The FSC Is Going To Lose This One $0.02

[Madame0120]

3) The FSC said they were goig to file their TRO within days, it took them weeks and, when they did file, it was incomplete.

Um .. correct me if I'm wrong, and I know you will

I believe you can't file any injunction until the date the law/regulations go into effect. Hence the date of filing the TRO.

[GLBTcity]

3) The FSC said they were goig to file their TRO within days, it took them weeks and, when they did file, it was incomplete.

Um .. correct me if I'm wrong, and I know you will

I believe you can't file any injunction until the date the law/regulations go into effect. Hence the date of filing the TRO.

When speaking with our attorney and others, there were so many contradictions and land mines, that even the attorney's had to filter through the new regs to even understand which points to bring up in their case for the injunction.

PapaBear

[Huskyhunks]

Thank you Madame 0120,

Finally, someone who actually understands the law and how it applies to this case. The order can only be granted when the law actually takes effect and brings *harm* to the plaintiff. The lawsuit could have been filed a month ago but the judge could not grant a restraining order until the FSC and it's members could suffer damage.

After seeing how many webmasters are doubting the intent of the FSC, I hope the ruling *only* applies to FSC members. We spent the money, we should be the *only* ones to get the benefits.

[Lee]

We spent the money, we should be the *only* ones to get the benefits.

Again i agree with you.

I would rather the FSC hand the government a list of their members than the government just targeting people at will.

Better to give them a list of targets tha not.

Regards,

Lee

[basschick]

wow, i'm surprised to read you say that.

so if you doubt someone's intentions, they should prove your doubts were well-founded?

you feel that webmasters who weren't sure what the fsc does should suffer a law that is unjust and become test cases and have their lives ruined? all because they aren't stringent supporters of an organization who most don't know much about?

people you know and like could lose their means to make a living, or even go to jail when up till today, they weren't breaking any laws. and you think that's ok?

doesn't that seem a little harsh to you? i know lee, for one, has been very outspoken, but would you wish him in a jail cell?

After seeing how many webmasters are doubting the intent of the FSC, I hope the ruling *only* applies to FSC members. We spent the money, we should be the *only* ones to get the benefits.

[Huskyhunks]

My whole point is that I don't want people to go to jail. For starters, it just makes good business sense to join a trade assocation that fights for your rights. It's not that expensive. Hell, I only spent $50. They were even willing to put me on a payment plan for the $300 level. I said wait until I know I still have a business before I can do that. So I joined and it made me feel better that at least I was being proactive and trying to help business stay alive.

I doubt that Lee is going to be breaking the law. He's already said he's being compliant and I believe him.

If people break the law, then that's their business. I'm not taking responsibility for webmasters who are non compliant. That's their decision and doesn't involve me at all.

[chadknowslaw]

,

After seeing how many webmasters are doubting the intent of the FSC, I hope the ruling *only* applies to FSC members. We spent the money, we should be the *only* ones to get the benefits.

Actually, no.
Advocacy groups regularly go to court for the benefit of their members but all persons of the class benefit--not just the paid-up members of the group. Sometimes even individuals go to court, paying their own way, and benefit everybody.
The US Consititution contains a few phrases that refer to "equal protection" which means that the law should apply equally regardless of how much money you have, what color your skin is, or what religion you practice or don't practice. It also means that a law cannot be enforced against one group [non FSC members] while not enforced against another group [FSC members]. I know it has been a long time since my Constitutional Law classes in law school, but I am pretty sure those standards have not changed.

[Huskyhunks]

If the DOJ can make up shit, and "up is down, and down is up" then I can offer my opinion. No one can say this is legal or that is legal with certainty unless you are a judge and the case is before you and that decision is always subject to scrutiny by other judges.

[hdkbill]

I don't ever recall the FSC saying they were going to file their injunction within days. The new 2257 was issued on or about June 1st and the FSC filed the injunction on 17th of the month. It took time for the attorneys (2 law firms) to digest the new regulation, prepare their response to it and then file. Actually, they did it pretty damn quick. I would much prefer that they take their time and cover all the bases.

I disagree with Lee that the FSC is going to lose it. But, that's his opinion and he's enitled to it, and we will know within the next few hours or tomorrow who is correct.

I'm not sure why so many people seem to be so upset with the FSC. You should be thanking you lucky stars that some organization is out there trying to protect your 1st Amendment rights and your righteous asses. Huskyhunks is correct, we all need a trade association and we all need to belong to it.

Most responsible webmasters who are affected by the new regs are doing everything they can to comply with them, according to their understanding of them, regardless of what the FSC does or doesn't do. But it's nice to know that we aren't hanging out there in the breeze all by ourselves and that at least the FSC is going to bat for it's members and ultimately for all adult webmasters and producers.

Bill