Do we have a live on the spot action reporter who will update us if and when a ruling is made on the TRO filed by FSC? The hearing is today...wonder if a ruling will be issued today....
Who is our on the scene reporter?
Printable View
Do we have a live on the spot action reporter who will update us if and when a ruling is made on the TRO filed by FSC? The hearing is today...wonder if a ruling will be issued today....
Who is our on the scene reporter?
This is an except from an AVN article just released.
" A unnamed source who wished to be identified only as “one of the president’s men” told AVN.com that under a deal brokered by FSC attorneys, FSC members will be protected from inspection or enforcement of the recently revised 2257 regulations until after Free Speech Coalition et al v. Gonzales has gone to court and a decision has been rendered. That process that can take several months."
2257 deal
Sounds like the FSC just handed over a list of their members to the government :eek:
Those members will now become 'known targets' in the governments mind, good going FSC :thumbsup:
Regards,
Lee
I'm glad somebody is standing up for the rights of this industry. We are all targets and if a webmaster can't deal with it, then they should get out of the business.
Agreed :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Huskyhunks
Online porn is no place for hobbyists.
Regards,
Lee
I do not know how any agreement could be made where the government would agree not to enforce a law against one group [SC members] but enforce the law against another group [non-FSC members]. Either I am way off on my understanding of Constitutional Equal Protection, or else someone is skewing the story to make it sound like the FSC is the only safe haven. If there is an agreement by the DOJ not to enforce the new regs, then in all probability, the DOJ will not enforce the new regs against ANYBODY, FSC member or not.
I also don't like the idea of the government having membership lists. The FBI used membership lists of "homosexual organizations" when they could get them to keep track of us "deviants". Fuck them. And tell those sons-a-bitches I want my dossier back.
Furthermore, I don't like the idea of the DOJ just "agreeing" to not enforce the new regulations--there is no guarantee they would stick to the "agreement". I would go ahead with the hearing and get the TRO as insurance. But then, the FSC never came to this cowboy lawyer for input.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadknowslaw
We need more people like yourself (someone with an actual legal background) posting these types of messages.
I have absolutely nothing against the FSC. God/Goddess bless them for their work. But if THEY or the DOJ claim that the *ONLY* ones exempt from the new regs IS the FSC, then that is pure hogwash.
As you had posted earlier, under OUR Constitution, there is EQUAL protection under the law. There is absolutely NO WAY you can selectively enforce these new regulations.
So much for my non legal background. I would say I told you so but that might be seen as gloating.
None of know if the FSC has turned over it's list of members to the DoJ and to suggest anything different is pure speculation. But, if they did, my guess would be that it would be those webmasters, producers, etc., that are NOT on the list that would more likely be considered "known targets in the governments mind".Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee
Lee, it's beginning to sound as if you have some sort of ax to grind with the FSC and that you are making this personal.
Bottom line.....don't worry, the regs will not be selectively enforced. If the FSC is successful the DoJ will not be enforcing the new regs until this works its way through the courts system. Some say that could be months, others say it could actually be years.
Bill
"DENVER - The Free Speech Coalition (FSC) announced today a stipulation between the parties in Free Speech Coalition et al v. Alberto Gonzales, under which the U.S. Department of Justice agrees that the regulations relating to the federal record-keeping and labeling law, 18 U.S.C. §2257, will not be enforced against plaintiffs and all FSC members until September 7, 2005.
The U.S. District Court in Denver will hold a preliminary injunction hearing on August 8, 2005, after which the judge will determine whether to issue a further injunction.
Specifically, the DOJ will not conduct any inspections or pursue any claims with regard to the plaintiffs and their members, but reserves the right to inspect and prosecute anyone who is not a plaintiff or FSC member.
According to the stipulation, agreed to and issued as an order of the Court today, the DOJ, will submit any entity it intends to inspect to a Special Master who will then check the entity’s name against a sealed and confidential FSC membership list. The Special Master will be appointed by the Court, with the consent of the parties, and will be under a specific obligation to maintain the confidentiality of the FSC membership list.
A master list of members will be submitted to the Special Master on Wednesday June 29, 2005, and will include all FSC members as of 2:00 p.m. PST, Saturday June 25, 2005.
At no time will the DOJ have direct access to the FSC membership list, which will remain under seal.
All FSC members should advise the FSC office of all of their dbas by Monday, June 27, 2005, so that the master list will be as complete as possible.
On behalf of the entire adult entertainment industry, the FSC acknowledges the bravery and integrity of our co-plaintiffs, New Beginnings and Dave Cummings. We trust that the industry appreciates their willingness to take on the fight for justice on behalf of all of us.
The FSC also expresses appreciation to our extraordinary legal team: H. Louis Sirkin, Paul Cambria, Art Schwartz, Jennifer Kingsley, Roger Wilcox, Michael Gross, Barry Covert and Michael Deal. Special acknowledgement also to Michael Murray, whose agreement with the DoJ in the Connections Magazine case in Cleveland, Ohio, laid the groundwork for this agreement.
Over the course of the next few months, there will be continuing proceedings, including discovery, that culminate with the August 8, 2005 preliminary injunction hearing. While we remain optimistic regarding our ultimate success in the litigation, the FSC encourages everyone to try to comply with the law to the extent that it is possible."
http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary...tent_ID=231539
Bill,Quote:
Originally Posted by hdkbill
That is exactly what they are going to be doing according to the agreement they have reached.
NON-FSC members can and will be investigated, the FSC is going to give a list of company names to an inspector.
Regards,
Lee
They sold the 'industry' out in order to get more financial backing.Quote:
Originally Posted by basschick
No, they dont speak for me, personally and professionally, i feel what they have done is nothing more than line their own pockets at the expense of others, an organization that apparently fights FOR the industry should fight for the industry as a whole, not just a small group.Quote:
On behalf of the entire adult entertainment industry
Im glad i was right about these scheisters all along, money talks people, money talks.
Regards,
Lee
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huskyhunks
That's why Gawd made forums..for people to gloat! ;-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by hdkbill
Read and WEEP:
According to the stipulation, agreed to and issued as an order of the Court today, the DOJ, will submit any entity it intends to inspect to a Special Master who will then check the entity’s name against a sealed and confidential FSC membership list. The Special Master will be appointed by the Court, with the consent of the parties, and will be under a specific obligation to maintain the confidentiality of the FSC membership list.
A master list of members will be submitted to the Special Master on Wednesday June 29, 2005, and will include all FSC members as of 2:00 p.m. PST, Saturday June 25, 2005.
I'd rather be on the master list than a court docket anyday.
Well, that's damned unusual if it's factual. Normally a TRO would prevent any enforcement.
Sure doesn't seem to me that the FSC coaliton "sold out the industry". Their duty, as a trade organization, is to protect their members and it appears that they have been successful in accomplishing that. Sure makes me glad that all of my companies choose to join the FSC many months ago.
So, if a list is going to be given to a "Special Master", and that list consists of members of the FSC and they are not going to be targeted for inspections, it gives the members of the FSC coalition breathing room to see what is going to happen and to get compliant. Seems that the FSC coalition has won this battle for their members. Those companies that chose to join the FSC are going to be mightly glad they did and those who chose not to join the FSC are going to be sweating bullets.
I am shocked however that the DoJ will be going after adult webmasters and producers who don't belong to the FSC.....first time I've ever heard of such selective enforcement. Assuming what is being reported is accurate, I stand corrected.
Bill
Here here I can only hope they get more peeps to work the phone and faxs so more of us can be on that list not the court docket..Quote:
Originally Posted by Huskyhunks
You don't have time to mail your cash. They have to have it by Saturday. :thumbsup:
Damn right. Thank God our companies made the decision to join the FSC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Huskyhunks
What's interesting in the ruling is this:
"A master list of members will be submitted to the Special Master on Wednesday June 29, 2005, and will include all FSC members as of 2:00 p.m. PST, Saturday June 25, 2005."
"At no time will the DOJ have direct access to the FSC membership list, which will remain under seal."
The FSC is NOT providing a list of it's members to the DoJ but rather to a Special Master who is under oath to maintain it's confidentiality. And secondly, any adult webmaster or producer (primary or secondary) has until June 25th to join the FSC and get on the list. Since membership can be obtained for a low as $50, sure seems like a wise investment.
Bill
Now it makes sense. A TRO was not issued which is why "selective enforcement may occur. This was a negotiated agreement between the FSC and the DoJ.
Some will call it selling out the industry, others (me included) will say that the FSC coalition, under the circumstances, did just what they should have done which is to protect their members. Exactly what a trade organization should do.
All of us had the opportunity to decide whether or not to join the FSC. For those that did not, they still have until June 25th to join and not have to worry about the risk of inspections until at least September 7th. Sure seems like an easy decision to make if the regs affect you. If you want to join, here is their contact info:
Michelle Freridge,
Executive Director - ExecDir@freespeechcoalition.com
Phone: 530-888-1554
Toll-free: 800-476-7813
The court has agreed to hold a preliminary injunction hearing on August 8th. Until that time the DoJ has reserves the right to inspect and prosecute anyone who is not a plaintiff or FSC member.
Bill
Under what circumstances? The circumstances as we know it was that the FSC fully planned to go for the tro today, which they would have probably gotten (and to those that say it's pure speculation..I assure you, I'm not just saying this with no legal precedence to back up MY speculation).Quote:
Originally Posted by hdkbill
Instead, they agreed to allow the DOJ to prosecute adult webmasters that are not members of the FSC.
You call this "what a trade organization should do"???
What do you think it does to our trade?
Slade, what a trade organization should do it what is best for it's members. That is exactly what they are paid by its members to do.
They may or may not have won the TRO. What they did is negotiate a good deal for their members which was their only obligation. I'm sure that they fully planned to go for the TRO today but seems they were offered a deal which was good for their members.....a sure thing as opposed to a "maybe". You say they would have gotten the TRO, but others, specifically Lee, stated that he didn't believe they would have gotten it.....so, the FSC went for a sure thing that was good for their members. As a member, I very pleased with the results. We've been a member for 3 years and this is exactly why......a trade organization fights for its members.
Those of us that are members know we have until September 7th before we are open for enforcement and we know that a hearing on a permanent injunction will be heard on August 8th. We now have the time to prepare properly in the event the injunction hearing is not successful.
I certainly understand where those that are not members of the FSC coalition aren't happy with the settlement, but heck, everyone had, and still does have until the 25th, the opportunity to join the FSC. It's a free world and we are all free to make whatever decisions we choose. We chose to join because we believe that it is best to belong to an industry association who fights for our rights. Seems we were correct in that decision.
Bill
Just one question for you Bill (and I've asked others, and so far, no one seems to want to answer it).
If the DOJ thought they could clearly have won the argument today against the TRO, *WHY* did they (the DOJ) make this agreement with the FSC?
What is best for it's members? a 60 day "stay" or heading IMMEDIATELY to court to find out if these regs will stand or not?
I've been told by you and others we had a lot of time to get compliant. Why do we need another 60 days then?
(Ok..so that's three questions..not one..grin)
there's something i'd love to know - if the list is sealed so the doj can't read it, how will law enforcement officials know which webmasters to inspect and which ones to leave alone?
The DOJ list will be checked against the master list which will be in the hands of an arbiter.
You might want to check this article at AVN. The DOJ seems to be on a fucking rampage. They are being very aggressive. It's very unnerving.
2257
Slade,Quote:
Originally Posted by Slade
I'll be happy to answer your questions. First, for the record, I never said we had a lot of time to get compliant. One of my biggest complaints about the new regs is that the bastards at the DoJ took a full year to come out with the regs and then gave us only 30 days to comply. I operate 10 websites with about 100,000 photos, 70 videos we have produced and another 20 or so that we sell. Their is literally no way I could get compliant in just 30 days, especially when it comes to saving copies of each url where the photos appeared.
My own opinion is that the DoJ most likely believe today that they would in fact lose in court which I'm guessing is why they wanted to negotiate an agreement. I really believe that the attorneys for the FSC most likely believed that they would be successful with their TRO but when offered a deal which would protect their members, they most likely felt that they were better off accepting the agreement on behalf of their members as opposed to taking a chance in court. Not sure I can blame them. As the old saying goes, " a bird in hand is worth more than two in the bush". Was the agreement good for the adult industry as a whole......NOPE.....but then, they were not there representing the entire adult industry....they were there representing their plaintiffs which happened to be the members of the FSC. They ultimately decided to do what was best for their members.
Is a 60 day stay best for the members of the FSC....yep, sure is. At minimum it gives us the time to get compliant. And, it gives the attorneys for the FSC time to better prepare for the hearing which is now scheduled for August 8th.
Ok Slade....did my best to answer....but keep in mind that these are nothing but my opinions and I can only guess as to what was actually said today in Denver and to what the attorneys for the DoJ and for the FSC were actually thinking. But the bottom line is that the members of the FSC can rest comfortably tonight knowing that tomorrow morning we aren't going to have some inspector seizing our records. Actually, the entire industry can rest well tonight knowing that tomorrow some inspector isn't going to be knocking on their doors since the DoJ isn't going to make any moves until at least Monday when the FSC will give the "Special Master" the list of FSC members who were members as of June 25th.
Reality is, if I wasn't a member of the FSC and for $50 I could become one tomorrow and then know that I had at least until September to get my records in order.....I'd jump at the chance. Fifty bucks is a cheap price for sixty days of peace of mind.
And, please don't take me wrong, it isn't that I'm against having accurate record keeping....for the most part, all of ours are in good shape, it's just the new stuff in the regs that we didn't anticipate that we are still trying to rectify, and 30 days just isn't enough time to get it all together. I want the time to get it together, and then check it, and then check it one more time.
Bill
Just received in an email from the Free Speech Coalition:
In response to the flood of new members, Free Speech Coalition is pleased to announce that all membership and 2257 litigation contributions can be processed over the telephone as of 6:00 a.m. Pacific Time, Friday morning, June 24, 2005, through 2:00 p.m, Saturday, June 25, 2005. Call 800.681.0403. Credit cards will be processed over the telephone. Feel free to inform anyone whom you believe will benefit from this information.
Jeffrey J. Douglas, FSC Board Chair,
for Michelle Freridge, FSC Executive Director
Quote:
Originally Posted by hdkbill
Not wanting to beat a dead horse here, but if the "smart money' was on FSC winning tro and doj losing, why would you accept something that protects you ONLY for 60 days, and if you then lose the case, they can come right after the members then?
Seems to me the best thing to do is get this into legal challenge asap and find out if these regs have merits or not.
As for not enuf time, yep..you do sound busy, but the outlines for these regs have been around for what..about a year now? They just got the official OK 30 days ago.
Ill be blunt (again) this isnt even good news for FSC members.
Think about this for a second, how does the DOJ know who is on the FSC master list? They dont, the only way they are going to know is by starting a case, even if that case then gets dropped because someone is a FSC member, it still puts the person under investigation at severe financial risk.
On the other hand, all its going to take now is for the DOJ to get a court order and that master list will HAVE to be unsealed.
These new 2257 regulations were apparently made in the name of 'child protection' no judge in the land is going to deny a court order from the DOJ if they have reason to beleive one of the companies on that master list is dealing in CP or doesnt have their paperwork in order, they need to find 1 company, just one and, when they do, that entire master list gets given to the DOJ.
The FSC basically fucked its members with this 'deal' no matter how much they 'spin' it.
Your names and addresses are now on file, where the DOJ if they so chose, can get access to the list.
Regards,
Lee
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee
I agree with you Lee. A friend and I were talking about that just last week. He was wondering about joining the FSC but had the same reservation that you brought up. It seems to us that when you "sue" the government, you are basically painting a big bullseye on your butt and saying "Here I am." Because the government is going to be watching you closely. Now had the FSC not turned over the list of members then it might be different. But in our opinion and as you said, The members of the FSC will now be "known targets" to the government. :boo:
Which to me, makes me beleive the DOJ already has a list of 'targets'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Huskyhunks
FSC member or not, you are already 'marked'.
If the government beleives you have broken the law, the fact that they have an agreement saying they wont go after you for 60-90 days means absolutely nothing, a private agreement between two parties doesnt stop law enforcement officials from arresting and, charging you with a crime.
Regards,
Lee
Slade, you are beginning to beat a dead horse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slade
The "smart money" always goes with a sure thing. And the regs that have been around for a hear, were changed somewhat and no one was going to spend money during that year trying to comply with something thatwe didn't know for sure what that "something"" was going to be. Once the regs were officially issued.....we were only given 30 days to comply. Not nearly enough time.
The sixty days provides, like I have mentioned already, the time to comply properly and most likely the TRO will be granted in August in some form or the other.
Bill
Lee,Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee
I don't see what the big deal is about the DoJ knowing who the FSC's members are. I'd much rather they know that I am a member, than know that I am not a member.
You certainly have the rights to believe that the FSC coalition "fucked" its members but I think you are wrong as hell on that. I see no negative whatsoever in being a member of the FSC nor in having the DoJ knowing that fact. Nor do I think the DoJ particularly gives a damn if we are a member.
If anything, if the DoJ starts a case, it may be more to find out who isn't a member. If I were in that category, I'd damn sure be worried.
Bill
Well, I guess all we can do is wait and see who is right. But it is very unlikely that any FSC member is going to be targeted unless they are in fact doing CP and the DoJ knows it. In that case Lee, you are right, the agreement would not stop enforcement. But in a situation like mine, and most likely 99% of the FSC members, we're happy to have a bit more time to make sure we are in compliance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee
Bill
Bill,Quote:
Originally Posted by hdkbill
The problem is, its not just CP.
Its breaking ANY law, especially these new regulations.
The current FSC members, are hopefully compliant with the new regulations right now, if they arent, they have broken the law and, like it or not, they can be investigated, arrested and, carged.
A private agreement between 2 parties, thats what this is, the legal system had nothing to do with it remember, does not protect anyone from commiting a crime, if any member of the FSC currently gets arrested for any crime, the DOJ can, and most likely will ask, for the sealed member list to be unsealed, they will have precedent that 1 member of the FSC broke the law and, that it is a reasonable assumtion that others will have but, they are hiding under the 'FSC protection' umbrella. Under those circumstances, the FSC member list will be unsealed as a crime will have been commited.
Once that list becomes unsealed, the shit hits the fan for every FSC member.
IMHO the FSC should have gone after a TRO, not a private agreement between 2 parties that realistically, protects nobody, not even until the 8th August. If the DOJ charges someone on that list with a crime, no matter how small, the list will become unsealed and the names will become 'known' to the DOJ.
Without knowing what the exact text of this agreement is, in full, nobody is able to say what clauses are contained within it, and, im 100% positive that there are clauses, on both sides that we will never be told about, lets not forget, whilst this 'stay of execution' is in effect, its lining the pockets of the FSC.
Regards,
Lee
Quote:
Originally Posted by hdkbill
I'll keep beating this "dead horse" as much as I want. I do that because I truly and honestly believe that these 2257 regulations are wrong.
That's where you and I disagree greatly. You are arguing you just needed more time to get your records in order, so you are very happy with today's result.
I am comming from the standpoint that these regulations SUCK and need to be changed and/or struck down. That's why today's "settlement" left me very unhappy.
At this point, who's to say that the FSC will even go through with the injunction in another 60 days if the ONLY thing needed was more time to get your records into compliance order.
They wont have any need to in 60 days time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slade
Pretty much every dime webmasters can spare will have already been squeezed out of them for the next year.
Im sure in 12 months time we'll see some new 'crisis' that ensures the FSC need another member drive though ;)
Regards,
Lee
Slade, I agree with you heartily that the new regs are just plain wrong. I beleive that many parts of them are unconstitutional and will eventually be stuck down. Heck, I've said that all the way along. They are impossible to comply with and as worded, many parts of it are open to interpretation as evidenced by the number of attorneys that are arguing about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slade
But, the Agreement prevents FSC members from being inspected until at least we've had more time to try to get our shit in order and until a court rules on the permanent injunction.
I totally disagree with Lee. I'd be very surprised is any FSC members is inspected or arrested for a 2257 violations before the time frame set out in the Agreement, but as I said previously, no one knows for sure so I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
Bill
Sorry Lee, I just do not agree with you on this. But like I said, time will tell. And, I still don't see why it's such a big deal if the DoJ knows who belongs to the FSC. I could care less if they know I'm a member and I don't believe for a minute that members of the FSC are going to be "targeted" because of this. In fact, I beleive the opposite it true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee
Bill
Bill