My kind of office. :D

www.law.cornell.edu/...
The last paragraph has the pertinent info.

Maybe this is the only way the FSC can do anything. The members are identified and verified and so can be protected temporarily until the courts hash things out. But everything the FSC accomplishes from an injunction on will apply towards everyone won't it?

That's what everyone thought the first time around.

Shall we go double or nothing?

This whole thing should be thrown out and some more thought put into it. The FSC can shove it....This is an extortion tactic to get us signed up as members. I'll wait to see what they come up with. Is there some kind of icon they are putting on members sites to keep the DOJ off them?? I haven't seen one yet..... so how do they know if we are members or not.....they may give all that info to the DOJ hitlist as being people needing protection from the 2257 laws........something to think about.

and after thinking about it...why can't they make this easier on everyone...the content producer keep a list of all sites using the content and the website showing which content producer is being used. The producer keeps all records within his building and the DOJ doesn't have to visit 30,000 of us seems simple enough to me.

Oh lord, you guys...you could do 2 things, the way I see it:

1. Get a lawyer and file your own injunction (much more than $300)

2. Get 100% 2257 compliant and pray they don't come knocking

It is Gonzolez vs. The Free Speach Coalition not Gonzolez vs. The Earth!

Do you think all of the people that want porn gone to be part of the injunction? Nope.

Grow up people...$300 ain't shit and if you can't afford it -- this obviously hasn't been working out for you and you should consider another job.

Yep, we sure would. The move started under Ashcroft in Dubya's first term, and Kerry isn't the type who would want to be seen as halting any so-called "anti-CP" initiative, so matter how phony.

And don't forget that Kerry not only voted for Scalia's nomination to the Supreme Court, but actually made a speech on the floor of the Senate praising "his good friend." He's no friend of civil liberties.

OK, I'm convinced - I quit.

Everyone please stop submitting to me and pull all of my links. I'm too immature, too ignorant, and don't have any tattoos or piercings, so I can no longer remain in this industry. As of noon today, my domains will be used for selling bibles.

And another fucking thing,
Maybe the ignorant cock that wrote the 2257 announcement for OC Cash should have mentioned that only FSC members are safe from justice before OC Cash told us to pretty much not worry about complying. What'ya think there, tough guy?

I dont know where ya'll are getting your history on 2257 - but it started being written under the first Bush and went through under Clinton - its been around for a long time - just nobody payed any attention to it including the DOJ

My balls ache :D

Cool Jay. I took the third option...but I CAN afford the $300.

This isn't about the money. This about the principle. So if you don't wanna hear...don't read the "FUCK THE FSC" post....it will only upset you.

As for 'cant afford it" comment:

You are a webmaster who has had TIME to develop your business and was ABLE to build his site when the ridiculous regulations were NOT in place. Now that things are different and you are in a position of serious traffic, it's cool to throw the newbies to the lions?

Screw the little guy! Make him post his home address!

Did you post your home address on your site, Jay?

Or are you successful enough now to run it all out of an office?

he definately runs it out of an office. a damned nice office too judged by the shots he's posted. but it doesnt mean i agree with hsi entire message ;)

I personally don't know anyone to whom "$300 ain't shit", present company included. Some of us sling porn as a second income, not so we can drive a fucking Hummer and shop at Neiman-Marcus. I have many other important and valid places for my $300 (like braces for my kid) and I refuse to accept the idea that I am a bad person or too "lowly" to be a porn webmaster because of my situation. |angry|

I'm certainly not attempting to pick a fight with anyone, especially xxxjay, but sometimes things aren't as simple as perhaps they appear to be at first glance.

Dude, you can't re-write the way our system works. I don't think the FSC could do an injunction in a way the would satisfy you even if they could.

Even if you are not a member, as long as it is enjoined - there is a 99.9% chance nothing will happen to you.

Easy killer...you need to make up your own mind about things and not determine what you will do by a program's announcement (or boards for that matter)...

BTW: the "ignorant cock" you are speaking of is working on the injunction, which is the only thing that kept the feds from potentially coming knocking on your door on the 23rd.

I think Jim said it best......"BRING IT ON COCKSUCKERS"
Don't worry Jim we say it even if you don't

I'm not scared.
|buddy|is my co-pilot.

I decided how I would react far before any sponsor bothered to release a statement. I'm not a member of the FSC, I haven't removed single or link, and oddly enough I have not been arrested. I'm ruled by common sense, not fear.

UW, do you have an extra seat for me???

Most of us that have been around here for awhile have little problem with FSC other than Jay and a few others here turned this 2257 stuff into a membership campaign for them. It is way passed time to turn loose of this.

|thumb Right on.

I'm a lowly small private webmaster; my sites number in the double digits not triple nor quadruple, and I've yet to have to pay any taxes on any of my web earnings (after nearly 6 yrs of doing this) because I make so damned little at it, who the hell cares? Not even the IRS! Hence, while I am certainly concerned for my Constitutionally-assured rights, for my personal self I have little worry. I just can't see the DOJ hitting even 1/10th of the existing porn sites OR porn webmasters, regardless of their income and/or prominence (or total lack thereof).

To my mind, "civil disobedience' should be the order of the day, here. If we don't like the law, we just don't observe it. Kinda like smoking pot, y'know? Did the laws against that ever stop any stoner from getting high? Not on your doobie-doobie-doo. This pornophobic administration will be out of office probably before they finish debating this issue, so why worry?

We need an Alfred E. Neuman icon for this.

Millions of people want porn. The millions who don't want them to have it will not be able to stop them, nor those who provide it for them. MORALITY CANNOT BE LEGISLATED. Perhaps the Supreme Court will remember this, even if no one else in this reactionary gov't does.

Ok there's my 2 cents. Don't spend it all in one place. |blowkiss|

Carmilla |waves|

|potleaf|

Hey, they deserve support. Massive court battles aren't free.

And that is the reason lots of us joined

Are you trying to say that I have anything to gain by the FSC getting more members?

No is the answer to the question.

Do I think you used bad judgement in the way you worded your 2257 posts? Yes!

I just don't want to bring heat to those on this board that don't want it. I still feel the same though :)

Things that make ya go hmmmm LOL

wonder what will happen if alberto gets put in the empty seat in the supreme court I'm hearing alot of talk about him being a top choice with two distant competitors behind him and this case ends up getting kicked around for awhile then ends up in the supreme court in front of the creator or author of the new revisions.

These current revisions were initiated under Ashcroft's watch, Gonzales just inherited them. Still, I can think of many others I'd prefer to see fill that vacancy on the Supreme Court.

|deadhorse

Gonzales is considered to moderate for the religious right to consider him and if appointed the conservatives could see some lack of support in the mid term elections so I don’t think it will happen. 63% of Americans believe that Dubya will appoint someone that will consider their own personal religious beliefs when interpreting the law. That should disqualify them from being a judge but it doesn’t.

My only real concern about Gonzales is that he’s stated numerous times that his #1 priority is to fight obscenity and not protect children. He may be saying this because he’s doing as told and that’s admirable. I think if he is appointed he may end up with a mind of his own and be more moderate and more focused on the law then many others that will be appointed in the next 3.5 years.

LOL I been beating a dead horse most of my life and to be honest my stick is about worn out :D

I want YOU to pay for it so it's free for me.

Gonzales may have inherited them from Asshat, but he was proud enough of them to make a brief mention of 'em in a speech given in front of the National Press Club a couple of days after he signed them. Of course, he was using the "save the children" justification.

The audio of the speech is available with a quick search on npr.com.

That is a really lame position to take. After your first 2257 bust - call a lawyer and tell him exactly that.

Cry in one + shit in the other = see which fills up first! :)

Can you expound upon that?

Jay, in all due respect, I decline. It would probably lead to a pissing contest which would not be beneficial to either of us.

Bring it on. Pissing contests aren't always bad...sometimes people learn things.

Wont the DOJ go mostly after teen sites?
I do mature sites and if the DOJ thinks my grannies are under 18 they got serious problems.

They are most likely going to go after "extreme" material that they can demonize in court.

What a total waste of money and resources. :(

The DoJ should be tackling violent crime and drugs. Tidy up that mess first and then worry about putting manpower into enforcing 2257.

It's very simple priority management.