Greetings:
http://www.avnonline.com/index.php?P...tent_ID=231539
DOJ is reserving the right to go after NON FSC Members.
Quote:
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.
Nice.
That means that the FSC sold out the industry and, most likely provided or will provide the DOJ with names of their members or non-members in the industry.
They sold out its that simple.
However, on the plus side, they will alost certainly gain a shitload more members beause of this, you have to love the way money makes the world go round :)
Glad to see i wasnt wrong about the FSC after all.
Regards,
Lee
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JustMe
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."
THIS IS WRONG..SO WRONG, ON SO MANY LEVELS!
Why..WHY did the FSC cave? WHY did they agree to this! I would love to see a link to any or all of their lawyers as to why they agreed to this. They COULD have had an injunction today that would have ULTIMATELY led to an actual court hearing on these regs.
I hate to say this..but Lee, you may be right, it may be ALL ABOUT THE MONEY!
Is this REALLY the new slogan of the FSC: "SHOW ME THE MONEY!" (MEMBERSHIP!)?
Yeah it does sound like they just want the money. I did hear that you don't have to donate what their website has though. If you make less than 100k you can donate 100.
Mark
Honestly, everyone should have seen this coming 30 days ago. They said it over and over again, join the FSC. How big does the writing on the wall have to be to get people to see this is how the industry and this country work. We're all in it for the money, why single out the FSC.
I don't see how they sold anyone out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee
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.
They would have NOT received an injuction today. The TRO if granted would have been for only 10 days with a followup for lengthier restraining order.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slade
they got a 90-day order when they were initially only seeking a TEMPORARY (10 days) restraining order.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huskyhunks
I'm singling out the FSC right now because I joined BELIEVING that today, June 23rd, 2005, that the FSC would be filing an injunction against the implentation of the new 2257 regs. But at the 11th hour they did a 180 and it appears to simply increase their membership.
But ironically, EVEN if you join or have JOINED the FSC, you are only getting a 45 day "stay of execution".
Someone was to tell me or point me in the direction of LINKS from attornies for the FSC that EXPLAINS why they did a U turn like this at the last minute?
WHY didn't they file the injunction? We could have gotten a MUCH faster hearing on these regs this way. NOW, we actually GIVE THE DOJ more time to prepare NEW and/or BETTER arguments for THEIR case?
WHAT did the FSC and it's members gain from today's settlement? NOTHING! EXCEPT, more memberships for the FSC.
$300 for a 45 day stay of execution. WHAT A DEAL!
Quote:
Originally Posted by djdez
I'm quoting that because it needs to be seen again.
If you live in the real world, what just happened today should make nothing but total sense.
The FSC hasn't suspended or abandoned its legal fight. But what they have done is created some insulation for the people they serve - their members.
I fail to comprehend the overblown sense of entitlement that leads someone to believe that the FSC owes anything to nonmembers. Surely the work they do has the ultimate goal of protecting the entire adult industry and any other webmasters and even non-adult content producers from these oppressive new regulations. But that doesn't change the fact that they're obliged only to their members and if you're gonna sit on the sidelines and bitch about the FSC at every step of the way demanding they win for you a fight you've not stepped in to the ring with them on then that's your choice to do so and no fault of theirs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djdez
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.
That's speculation. Not fact.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).Quote:
Originally Posted by BDBionic
I'm sure Chad can chime in hear and correct me if I have anything out of place... but this is what our lawyers told me yesterday. This is what would have happened if things went as originally planned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slade
1. 6-23 TRO granted by the judge for 10 days
2. Sometime within 1-2 weeks the judge would agree to set a preliminary hearing for an injuction - TRO would then be extended.
3. Judge issues/denies Injunction. remember this is a trial or district US judge
4. Defeated parties would then appeal to the 10th circuit court of appeals.
5. Defeated parties would then appeal to the supreme court which they may or may not agree to hear the case.
Any time you go to court, it's always speculation.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDBionic
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"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by djdez
Yes, basically that would have been the scenario.
And #3 is the CRUCIAL part here that I believe the FSC could have (and hopefully still will) won/win.
I wasn't directing those statements toward you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slade
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".
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slade
this is more than i expected.
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.
I don't agree with you that what happened today prevents an excellent case against these regulations from being made.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slade
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by chadknowslaw
Quote:
Originally Posted by djdez
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!
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadknowslaw
The nail hit SQUARELY on the head here!
It's interesting that you bring up the "Doj's position".Quote:
Originally Posted by JustMe
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djdez
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???
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slade
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.
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slade
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by GPallan
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GLBTcity
Damn..I'm glad you are not shy! lol
While many think this was a great victory today for adult webmasters, I actually think it was a step backwards.Quote:
Originally Posted by chadknowslaw
You know the DOJ is going to be able to muster up a HUGE pr campaign at the least against "pornographers" in the next 60 days, let alone refine their legal case.
The reason was simply because they couldn't Judge Miller before June 23rd. They wanted Judge Miller.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slade
Quote:
Originally Posted by GLBTcity
And you know this to be true how?
I've never been one to mix words Slade. If the kettle is black, by gawd I'll call it black!Quote:
Originally Posted by Slade
I'm just an old countryboy Slade. I've always shot straight from the hip and never been one to pull punches.
That's what my customers like about me, and that's also what my vendors/business partners like about me. They always know that I won't bullshit them.
It just really pisses my butt off when I see statements and/or comments, granted it's only one persons opinion, but still, some things are just better left unsaid.
And when I see these things, I simply have to credit it to one of the following:
1. This person must know something or someone that the rest of us don't.
or,
2. They have majorly big balls like a bull elephant.
or,
3. They often let their ass overload their mouth.
PapaBear
Jeffrey Douglas is our attorney Slade. He's on the board of the FSC. It was also posted on the FSC website.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slade
PapaBear
Quote:
Originally Posted by GLBTcity
Ok, I admit I did not know that part.
No Problem Slade :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Slade
It's just like a lot of other things that fly around on this board. Nobody knows everything :) and some far less than they think they do!
But I still Luv Ya Slade :) snicker
I agree! I did some research.. see my new post http://forums.gaywidewebmasters.com/...ad.php?t=10688Quote:
Originally Posted by JustMe
Looks like they've shot themselves in the foot possibly
If you can't afford $300 to join FSC use the link below. You can join for as little as $100, it is based on your income.
http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/c...ypes=Corporate
Mark