Freedom Isn't Free! Fuck the FSC!

[PhoneSexChick]

I'm sure glad others are as pissed off about this whole FSC membership thing as I am. I had actually planned on joining up, but then got a little creeped out when rumors started that FSC members would be protected and nobody else would. I kept wondering, if this turns out to be true (which I kept doubting), how would DOJ know who's a member and who isn't? And if FSC eventually loses in court, would FSC members be more of a target?

So I decided to take a wait and see approach, and now I've seen. Total crap, IMO. And they make a point to say the membership list will be "under seal" and DOJ police won't see it. (Until when?)

So what, the feds will start showing up at places of business (in my case, my house, which is why I'm going softcore for awhile because I have too many stalking issues to put my address and real name online) and if you pull out an FSC card they'll say "Oh, pardon us, our mistake. Please accept this sticker for your window so we'll know we can't bother you until later. Pssst, anybody on your street that you know of who isn't a member?"

Right.

I'm so pissed about this there's no way I'm joining FSC now. This crap about having until Saturday night to join up? You've got to be fucking kidding me.

Call me paranoid, but there's just something really fucked up about this.

[chadknowslaw]

OMG! !

I am not the only FSC detractor!!!

This agreement rubs me the wrong way. In my OPINION< the agreement they have laid out would result in an unconstitutional violation of equal protection if the DOJ tries to enforce new 2257 regs against a non-member of the FSC. The government cannot selectively enforce laws!!
As a proud member [and former Board Member] of the ACLU, I cannot think of any case that the ACLU went to bat or fashioned an agreement that would only benefit its members. I cannot think of any case where Lambda Legal went to bat or tried to fashion an agreement that would only benefit its members. In fact, I cannot think of any advocacy group that has gone to court to fight ONLY for the rights of its members--they always benefit ANYONE in the plaintiff's class, whether they are a member of the group or not. However, the adult industry is not known for its cohesiveness or community spirit.

[Linkster]

Actually I was just thinking that the ACLU would love a piece of this one - against the FSC and DOJ as co-Defendents

[koolkat]

I'd rather spend the $300 for my own lawyer and know I was getting looked out for! I really wonder what is next with the FSC!

[Mr. Blue]

Originally Posted by Linkster

Actually I was just thinking that the ACLU would love a piece of this one - against the FSC and DOJ as co-Defendents

The ACLU stayed out of it because the FSC got there first...perhaps they'll enter the arena now. As for joining...Don't know, I'm as compliant as I possibly can get right now...will it delay inspections, yeah, but what about future actions? A list of all members that won't be inspected handed over to the DOJ somehow? Hmm, lol, the ACLU would have never made such a deal.

[Chop Smith]

Originally Posted by Linkster

Actually I was just thinking that the ACLU would love a piece of this one - against the FSC and DOJ as co-Defendents

I am not a joiner or a crusader but I just joined the ACLU. Now to figure out how to suggest they file against FSC and DOJ for selective enforcement which violates the 14th amendment.

[docholly]

Originally Posted by Chop Smith

I am not a joiner or a crusader but I just joined the ACLU. Now to figure out how to suggest they file against FSC and DOJ for selective enforcement which violates the 14th amendment.

way to go chop..

[Wenchy]

Originally Posted by chadknowslaw

OMG! !

I am not the only FSC detractor!!!

This agreement rubs me the wrong way. In my OPINION< the agreement they have laid out would result in an unconstitutional violation of equal protection if the DOJ tries to enforce new 2257 regs against a non-member of the FSC. The government cannot selectively enforce laws!!
As a proud member [and former Board Member] of the ACLU, I cannot think of any case that the ACLU went to bat or fashioned an agreement that would only benefit its members. I cannot think of any case where Lambda Legal went to bat or tried to fashion an agreement that would only benefit its members. In fact, I cannot think of any advocacy group that has gone to court to fight ONLY for the rights of its members--they always benefit ANYONE in the plaintiff's class, whether they are a member of the group or not. However, the adult industry is not known for its cohesiveness or community spirit.

No way are you alone, Chad... I'm so pissed I can't see straight!! Many, many people on this board have chastised others for fear mongering, but if this isn't a screaming example of that practice at it's finest, I'd like to know what is!

IMHO, it doesn't matter that the adult industry has issues with cohesiveness and/or community spirit. We're all in this boat together and the laws, applied or not, will affect each of us equally... anything less is absolute discrimination of the worst kind.

I can't even put into words my fury at this whole FSC debacle. Here we sit in a situation where potentially hundreds of people are losing a large portion of their income, and the FSC has balls enough to expect $300 PER REMAINING WEBSITE for their holy-rolling "protection"?!? What the fuck is that about? Some of us are trying to figure out how to replace our missing income... we certainly aren't in a financial position to be coughing up large sums of cash to a somewhat questionably intentioned group of lawyers who supposedly "represent the entire adult entertainment community". Bah!

I'm going to stop here as I've already made one reputation-destroying post on this matter in another thread... gotta save what's left of my rep and my brain for later on today or maybe even tomorrow