Did the FSC fail 2257 ?

[procam]

http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/

Domain parked :cheekymonkey:

We trust these people ?

[citiboyz]

http://www.freespeechcoalition.org/

[procam]

http://www.freespeechcoalition.org/

I dont know if you're a member or not by my last member newsletter bears this ~~

Dear Members of FSC,

You can view the latest Free Speech Coalition X-Press at:


http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/xpress/X13


Thank you,

FSC Team

[citiboyz]

I dont know if you're a member or not by my last member newsletter bears this ~~

Dear Members of FSC,

You can view the latest Free Speech Coalition X-Press at:


http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/xpress/X13


Thank you,

FSC Team

Oh, I see that now. Yes, we're an FSC member, and I always read the newsletter, except for this one :-(

[Lee]

Its an industry crisis, please send the FSC more funds so they can fight the war against expiring domain names!!!!

Regards,

Lee

[procam]

LMGDAO!! :bullcrap:

[chadknowslaw]

I want to provide some quotes from the Order on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment in the FSC case [filed March 30 2007]

That ruling really handed FSC its ass on a platter. These passages, written by the Judge, trouble me:

"Moreover, in applying intermediate scrutiny to the facts of this case, I note that little has changed since my prior ruling, as Plaintiffs [FSC] have not produced any additional evidence in response to the Attorney General's summary judgment motion." Page 7

Why was there no action by the FSC on this issue? I always write something at each opportunity to make my case.


Regarding the changes made to 2257 by the Adam Walsh Act:

"Although neither party informed the court of these critical changes, the 2006 amendments appear to essentially restate the Attorney General's regulations--thus rendering [FSC's] ultra vires claim moot" Page 6 and 7

Why did neither party bring up the changes to the law???





I am also concerned about the claims of protection only applying to FSC members. There are very sound legal arguments that hold a preliminary injunction could not forbid enforcement of a law against one class of people [members of an organization] but allow law enforcement to indict non-members for violation of that law. I know what the Federal Rules say, but I also know about the Constitution, and the only way that that injunction could protect members but NOT non-members would be if the Constitution did not apply. The Constitution always applies, and it trumps Federal Rules. I feel that the whole "protection" argument was misleading.


I am concerned that FSC has not promoted the benefits of membership -- and other than being part of the lawsuit, which arguably would protect even non-members, I am not sure what the benefits of membership actually are.

Can someone tell me what the tangible benefits of membership in the FSC actually are?

[Mansized]

Can someone tell me what the tangible benefits of membership in the FSC actually are?

At this point..a tax deduction..that's about it. And I'm joking about that.

[desslock]

Hey, I just visited www.freespeechcoalition.org and finally looked around.

I think the fact that they stood up to Public Citizen on something would be worth about fifty bucks right there.

Steve