2257 Injunction has been filed

[GenXer]

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]

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

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]

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.

[CaptainJSparrow]

Candy, you make a very good point.

[Jim]

Have you guys noticed that the little that the mainstream press is writing about this is about how we are panicking? And not a lot about the government coming after us.

[Jim]

I hate to think that "the sky is falling" mentality is what fuels the mainstream stories but it sure looks that way.

To me, the less said, the better.

[SirMoby]

Originally Posted by xxxjay

Yeah, I am considering donating webmastering services. They just emailed all members though.

You should donate your services as a press secretary. A 15 minute phone call and a 5 sentence email to the AP would have had great impact on the public opinion which is badly needed here.

A press release should have been made notifying the public that the privacy of 100,000s of innocent Americans will be destroyed by this regulation. That we are fighting to uphold the 1st and 4th amendments because if we do not then we are one step closer to the thing that countless Americans have died to protect. If this passes then they could easily be next.

Instead the press just announced that we’re a bunch of lazy fucks and the American public should support new regulations.

[SirMoby]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by SirMoby

Send the damn fax and stop bitching.

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

[koolkat]

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.

[Maj. Stress]

koolkat,
The way an injunction ruling was explained to me was that the injunction covers the party(s) that brought forward the legal action. The judge may decide at that time, that the injunction should cover everyone (the entire industry in this case).
I have also been told that it is common practice not to enforce any law that has an injunction against it out of respect for the judge and his court.
Not sure since I'm not a lawyer. That's just the explanation I got.

[xxxjay]

Originally Posted by Jim

Have you guys noticed that the little that the mainstream press is writing about this is about how we are panicking? And not a lot about the government coming after us.

I agree, the DOJ can look at any webmaster board (I know for a fact that they are) and see this.

I'm sure they love it.

[koolkat]

Originally Posted by Maj. Stress

koolkat,
The way an injunction ruling was explained to me was that the injunction covers the party(s) that brought forward the legal action. The judge may decide at that time, that the injunction should cover everyone (the entire industry in this case).
I have also been told that it is common practice not to enforce any law that has an injunction against it out of respect for the judge and his court.
Not sure since I'm not a lawyer. That's just the explanation I got.

I would like to know how the government could enforce a law if they were ruled against for someone else. I just don't see how Person A and Person B have identical websites, but Person A has an injunction ruling in their favor while Person B does not. How can Person B be charged in violation of the law if it has been ruled that the law can't be used against Person A?

[WannaShagg]

Has anyone given any thought to the indentity theft crisis in this nation? So you are asking to freely give out people's personal info all over the internet. So maybe you can prove you are not using underage models but is the FBI going to be here for me when I have a line of horny stalkers at my door, are they going to be there for me when my indentity is stolen and credit ruined? I think this is going to create a huge problem with identity theft, personal info is new age gold. Why don't they pass legislation on protecting personal info first? Further more, it is still pretty disgusting that any child can just say yes I'm 18, I'll enter this site. Now I may be biting off my nose to spite my face, but wouldn't it be a more meaningful crusade to make sure kids don't have access to this stuff in the first place? Just being the devil's advocate. I just labled all my sites with ICRA, http://www.icra.org/, and did a test on my own sites. No computer with child protection software can get into my sites period. I am also going to first pay to affilaite myself with ASACP, http://www.asacp.org/index.php, before I pay to be a part of the Free Speech Coalition. I am already entitled to free speech, I am not going to pay for it. I do not shoot any other models. The only material I shoot is of myself. If a producer of purchased content represents to me that the model is over 18 and they are not, let the fuck that took the pictures go to jail. I will not be responsible and would never knowingly use such content, as is the case with all of us I can be sure. To date I know I have not. But I can not be implicated in a crime I didn't commit.

[Linkster]

there seems to be some confusion based on the last couple of msgs in this thread - the FSC file a TRO (temporary restraining order) which is NOT an injuction - big difference - and the TRO probably does only cover their members - although Id hate to be the DA that tried to side step that one

[WannaShagg]

Why don't we focus on what we can change? As webmasters we can concentrate on the things we can change. Test your site to make sure kids can't get into it. I found a cool tool for this here: http://mtas.surfcontrol.com/mtas/CPTAS.asp

"God grant us the serenity to accept the things we cannot change,
courage to change the things we can,
and wisdom to know the difference."

Let the producers and photographers worry about the age of the models they are using, becuase unless you are standing there with a camera, this is out of your control. Concentrate on what you can change. Start by making sure the little bastards can't get in your site. Thanks and have a great day.

[Lemmy]

While I'm willing to take reasonable steps to make sure kids can't access my sites this is first and foremost the parents' responsibility.

[Toby]

Originally Posted by Lemmy

While I'm willing to take reasonable steps to make sure kids can't access my sites this is first and foremost the parents' responsibility.

True, and by placing the ICRA pic-label meta on your pages you've provided a simple and effective means for parents to do that. Also, if it ever becomes necessary, I can show the judge that I've made a concerted effort to keep my content away from minors.

[Linkster]

I hate to piss in your wheaties here - but 2257 has nothing whatsoever with keeping kids away from porn sites on the net - that is a completely different legislation that was killed by the supreme court a few years back
And actually I think you will find most WMs do use the PICs label on their larger sites that would normally get into search engines etc

So I guess Im a little confused about what the hell all of this talk about PICs labels and joining the ASACP has anything to do with filing the 2257 TRO (not injunction as the thread states) Im not trying to be a jerk as I think they are both worthy causes and deserve their place in seperate threads

[Toby]

Yeah, the discussion has taken a bit of a left turn. Maybe we're all getting tired of discussing 2257?

[WannaShagg]

Originally Posted by Linkster

I hate to piss in your wheaties here - but 2257 has nothing whatsoever with keeping kids away from porn sites on the net - that is a completely different legislation that was killed by the supreme court a few years back
And actually I think you will find most WMs do use the PICs label on their larger sites that would normally get into search engines etc

So I guess Im a little confused about what the hell all of this talk about PICs labels and joining the ASACP has anything to do with filing the 2257 TRO (not injunction as the thread states) Im not trying to be a jerk as I think they are both worthy causes and deserve their place in seperate threads

I understand what it's about. I also have a right to privacy by not disclosing my personal info. I am a webmaster and a producer of my own images. I also have an affiliate program. So it is not that I am unaware of what this is all about. I am directly affected and will not give out my ID. It is also my contention that the burden of making sure a model is of age has been grossly misplaced. Ultimately a producer can make a fake ID, the model can give a fake ID. How am I supposed to know what I am looking at. So if passed to me, all might look just spiffy, when in reality it may not be a legitimate document. So if it is not real am I still going to jail? Furthermore, unless you are taking the pics you will be hard pressed to stop use of under age models. Suppose the reason the FSC is pursuing this issue is because they feel similarly. And in the end the adult webmaster should not bear the burden of verifying the legitimacy of a models age or documents as they can well be bogus. Instead, we should concentrate on what we can change like making sure under age surfers can't access our sites. The 2257 needs a good swift rethinking. On one had you have the right to privacy, what it's all about. And then the same supreme power that maintains you have this right, is trying to take it away. Place the burden of 2257 back where it belongs and let us worry about keeping minors out of our sites. If a shaddy producer is shaddy, then what would it matter to them what the age of the model is, or if they are providing us with credible documentation. This is why I say 2257 is putting the burden quite wrongly on people that have nothing to do with it. Focus on what is in our control, like ICRA lableing. And stop trying to violate my rights. Additionally FSC feels that thier rights are being discriminated against. So as citizens, we all have the same rights. So now the FSC is discriminating against anyone not supporting them. It's all a totally double edged sword. And all of us can be 2257 compliant to the nines, and it will not stop the use of under age models, becuase the crimianls doing it are no where near this board or 2257. Unless you are holding the camera you should not have to prove models ages. What you can do is make sure minors do not enter your sites. And of course use reasonible discretion and record keeping to ensure you are not knowingly distributing pics of minors. The ultimate responsibilty is the producers not mine. Thanks and have a great day.

[koolkat]

Injunction... TRO... it doesn't really matter. The point is that the FSC is playing the "sky is falling" scenario, and that if we don't pay money to join them, then we would are screwed because we can still be prosecuted, even if their members win. I think that is the biggest crock of shit, and as long as they are only doing this for their "members" and not all webmasters, then I will not give them one penny!