Freedom Isn't Free! Fuck the FSC!

[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