parties involved. Just like if I was to get a restraining order against someone who threatens me with violence. The restraining order will only involve myself and the other party. Not his brother, his friends or his co-workers.

---

My question isn't to denounce the FSC. They certainly deserve our support. But I still am not clear how an injunction against a law can only be considered a stop action for the FSC members and not all US Webmasters affected by said law.

US law states that temporary restraining orders and injunctions only apply to "officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys". The Free Speech Coalition didn't make this law. It applies to everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Huskyhunks

US law states that temporary restraining orders and injunctions only apply to "officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys". The Free Speech Coalition didn't make this law. It applies to everyone.

---

So in actual fact, even the FSC's members arent covered by the injunction.

This just gets weirder and weirder.

It now seems like all FSC members are doing, is paying for the protection of their attorneys :wtf:

Regards,

Lee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee

So they bat for the industry but, only apply restraining orders / injunctions to their members.

Sounds like a marketing plan to me on their part.. 'we defend the industry, if you are a fsc member' ;)

Regards,

Lee

---

How else do you think it should be? Their members pay membership fees. Pay for legal costs. Pay for legal fees. Pay the expenses assumed by the FSC. Of course their own members are going to be first on the list of who they work on behalf of. I believe an individual's membership in FSC is like $50. They're hardly holding anyone hostage.

Lee I think it's great to question anyone's motives. No one should be allowed to run a business or an association without accountability.

The Free Speech Coalition is a trade association. Here's what they say they do:

"Free Speech Coalition is the trade organization of the adult entertainment industry, whose mission is to safeguard the industry from oppressive governmental regulation and to promote good business practices within the industry."

I am a member and I can see my $50 in action. I've made tons of money through the years and this is such a small amount to help a great cause. I don't believe they are trying to slight anyone. I joined when there was no need for injunctive protection. It just seems like a great way to help protect my business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDBionic

How else do you think it should be? Their members pay membership fees. Pay for legal costs. Pay for legal fees. Pay the expenses assumed by the FSC. Of course their own members are going to be first on the list of who they work on behalf of. I believe an individual's membership in FSC is like $50. They're hardly holding anyone hostage.

---

I dont mind that they protect their members, thats what members have actually paid for however, saying that they 'fight for the industry' is wrong, when in actuality, they only 'fight for their members' ;)

Regards,

Lee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Huskyhunks

It just seems like a great way to help protect my business.

---

Right however, now, on the face of it, since you posted that excerpt from the actual law, it doesnt look like YOU actually get any protection, instead, it would appear that your $50 went to ensuring the protection of the FSC staff and attorneys.

Regards,

Lee

I joined on principal and I hope that my fees are helping to cover their expenses - however they choose to use the money is fine with me. Whether I'm covered or not - hmmm, not that concerned right now. I'd rather see this all come to an end for everyone, not just members of the FSC. Bad law is bad law and I will have to leave it to the experts to fight on my behalf.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee

Right however, now, on the face of it, since you posted that excerpt from the actual law, it doesnt look like YOU actually get any protection, instead, it would appear that your $50 went to ensuring the protection of the FSC staff and attorneys.

Regards,

Lee

---

You must not have read the entire excerpt. Either that or you're not understanding it. Because the interpretation you have is wholly wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee

I dont mind that they protect their members, thats what members have actually paid for however, saying that they 'fight for the industry' is wrong, when in actuality, they only 'fight for their members' ;)

Regards,

Lee

---

It'd be one dimensional to think that anything they accomplish on behalf of their members - incidentally membership available to all within this very specific industry - won't have an effect upon those beyond their membership base as well.

Don't play word games just for sake of being difficult because in this case your semantics games are misrepresenting the intentions and actions of a noble organization with noble motives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDBionic

You must not have read the entire excerpt. Either that or you're not understanding it. Because the interpretation you have is wholly wrong.

---

Well i just re-read it and i dont see how what im saying can be perceived as wrong..

Quote:

---

F.R.C.P 65 (d) provides that injunctions and restraining orders shall be "binding only upon the parties to the action, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and upon those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the order by personal service or otherwise." A TRO or preliminary injunction is binding only on those "who receive actual notice of the order by personal service or otherwise." Successors or assigns of persons bound by an injunction may also be bound in proper cases. Golden State Bottling Co., Inc. v. NLRB, 414 U.S. 168, 94 S.Ct. 414, 38 L.Ed.2d 388 (1973).

---

There is nothing in there that says members of any 'organization' are covered by any injunction, unless you are referring to the 'binding only upon the parties' part which is a moot point because the FSC has already said that they wont be naming every FSC member in the injunction.

Regards,

Lee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee

Well i just re-read it and i dont see how what im saying can be perceived as wrong..



There is nothing in there that says members of any 'organization' are covered by any injunction, unless you are referring to the 'binding only upon the parties' part which is a moot point because the FSC has already said that they wont be naming every FSC member in the injunction.

Regards,

Lee

---

You're making the poor assumption that what he pasted in to this thread is the end all and be all of TROs and injunctions.

An injunction's applicants are the plaintiffs in the action, and if it's an organization doing the applying, it's being done on behalf of their members. Therefore, they're the ones covered.

Just like if a labor union or any other such group were to file for an injunction. Obviously it'd cover more than just the officers of the labor union. It would be filed by the union on behalf of its membership for sake of its membership.

Well I am no lawyer but I think some of this is like comparing apples to oranges.

Injunction can be for an action, that being a stalker or entity who is doing something they believe is in contravention of a law or rights while another type is in regards to the law itself... surely an injunction against a law being unconstitutional in whatever form cannot be limited to being halted only for a group bringing the action... either the law applies to all or none...

As I read this, isn't the main thrust a court injunction granting a restraining order against the DOJ from enforcing 2257? Injunctions are different are they not? They in fact prevent an action from coming into being or being applied, and if it doesn't come into effect how can it then be selectively applied?

Where is Chad when you need him.. oh wait its wednesday, wonder if he's at the golf course? :goofy:

I believe that members of the FSC would be in "active concert" to the legal challenges that are going to take place and thus protected by a restraining order.