Free Speech Coalition - who to vote for 2006 Board of Directors?

[RawAlex]

I don't think Joan is particularly well prepared to handle the rough and tumble world of chat boards and "instant opinion" that forms up on these boards. Her opinion on .xxx has waivered, and she has done that waivering in public, which is never good.

By definition, ASACP should have had NO opinion to start with on the subject (it doesn't affect them one iota). FSC should have had only one position ("it potentially limits free speech so it is bad"). That ASACP apparently had an opinion on .xxx made me wonder if the name change of the organization was also an indication of a grup becoming more political and less, well, useful (IMHO).

It's not a simple situation, but ASACP could have simply stayed out of it.

Alex

[DJilla]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

By definition, ASACP should have had NO opinion to start with on the subject (it doesn't affect them one iota).

I completely agree! I always thought it odd. But, I guess its kind of good that they are associated with FSC since it adds another sort of outside voice in support of their position (s)

I will do some research on the subject and post tidbits I find, but does anybody know if there is acrimony between FSC and ACLU? Seems they would/might be involved in this issue if only as a "friend of the court"? Guess they have their hands tied (pun intended) with civil rights of the "patriot" kind.

Finally, I've noticed a kind of undercurrent of unhappiness with the FSC, not just here but at other boards too. Nothing specific just a general kind of disregard. Maybe people could post here as to why or what they think about how the FSC has done so far?

[Surfn]

[SirMoby]

Originally Posted by DJilla

Finally, I've noticed a kind of undercurrent of unhappiness with the FSC, not just here but at other boards too. Nothing specific just a general kind of disregard. Maybe people could post here as to why or what they think about how the FSC has done so far?

I'm happy with the FSC. I'd like to see much better communications but the bottom line is that anyone that even looks at nude pictures much less makes a dollar from them should be happy with them.

I think in general us free wheeling webmasters don't like corporate types and many think that everything should be free. Many submitters bitch about paying for listings so why shouldn't they bitch about someone wanting money to save thier ass?

As far as I can tell the organization only recently got enough funding to do much of anything. It will probably take a couple of years before they have thier communication shit together. I wish it was different but do you want them to pay a full time employee about $50k a year to handle that? Would you rather that $50k went into lobbying and legal fees to fight those that hate freedom?

They are not a non-profit and they are not a charity. They need to make money just like you do. Surfers wish we would give away all porn for free so why don't we?

I'm tired of people bitching about the FSC. I've yet to hear anyone that's bitching come up with a better option.

There only seems to be 3 options right now.

1. Support the FSC either through joining or at least donating.

2. Freeload off of those of us that are paying for the fight.

3. Let those that hate freedom take it away. Once it's gone it's gone.

I'm sure if anyone wants to donate thier time to handle the communications and manage the web site that the FSC will be happy to put you to work for free.

[Chop Smith]

Originally Posted by SirMoby

IThey are not a non-profit and they are not a charity

FSC is a nonprofit 501(c)(4), however it does need money to be successful in their efforts.

As I recall it, the bitching was about a few board members encouraging folks to join or go to jail over 2257. Frankly, many of them were preaching to existing members and did not have a clue.

[SirMoby]

Originally Posted by Chop Smith

FSC is a nonprofit 501(c)(4), however it does need money to be successful in their efforts.

I did not know that. I'm always amased at how non-profits can operate.

[DJilla]

Originally Posted by DJilla

I will do some research on the subject and post tidbits I find, but does anybody know if there is acrimony between FSC and ACLU? Seems they would/might be involved in this issue if only as a "friend of the court"? Guess they have their hands tied (pun intended) with civil rights of the "patriot" kind.

Six pages deep on two different google searches and nothing of any real note regarding ACLU's stance/activity re: 2257.

See now I'm learning alot

Originally Posted by SirMoby

"They are not a non-profit and they are not a charity. They need to make money just like you do. Surfers wish we would give away all porn for free so why don't we?"

INTERESTING didn't know not a non prof!

Originally Posted by SirMoby

"I'm sure if anyone wants to donate thier time to handle the communications and manage the web site that the FSC will be happy to put you to work for free."

GOOD POINT! If I could make a little more money from this particular project, I swear I would and I'm definitely putting it on the back burner. I'm trying to learn a little more about them first. This should be an encouragement to those making some big biucks here to push harder to create a larger online presence at FSC, as a group we could really have an impact on a number of different levels. My assesment is that they are not nearly as effective in Public Communication as they could be. They NEED help.

Originally Posted by Bill

I think I'll add a letter to this ballot complaining about the lack of a better online presence for the FSC.

Yeah! Me Too, Right Now!

RawAlex, there's no point in even quoting you 'cause I find that we generally agree on a lot ie. "the big love regulation". I'm afraid that over the long term .xxx is an inevitablility. If many bible thumpers and right wing groups hadn't come out against it too I think it would have been a done deal already and everything you project would be on the way toward happening.

BTW, today announced that the stay on 2257 for FSC members extended to Dec30.

Slightly off topic but does anybody try NOT to read "All of 'Em" because if they did there would be no time to do anything else

[GonZo]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

I don't think Joan is particularly well prepared to handle the rough and tumble world of chat boards and "instant opinion" that forms up on these boards. Her opinion on .xxx has waivered, and she has done that waivering in public, which is never good.

By definition, ASACP should have had NO opinion to start with on the subject (it doesn't affect them one iota). FSC should have had only one position ("it potentially limits free speech so it is bad"). That ASACP apparently had an opinion on .xxx made me wonder if the name change of the organization was also an indication of a grup becoming more political and less, well, useful (IMHO).

It's not a simple situation, but ASACP could have simply stayed out of it.

Alex

And miss out on that potential money?
Lens posted that he thought it was a good idea too. All the sheep at the Zoo were rapid to suck his dick over it too.

Funny though he left the room in San Diego when the topic came up and I wanted to ask him to explain to us all how .xxx was a good idea.

Wonder what Playboy thinks?