Free Speech Coalition - who to vote for 2006 Board of Directors?
 

So, I got a Free Speech Coalition letter today about voting for new board members.

The letter has almost no information, and I was wondering if anyone had any opinions about who should or shouldn't be on the board.

The candidates are:

Jim Everett
Sid Grief*
Joan Irvine*
William Murphy*
Gregory Shearer
Nellie Symm-Gruender
Connor Young*

* indicates current board member

Anybody have any opinions?

I have an opinion, but my opinions are not popular so I will not voice them.

Alex

Do you know much of anything about these candidates?

I recognize two names, Joan Irvine and Connor Young. And I don't know all that much about either of them.

I voted for ripping it in 1/2 and tossing it in the trash.

Yes, well, the FSC hasn't been a very good servant for the small online adult businesses, but they got more done for us on the 2257 attack than anybody else.

If voting for the next board is one of the few inputs we can make, it would be nice to know who we were voting for.

And maybe a boardtracker will bring us a rep to fill us in.

|haha |haha |haha
That's a big part of the problem, other than their own web site they don't seem to have an online presence.

We can bitch all we want but haven't they done the one thing that was most important and that's challenge a terrible law that's unconstitutional and will increase crimes to barbaric levels.

Since no one else has stepped up to the plate to protect your rights then maybe we could just focus on this issue at hand. Does anyone have information about these canditates? If so, care to post some of it?

vote for all 7 and send it back - you're allowed

it says so on the letter

http://freespeechcoalition.com/nominations.htm

is the only info I could dig up just in case it hasn't been seen yet

I don't follow him and thus don't know his politics, but Connor seems to be the only one with first hand experience in OUR area of the industry. I think that might add an important perspective to the mix.

I have to say I find it interesting (and a little disturbing) that the majority of the people nominated are from the retail video / sex toy industry. That is right, retail.

Conner is the only person on that list that I could see that has a direct contact with the online adult industry.

Joan Irvine also leads ASACP, which makes me wonder if she has enough time and energy to properly do both jobs. I also find that the ASACP has undergone many changes in the last year, not all of which I am personally comfortable with.

Beyond that, it is pretty much flip a coin between "this retailer" and "that retailer".

Alex

My Background and the FSC
 

This is my statement on the FSC Nominations webpage. If you have any questions, I'll be glad to answer them.

SID GRIEF'S (aka Redrob) background includes 30 years of adult retailing in Texas including adult bookstores, video rental stores, newsstands, internet websites, internet content sales and internet fulfillment operations. His education includes BBA with Highest Honors, majors in Marketing and International Business and BA with High Honors, major in Asian Studies from UT.

Sid is one of the original founders of First Amendment Coalition of Texas, which has raised over $1 million for lobbying in Texas. Sid has served two terms as a VSDA Chapter President. Moreover, Sid has served as a member of the VSDA Adult Advisory Committee and the PBAA's Anticensorship Committee.

During his past term on the FSC Board, Sid has led the Internet Committee's redevelopment of the FSC website and served on the Legal and Government Committee which has overseen the major legal challenges undertaken by the FSC.

Sid states, 'I think the major challenges will be stopping the DOJ's expansion of 2257, securing the recognition of our Right to Privacy, and preventing the implementation of the XXX TLD . Moreover, I will work to defeat ultraconservative legislators during the next election and expand our membership base through the development of local FSC Chapters."

Are you actually campaigning here?

Thanks for stopping by and I read your profile earlier today. The action items that you listed matches my list pretty well. |waves|

Emmanuelle,

I just stopped in when I saw there was some interest in the FSC election. I was just trying to be helpful. Being in Texas, I am familiar with the censorial efforts of our local, state and federal governments. Anytime, I can raise awareness of our mutual problems, I try to do so.

|santa| Happy Holidays! |santa|

the fact that you've survived the adult industry in Texas seems to speak volumes
.

I would rather vote for
Jack Meoff
Sue Perr
Willie Pounder
Ben Dover
Ivana Bangor
Sammy Terry Napkin
Rob Banks
Lois Price
Ivana B. Laid
Matt Sterbator
:)

Isn't the fact that someone that wishes to represent us against the unpatriotic administration a good thing? Why so many negatice remarks?

I'm consulting my magic 8-ball...I'll get back to you once it tells me who to vote for...either that or I'm writing in UW's name just because I want to see him yelling "cocksuckers" at some press junket.

Just wanted to say, I've been having a crappy time lately, and reading that almost made me spit out my drink. Thanks for that imagery, and the laugh. |loony|

What The F@#$!
 

Now, I'm not making any accusations here but going on a trend that I've experienced with associations in other industries I've been involved with in the past.

1) Usually controlled and influenced by a small handful, cabal, of people that are serving their own interests and closely tied to the representative law firm which makes big bucks catering to their primary benefactors. The benefit for the small guy being usually and only being able to attach him/her self to whatever legal settlement is worked out (which is no small thing for example: the current 2257 protections and temp waiver)

For example: Any legal effort has numerous different avenues and/or paths/issues to follow. Why has there not been a menu of choices for members to VOTE on. You can do this or you can have that? Let's vote.

For example: I am aghast that there are no real personalities from the online world involved in this stuff. Why not? Is no one willing to step up (I'm not) and get involved or have they been shut out?

For example: I am aghast that FSC has not aggressively posted information and solicited opinoins on the larger boards like here? Why? I would suggest that they don't want them.

For example: I have been knocking myself silly trying to find a link to the public filings of the briefs in the 2257 issues. Non existent. The briefs SHOULD be freely available on their website. From what little info I've been able to find I'm a tad bit suspicious about how they are phrasing the argument (s) and what they appear to be willing to comprimise to and even the general direction they're taking it. BUT, honestly I don't have enough info to judge. WHY? I gotto go to CA and make a big mouth bitch at the meetings? Shouldn't have too... should we?

In a few more years porn delivery is going to be overwhelmingly digital. How we don't have MAJOR representation in this group is beyond me. Assoc. like this can be very powerful and are fairly easy to take over if a concerted effort is made by a handful of smart and involved people. Anybody interested?

Kinda Surprised
 

I gotta admit, I'm kinda surprised |confused| . This looks like its a dead thread. I thought I was going to come back and see tons of posts, opinoins, research, links, etc. here.

Is there another association out there that is relevant to anything we do that I don't know about?

How is it that we can go on and on about guns, or red content, or the nit picky political issues of the day and not have anything to say about the single most important voice and presence representing what we do? I've seen comments about FSC both good and bad in more locations having nothing to do with the adult biz than I generally see on the boards (but very little about the people in it) and I know there was a huge rush toward membership when it was clear that it was the only path toward temporarily saving your butts from an aggressive Justice dept. policy and then what...? Move on?

OK, its cool. I guess? But I'm wondering if this is not a statement on something though I can't figure out what that statement might be. Things that make you go hmmmmmm

Joan has plenty of time to waffle back and forth on the .xxx domain issue. Her "statement" on the panel in San Diego was 2 fucking pages long.

Of course if I had Steve Lightspeed up my ass...Id be scrambling like a skillet of eggs too!

I don't think Joan is particularly well prepared to handle the rough and tumble world of chat boards and "instant opinion" that forms up on these boards. Her opinion on .xxx has waivered, and she has done that waivering in public, which is never good.

By definition, ASACP should have had NO opinion to start with on the subject (it doesn't affect them one iota). FSC should have had only one position ("it potentially limits free speech so it is bad"). That ASACP apparently had an opinion on .xxx made me wonder if the name change of the organization was also an indication of a grup becoming more political and less, well, useful (IMHO).

It's not a simple situation, but ASACP could have simply stayed out of it.

Alex

Don't think for a moment that any of the candidates are running out of the goodness of their hearts.

I completely agree! I always thought it odd. But, I guess its kind of good that they are associated with FSC since it adds another sort of outside voice in support of their position (s)

I will do some research on the subject and post tidbits I find, but does anybody know if there is acrimony between FSC and ACLU? Seems they would/might be involved in this issue if only as a "friend of the court"? Guess they have their hands tied (pun intended) with civil rights of the "patriot" kind.

Finally, I've noticed a kind of undercurrent of unhappiness with the FSC, not just here but at other boards too. Nothing specific just a general kind of disregard. Maybe people could post here as to why or what they think about how the FSC has done so far?

|yawn|

Why would anyone think that?

I'm happy with the FSC. I'd like to see much better communications but the bottom line is that anyone that even looks at nude pictures much less makes a dollar from them should be happy with them.

I think in general us free wheeling webmasters don't like corporate types and many think that everything should be free. Many submitters bitch about paying for listings so why shouldn't they bitch about someone wanting money to save thier ass?

As far as I can tell the organization only recently got enough funding to do much of anything. It will probably take a couple of years before they have thier communication shit together. I wish it was different but do you want them to pay a full time employee about $50k a year to handle that? Would you rather that $50k went into lobbying and legal fees to fight those that hate freedom?

They are not a non-profit and they are not a charity. They need to make money just like you do. Surfers wish we would give away all porn for free so why don't we?

I'm tired of people bitching about the FSC. I've yet to hear anyone that's bitching come up with a better option.

There only seems to be 3 options right now.

1. Support the FSC either through joining or at least donating.

2. Freeload off of those of us that are paying for the fight.

3. Let those that hate freedom take it away. Once it's gone it's gone.

I'm sure if anyone wants to donate thier time to handle the communications and manage the web site that the FSC will be happy to put you to work for free.

And miss out on that potential money?
Lens posted that he thought it was a good idea too. All the sheep at the Zoo were rapid to suck his dick over it too.

Funny though he left the room in San Diego when the topic came up and I wanted to ask him to explain to us all how .xxx was a good idea.

Wonder what Playboy thinks?

Gonzo, when it comes down to it, the big guys with the big names will do well. The rest of us would suffer because the domains would be more expensive, the existing domains that you have would become worthless in about 10 seconds, and all the traffic you have built over the years would become totally, completely worthless.

In my mind as soon as the .XXX thing came into place, Visa and Mastercard would be on the horn announcing new worldwide rules for adult sites requiring that they are all on domains in the .XXX tld. More importantly, they could require companies likes CCBill and others to refuse or bounce traffic that came from .com domains.

Imagine all those .com, .net, org, and .everythingelse domains suddenly becoming worthless.

The big get bigger... the big love regulation. The small suffer.

Alex

As I understand it, .XXX is a nonissue at the moment.

However, I do tend to think that Joan Irvines's support of it is a valid mark against her.

Yet, at the same time, ASACP hasn't been a negative force in the industry, and I can see arguments that an ASACP representation in the FSC is a good thing.

I figure the negative attitude towards the FSC among onliners is because the FSC is an old-school retail and movie production organization that has more or less ignored or exploited the onliners.

I can't say I especially like the FSC. I tend to think they would turn against the online sector in a minute to protect their retail and video sales business.

But, they accomplished _something_ for us, wether they did it for the onliners or not. I can't see anybody else even pretending to act on our behalf.

I think I'll add a letter to this ballot complaining about the lack of a better online presence for the FSC.

Six pages deep on two different google searches and nothing of any real note regarding ACLU's stance/activity re: 2257.

See now I'm learning alot
INTERESTING didn't know not a non prof!

GOOD POINT! If I could make a little more money from this particular project, I swear I would and I'm definitely putting it on the back burner. I'm trying to learn a little more about them first. This should be an encouragement to those making some big biucks here to push harder to create a larger online presence at FSC, as a group we could really have an impact on a number of different levels. My assesment is that they are not nearly as effective in Public Communication as they could be. They NEED help.


Yeah! Me Too, Right Now!

RawAlex, there's no point in even quoting you 'cause I find that we generally agree on a lot ie. "the big love regulation". I'm afraid that over the long term .xxx is an inevitablility. If many bible thumpers and right wing groups hadn't come out against it too I think it would have been a done deal already and everything you project would be on the way toward happening.

BTW, today announced that the stay on 2257 for FSC members extended to Dec30.

Slightly off topic but does anybody try NOT to read "All of 'Em" because if they did there would be no time to do anything else |loony|

Alex thanks for the domain lesson but they have already become more expensive for me.

My first one was for free back in 1993.

.net and org is crap if your basing it totaly on the domain market value. I only own .coms.

Regulation is coming in one form or another. Ive already posted what Bill Margold is proposing.

If I was to have to guess Id say it will come from the billing companies. They have the missing and most important piece.

Gonzo, I don't mean the value of good .com real estate, but rather that the admission price to the game right now is low. For +- $10, you can pick up lesbian-girls-movies-porn-sexy.com and you too can be in the porn business.

With .XXX, that will move up, maybe upwards to $100 per domain.

If the processors move to only accept traffic from .xxx domains, then all that real estate you bought is suddenly worth very little.

Alex

If .XXX goes into effect then corporations with $100,000s and even $1,000,000s of dollars will register domains in groves within the first hour of availability or even before it's they're available to the general public. Then if we want the .XXX version of our own domains, then we'll have to fight them in court. Sure we can trade mark the names that we've spent year promoting but someone else will have the .XXX version until we win it back in court. Most webmasters won't have enough money to get a US, Candian and International trademark on every .com they own much less fight it in court against a compnay backed with big bucks.

Suddenly Internet porn will be controlled by just a few. A few that will donate heavily to the party that allowed them to steal other people's hard work.

News Flash guys.... Icann has punked out any .xxx discussion in the near future.
Translation.... they tabled the .XXX discussion until some undiscoled time in the future.

I think we all can agree.... we need to keep our eye on this in the future.

FSC is a nonprofit 501(c)(4), however it does need money to be successful in their efforts.

As I recall it, the bitching was about a few board members encouraging folks to join or go to jail over 2257. Frankly, many of them were preaching to existing members and did not have a clue.

I did not know that. I'm always amased at how non-profits can operate.

It isn't gone that far...

""It was impossible to get sufficient time for consideration by the Government Advisory Committee members and therefore the board, the chairman decided to postpone the consideration," CANN president Paul Twomey said.

"Within the first quarter of next year is my expectation when it will come back up," he said."

http://www.techspot.com/news/19662-i...ex-domain.html


So we could still be looking at an implimentation of this deal in 2006... which may be the end of the line for many small and midsize webmasters.

Alex