2257 TRO Announcement?

[Lee]

if a webmaster can't deal with it, then they should get out of the business.

Agreed :thumbsup:

Online porn is no place for hobbyists.

Regards,

Lee

[chadknowslaw]

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.

[Slade]

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.

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.

[Huskyhunks]

So much for my non legal background. I would say I told you so but that might be seen as gloating.

[basschick]

"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

[Lee]

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.

They sold the 'industry' out in order to get more financial backing.

On behalf of the entire adult entertainment industry

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.

Im glad i was right about these scheisters all along, money talks people, money talks.

Regards,

Lee

[Slade]

So much for my non legal background. I would say I told you so but that might be seen as gloating.

That's why Gawd made forums..for people to gloat! ;-)

[Huskyhunks]

I'd rather be on the master list than a court docket anyday.

[buffdude]

I'd rather be on the master list than a court docket anyday.

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..
You don't have time to mail your cash. They have to have it by Saturday. :thumbsup:

[hdkbill]

I'd rather be on the master list than a court docket anyday.

Damn right. Thank God our companies made the decision to join the FSC.

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