Quote Originally Posted by Slade
Anyone want to stick their necks out here and say publicly as to whether they believe you have to be a member of the FSC to be protected by the injunction if one is indeed granted? Or would the injunction cover all?

This has already been addressed a few times. The FSC has already made a statement on another board. Here's a partial quote:

"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.

At any rate, the FSC press release of May 25, 2005 makes clear that “being a member of the Free Speech Coalition does not mean that compliance is unnecessary. Every producer of actually sexually explicit conduct is covered by the existing regulations and the new regulations (which take effect June 23, 2005).” "

So basically.. as a matter of legal history, the injunction will benefit everyone, not just FSC members.