Well I hope it's all good news. Looks like an agreement has been reached.
Here's the link.
2257 news
Printable View
Well I hope it's all good news. Looks like an agreement has been reached.
Here's the link.
2257 news
"Partial leaks of the news have burned up webmaster boards, but Douglas said they have contained many half truths and warned “don’t believe any of it.” "
might this be a nice birthday present?
Steve
ok that says that there is good news but does not say anything :(
ooh, just found patti's thread with the link to the pdf doco
cheers,
Luke
I think there's gonna be a few hungover webmasters tomorrow :pimp:
Great news.
Read the 3rd paragraph.
Its a marketing story to get more wm's to send the FSC $$$.
Regards,
Lee
I received a call from my attorney about an hour ago who first asked, "Are you a member of the Free Speech Coalition?" I responded, "Yes." He then said, "That's the right answer. You're going to be very happy with something that just happened." He went on to say that he couldn't go into details right now but that he would be in touch.
When I think about 2257, the child in me yells, "Make it go away!" :goof:
I think the FSC is about to get alot of new members ;)
At what $500 a pop?Quote:
Originally Posted by Huskyhunks
Now tell me this who debacle hasnt been a marketing ploy by the FSC.
Regards,
Lee
From another forum..just a rumor mind ya:
FSC and DOJ have agreed to a 60 to 90 day hold on inspections
I got the same information from my lawyer and he is not affiliated with the FSC directly.
There is gonna be a 3 month delay and you better be a member of the FSC to be covered.
I don't have a clue what it means but it's straight from my lawyers mouth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slade
IF this is the agreement..that TOTALLY SUCKS! It means actually FSC BUCKLED and agreed to drop the injunction and further legal hearings just to get a 2-3 month reprieve. That means in 2-3 months the doj can STILL come after you again!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee
We don't usually agree on many things (grin)..but right now..I'm "leaning" you're way.
Rigt but, during that 2-3 months the FSC will have a bunch of new members joining thus giving them more funds to ask for another 2-3 month restrain ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Slade
Marketing 101, have something to aid your marketing efforts, this, if true, will be 'spun' as if the FSC actually acheived something when, the reality is, they havent acheived anything except a temporary stay during which time, the DOJ can be ding their homework and gathering information on which 'sites' to target first, lets just hope they start out at GFY ;)
Regards,
Lee
Geez..the boards are hummin right now! From another forum:
-----------------------------------
I am a member of the FSC.
I also stand by the fact that if a deal was reached that only protects or caters to the FSC's members, or worse yet a compromise that would allow the majority of it to pass would be complete and utter bullshit.
Such an organization should be trying to protect everyone in the business and the business itself, not just those that can afford to become members.
But then..another FSC member in same forum posts:
--------------------------------------
It's patently obvious that the agreement will only affect and apply to FSC members...
Isn't all this speculation even before ANY announcement is made hysterical? lol
Slade - we don't know that the fsc caved, do we?
Quote:
Originally Posted by basschick
No we don't..that's why I posted that all this speculation is pretty funny actually.
Quote:
Originally Posted by basschick
But if they DID..oh man..there will be hell to pay on that one!
what can i say? i'm finishing up deleting 9 years of work right now... even if the injunction were to happen, that doesn't mean anything in the long run.
If the FSC settled just on a 3 month exemption from records checks for FSC members only, then this whole thing has been a total screwjob on the industry.
It's so crazy sounding that it can't be true.
I wouldn't be surprised though if a settlement involved only FSC members. The FSC gets nothing out of a court decision that effects the entire industry. So they may have been out from the beginning to settle early and for such a settlement to include only their paying members. What a joke.
My big question right now is, are future FSC members protected?..... or is it only members before the settlement was reached?
It is mind boggling to me that the argument is being or can be made, that ONLY FSC members can get protection under this "rumored" settlement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt 26z
Equal protection under the law also means there cannot be selective enforcement of the law either..meaning that ONLY FSC members can "break" the law.
I don't see how getting even a three months TRO can be a bad thing. Gives the FSC and other parties more time to compile better privacy violation cases and webmasters more time to get their stuff in order.
Being a smaller outfit I have my shit in order but I know of several larger companies who are breathing (maybe prematurely) a small sigh of relief that they may have more time to complete the task.
Long term I'm convinced this will be further amended to balance the whole child porn vs privacy issue.
if your next door neighbor get a restraining order against the crazy old man at the corner, he can't come near next door neighbor or talk to him. he CAN come near and talk to all you and all your other neighbors.
the injunction is a restraining order, 2257 is the crazy old man, and your next door neighbor is the fsc.
IF the situation is what we think it may be, the fsc members don't have permission to break the law, but they do have temporary relief (2 or 3 months) before they have to comply.
Yeah..it does give people more time..no problem there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyler
But what I'm getting at is that if you read the terms of the injunction and the supporting brief the FSC filed with the injunction, you can see they were going after much BIGGER prizes than just a 3 month stay of execution. They were really trying to get a court hearing on this by getting a temporary injunction until a higher court heard the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by basschick
But you are comparing apples and oranges there..restraining order and temporary injunction are VERY different! Read the following for example:
--------------
The California Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI, also known as "Proposition 209") is an amendment to the California State Constitution. On November 5, 1996, CCRI was approved by 54% of California voters including 27% of blacks and majorities of Asian Americans and white women. Proposition 209 states:
The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to,
any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.
On November 6, a coalition of civil rights and other groups defending affirmative action sought a restraining order in Federal District Court in San Francisco. On November 27, Judge Thelton E. Henderson issued the restraining order against the CCRI followed by a preliminary injunction on December 23. The effect of the injunction was to preserve the status quo-thus upholding the implementation of state-funded preferential programs in California. On January 3, the CCRI authors and intervenor proponents seeking to prohibit preferential treatment joined the state of California in appealing Judge Henderson's injunction.
Basschick:
The most important sentence in the above quoted case is this one:
"The effect of the injunction was to preserve the status quo-thus upholding the implementation of state-funded preferential programs in California."
So..while not every woman and minority in the state of California were signatures to this injunction, the result of the injunction would be to "keep the status quo"..meaning..not to change ANYTHING for ALL women and minorities. Insert adult webmasters for women & minorities..and that's what we are talking about..but on a nation wide basis..not just one state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by basschick
OR..as another person posted elsewhere:
-----------------------------------------
OK people this IS the USA
you cannot selectively enforce a law and Piconelli and others know it. Any compromise reached with the DOJ would have to be Universally applied UNLESS its just an agreement not to investigate members until the constitutionality of the law has been settled.
Technically it is possible that this could only apply to FSC members but realistically it would be unlikely that the DOJ would start enforcing it elsewhere because its unlikely that it would be enforceable if challenged.
I agree with Lee on this.
Basschick your analogy is off.
Slade you are right "It is mind boggling to me that the argument is being or can be made, that ONLY FSC members can get protection under this "rumored" settlement. Equal protection under the law also means there cannot be selective enforcement of the law either..meaning that ONLY FSC members can "break" the law."
Be very suspect of the manipulation to join an organization for protection from the law.
Interesting quote from the DOJ on the court docs linked on XBiz page 13 "In other words, the larger the producer, the more chances there are for the generation and proliferation of child pornography, and the more records that must be kept." pathetic Their logic is the longer you're a porn producer... the better the chance you're going to shoot CP. What kind of logic is that? LOL
it's no logic at all. it defines that the only thing people in adult need to do cp is opportunity.
btw, i'm a woman in california...
Well if I were you I would wait for the official announcement. I am...
And as far as I know you have to have a lawyer file a suit on behalf of a particular party or group. So, the FSC is the lawyer, and the membership of the FSC is the group. So when you belong to the FSC you are part of the suit. I don't think they can just file a suit against the law "in general" as far as I understand it.
If you dont like them you can file your own suit with your own lawyer....as far as i know nobody else has filed an injunction, but i could be totally wrong. However, I haven't heard of anyone else filing.
If it were that easy to file against the whole law, wouldn't some of us, or many of us just had a lawyer do that? The FSC is the ONLY organization of any sort that has offered any help to our industry at all. I don't understand why some people are so down on them. I believe they are doing a great service for us, and I don't mind paying to be a member, and get that service. Just my two cents.
Buck
P.S. I'm SURE y'all will let me know if I'm wrong....hahaha
Hey Buck one of the lawyers for the FSC made a statement on another board regarding this. Here is part of the statement:Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Angel
"As a last matter, no one from the FSC has said or meant to suggest that someone should become a member of the FSC in order to be protected under an injunction that does not even exist. While it is a fact that under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure only parties to litigation are covered by an injunction, it has also been amply explained by now that while technical limitations apply, the practical result of some injunctions is that no one is prosecuted while the injunction is in effect, as has happened with COPA."
If the FSC wins then it benefits all.. not just their members
I don't know specifically how they did it, but they were able to get the virtual CP law thrown out. Why couldn't they have handled 2257 the same way?Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Angel
Buck,Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Angel
One question..do you believe in "legal precedence"?
Meaning, when something has happened before, the law tends to follow that precedence?
Basically, I think the FSC is a great organization also.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Angel
However, I don't think it should be touted as: If you want coverage from new regulations, you must be a member of the FSC.
My thoughts exactly :beard:Quote:
Originally Posted by Slade
Yea what Slade said