2257 Injunction has been filed

GenXer · 2005-06-18, 04:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill

Good news.

Jay, Kinky, any of you guys who are interacting with the FSC, please ask them to get an online donation (and membership, ideally, but at least donation) system working again.

All lobbyists are shifty. All lawyers are shifty. That's a given. It doesn't fucking matter. These people are acting, they deserve our money.

Maybe we can get them to realize they need a system to take money online...

I absolutely agree. What website doesn't have an online payment option? I want to join, but I hate having to "mail a check" or "fax shit". I'll join once they put up an online payment option.

Anyway, I'm glad someone is doing something on behalf of the adult industry. They'll get my 300$ as soon as they put an online payment option. Anyone who is on our side, deserves our support and $$$$

koolkat · 2005-06-18, 09:10 AM

While I think what the FSC is doing is great, I still have the problem with the fact that their injunction would only cover members of the FSC

Quote:

Originally Posted by FSC Website

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, only the parties to litigation are covered by an injunction. Therefore only the Free Speech Coalition and its members will be covered by an injunction and only to the extent the injunction restricts the government enforcement.

It makes me feel that if you don't join then they aren't looking out for you. And how exactly, if an injunction were issued, would myself (non-FSC member) and someone else(FSC member) be treated if we had exact duplicate webpages. They would not be required to maintain records while I would? That just doesn't make sense, and is the reason I haven't joined yet. If they are not looking out for all citizens, then I don't support that. If they were really seeking Free Speech, then they would do so for everyone, not just FSC members.

Lemmy · 2005-06-18, 09:28 AM

Koolkat, it doesn't make sense because it's BS. If the court grants an injunction against 2257 it will have effect for everyone who would have been subject to the law, that is, everyone in the United States.

SirMoby · 2005-06-19, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenXer

Anyway, I'm glad someone is doing something on behalf of the adult industry. They'll get my 300$ as soon as they put an online payment option. Anyone who is on our side, deserves our support and $$$$

They deserve our support but they don't deserve a fax? They can take your money. In order for them to get an on-line system working they will need to spend money, my money on the system and right now I would rather have them focusing thier attention on what really matters.

Send the damn fax and stop bitching.

Linkster · 2005-06-19, 04:33 PM

SirMoby - you would think with the senior members they have on their board of directors from AVN and ASACP that they would have planned to do that - which is just another reason that I still believe they have no concern here with the "lowly" webmasters but are just worrying about the top production companies and their distributors - and have stayed completely away from any communications with us - even the ones that are members

Useless · 2005-06-19, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirMoby

Send the damn fax and stop bitching.

Gee, you've won me over. Where do I sign up?

koolkat · 2005-06-19, 09:42 PM

Like I already mentioned, the fact that they are saying that any legal action they take will not affect non-members, so basically if I want it (injunction ruling in favor of webmasters) to cover me, then I need to join. Last time I checked, an injunction on a law covers everyone, not just the parties that filed for the injunction.

I could understand something like if a person got a speeding ticket, and the judge found the person not-guilty, it would affect only that one person, not everybody. But there are instances where the one person requests the calibration logs and finds out that the officer didn't calibrate his radar properly, so then the judge throws out all the speeding tickets that were issued by that officer. The latter would be the case here.

2005-06-18, 09:28 AM	#3
Lemmy You can now put whatever you want in this space :) Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Next door to a kid with a moped. Posts: 1,492	Koolkat, it doesn't make sense because it's BS. If the court grants an injunction against 2257 it will have effect for everyone who would have been subject to the law, that is, everyone in the United States. __________________ BUY MY PORNSITES!

2005-06-19, 04:33 PM	#5
Linkster NO! Im not a female - but being a dragon, I do eat them. Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Sex Delta Posts: 5,084	SirMoby - you would think with the senior members they have on their board of directors from AVN and ASACP that they would have planned to do that - which is just another reason that I still believe they have no concern here with the "lowly" webmasters but are just worrying about the top production companies and their distributors - and have stayed completely away from any communications with us - even the ones that are members __________________ Pussy Chompers Porn Links NSCash

2005-06-19, 09:42 PM	#7
koolkat Remember to rebel against the authorities, kids! Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: SC Posts: 401	Like I already mentioned, the fact that they are saying that any legal action they take will not affect non-members, so basically if I want it (injunction ruling in favor of webmasters) to cover me, then I need to join. Last time I checked, an injunction on a law covers everyone, not just the parties that filed for the injunction. I could understand something like if a person got a speeding ticket, and the judge found the person not-guilty, it would affect only that one person, not everybody. But there are instances where the one person requests the calibration logs and finds out that the officer didn't calibrate his radar properly, so then the judge throws out all the speeding tickets that were issued by that officer. The latter would be the case here. __________________ Harry Beaver's Lodge