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.