2257 Injunction has been filed

[docholly]

*woot*..does that mean we will have an OTB tomorrow??

[Useless]

Originally Posted by docholly

*woot*..does that mean we will have an OTB tomorrow??

Just as long as no one mentions anything about 2257.

[Vink]

Thanks Jay. I'm still waiting to start deleting my pages.

[Agent]

This is good to hear Jay.

I miss the radio shows. GG & Jim maybe already considered this but it would be kinda neat to have a phone interview on the radio show (a radio special) with a knowledgable lawyer about this 2257 stuff. I wouldn't want more people seeing it as a reason for watching the sky to see if it's falling but it would be educational. Maybe do another poll outlining our top 10 questions/concerns and present them on the show. That is, unless that lawyer wants to be paid for his/her time. That could be a little expensive.

[CaptainJSparrow]

Kewl deal Jay...thanks.

GG, so is it worth it to join the FSC?

[RedCherry]

Thanks Jay for the update, that is great news! I joined FSC too, plus got the komply software and have been working towards compliance what a pain in the butt.

I really hope the injunction goes through!

Rock on guys!

[rollergirl]

Very sloppily written article.

[Toby]

There is no way the mainstream media can get this story right. Those of us in the industry are having a hard time understanding all the issues involved, so there is no way that someone without any experience as an adult webmaster/producer/model can begin to comprehend this well enough to even ask the right questions.

[2msacras]

Hey, I have friends that write for the ap. Definetly didn't write this article though.

[tickler]

Originally Posted by 2msacras

Hey, I have friends that write for the ap. Definetly didn't write this article though.

Slip them this link for an inside scoop:
http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/F...7_Comments.htm

[basschick]

Linkster - what's the url for that story?

[Leon]

by looking at http://www.javes.com i wonder is porn biz will be renamed to erotic biz ?

[Linkster]

basschick - on google go to the news tab and type in porn - then sort by most recent and you should see 100 different news organizations and newspapers that have picked up that story - and jus reprinted it with the exception of thjis one that seems to have embellished it a little
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news...16/detail.html

Looking over the list its getting some widespread play as Forbes, BusinessWeek the San Francisco Chronicle etc are reprinting the story - just my opinion here but it sure would have been wise for the FSC to file a news release when they did this so that the facts could get out there - especially since its so easy to do with the AP

[xxxjay]

Originally Posted by Linkster

- just my opinion here but it sure would have been wise for the FSC to file a news release when they did this so that the facts could get out there - especially since its so easy to do with the AP

I said the same thing face to face with Tom Haymes - I agree. The AP is getting hold of the wrong end of the stick.

[Mister13]

Guess after the failure of removing softcore from hotels they went to this.

So...uh...at least 3 more years of this Bullshit eh?

[Linkster]

Mister13 - you havent heard - theyve introduced legislation to go back to the extendable terms - so that a sitting president can go for more terms - of course with the alternative being one Haley Barbour - believe me Id rather have Bush

[Mister13]

Originally Posted by Linkster

Mister13 - you havent heard - theyve introduced legislation to go back to the extendable terms - so that a sitting president can go for more terms - of course with the alternative being one Haley Barbour - believe me Id rather have Bush

SWEET!

Cause I love complaining!

[WannaShagg]

2257 is supposed to be a deterant to CP. I can not see how. Producers of CP are criminals. Criminals do not abide by laws in the first place, obviously. So the only thing 2257 will do is exactly this. Which is make a lot of innocent webmasters, who are law abiding citizens, scramble and worry about how they are going to maintain their income. Which in most cases is way to meager to maintain life and needs to be supplemented anyway. 2257 is not going to impact people making CP in the least. It is a crock of shit. I myself am a producer and my sites primary model. As it is right now I do not divulge my physical address in my 2257 records. If and when the fed want to come see me, they know exactly where I am, what my business name is and what exactly it is that I do. I do not plan to take down anything and I also am not going to give out my identity and physical location. If they would like they can come and lock me up. I'll fucking rot in the cell they take me to and the people making CP will still be making it. 2257 is not going to do jack shit about the illegal production of porn using under aged models because the people are criminals and obviously pay no attention to the law anyway. Amen. Thanks and have a great day.

[babymaker]

Say it ain't so Linkster i knew that fuck would do whatever to be in more terms, what is the new legislation any links?? at the same time he might be impeached

[Linkster]

Originally Posted by babymaker

Say it ain't so Linkster i knew that fuck would do whatever to be in more terms, what is the new legislation any links?? at the same time he might be impeached

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:hj24:
Introduced in the current session of congress in Feb - it actually repeals the entire 22nd amendment which includes the term limits for the president - it has been sent to subcommittee where it is being reviewed presently

[tickler]

Originally Posted by Linkster

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:hj24:
Introduced in the current session of congress in Feb - it actually repeals the entire 22nd amendment which includes the term limits for the president - it has been sent to subcommittee where it is being reviewed presently

Oh great, el Presidente Bush for life.

Although it looks like they need 3/4 of the different states to agree.

[serenity]

Fox News Channel ran a quickie news item on their screen ticker about the coalition filing the lawsuit. Of course they got the facts wrong and it went by so fast it made my head spin.

I wish some of these "journalists" would have the balls to actually interview a couple of people in the industry for their take on the situation. It would be nice to have some facts for a change. Oh, I forgot that's too much like genuine unbiased journalism.

[Toby]

Excellent article by AVN

http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary...tent_ID=231124

[Useless]

Originally Posted by Toby

Excellent article by AVN

http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary...tent_ID=231124

An excerpt:

But the main charge in the suit is to the entire concept of 2257: that protected sexual speech has been burdened with a regulation that, in essence, requires it to prove itself innocent of using minors in its creation, rather than requiring the government to meet its constitutional burden of proving the speech guilty.

That's all we're trying to say.
Good find Toby.

[MadMax]

Originally Posted by Toby

Excellent article by AVN

http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary...tent_ID=231124

THAT's what I've been waiting for...a "meat and potatoes" explanation of what the FSC is doing. Now I feel much better about them having some of my cash

It's truly tragic that a trade organization for webmasters can't get their online billing to work, though....