"Political Influence of Adult Sites" and "Free Speech Coalition" pressure.

[Bill]

These two threads are dealing with related issues:

http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/...ad.php?t=28115
Do you think our adult sites have any political influence

http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/...ad.php?t=28269
So, I have been thinking about this - Cambria Struggles in Senate Porn Hearings

And I thought some folks here might want to discuss them together.

The first thread led to some discussion of writing a position statement from adult webmasters about the current political concerns.

The second thread brought up voluntary content rating and pressuring the Free Speech coalition to start a genuine and functioning internet department.

These two things are strongly related, and they all have to do with adult webmasters beoming more politically powerful and effective.

I thought we should discuss them together.

It won't be long before it will be time to pay our next years dues for the FSC. Those dues constitute our primary pressure over that old school organization. I think we should talk about what we can do to get the FSC to be a better representative for our concerns.

And, writing some kind of position statement about our concerns, which is the big idea of the first thread about political influence, is a big part of getting the FSC to really represent us, and of becoming more politically savvy in general.

So, do we want to continue discussing these topics?

[Mr. Blue]

Brilliant! We don't really need to form a second organization for porn webmasters (as that will be unlikely to happen), but we can sway the FSC with our membership dollars into being a vehicle for our cause. Great idea!

[RawAlex]

I guess the biggest issues you will see going forward is that the only online issues that FSC seems willing to get involved in are those that also directly affect the video industry. They are old school in that way of thinking.

The good news? Continued convergence between the video and the online world means that soon enough, our issues will be there issues. If the FSC was a actionary rather than reactionary organization, I think they would be well placed to get the dialog between the parties up and running and make the world go around.

At this point, nobody with knowledge really appears to speak directly for the online industry. Cambria's testimony in Washington shows someone who is obviously well informed about the porn industry, but has little practical understanding of the online world beyond what he has been told or overheard in meetings. His answers often did not speak well or clearly for the online world. In fact, I felt that his words and intentions could be interpreted to show an attempt to torpedo the existing online industry, hoping for the consolidation and takeover of the online world by the video people.

FSC still has way too many connections and influences from the video world, and as such, I don't think can be clearly trusted to speak up for the issues of the online industry alone.

Alex

[DJilla]

Originally Posted by Bill

The first thread led to some discussion of writing a position statement from adult webmasters about the current political concerns.

The second thread brought up voluntary content rating and pressuring the Free Speech coalition to start a genuine and functioning internet department.

These two things are strongly related, and they all have to do with adult webmasters beoming more politically powerful and effective.

I thought we should discuss them together.

Absolutely correct, with a dash of mechanism to refine each one even further. Why the FSC isn't falling all over us and we now seeing that the combined direction of money and content delivery is all digital and coming straight into our hands... its obvious.

We can obtain an influence and should create these "position (s)" as well as influence how they are portrayed. With all the electronic PR steam full ahead along which lines originally mentioned in one of the threads above: about 'should a WM's link to space on his own site with his own statement or do we create a site and present a point of view?

[Tommy]

we could outline some things that we want action on and even sign a petition and give it to the FSC

[Bill]

It occurs to me that our first obligation is to research the Free Speech Coalition a lot more.

I know I have the tendency to think of the FSC as ignoring the online sector, but, at the same time, I don't know that we in the online sector have done a good job of talking to the FSC.

We expect certain very efficient online means of discussion. Message boards, for instance, let ideas move thru the online sector in hours or days. FSC doesn't have a message board, so it looks slow and kinda dumb to us.

But, they might be more interested in getting new blood and extra energy than we think.

So, the first task would be to research the FSC, to get names and addresses, and to get a better idea of their plans.

Which, BTW, could be part of the information needed for the 'adult webmasters statement' talked about in the political influence thread.

[Bill]

This looks like it might be a damn good first place to start applying pressure:

http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/contribution.php

" Due to technical difficulties, ordering online is temporarily unavailable. We apologize for the inconvenience. "

This has been my biggest bitch about the FSC from the beginning.

[Bill]

The big problem that occurs to me with the "position statement" is this:

Who hosts it? Who is willing to be the public figure representing adult webmasters in general?

This is one argument for having something that is posting on hundreds of individual domains, rather than a centralized statement.

But, a centralized statement is more likley to be taken seriously, to be found by many many surfers, and to be repeated, to become a meme.

This same "public figure" problem affects dealing with the FSC and all other attempts to gain some type of political power and influence.

The only 'public figure' I expect we could all agree on here is Greenguy. But that would be a tough job to try to foist on a nice guy.

Connor Young seems to be the other alternative.

[DJilla]

Originally Posted by Bill

The big problem that occurs to me with the "position statement" is this:

Who hosts it? Who is willing to be the public figure representing adult webmasters in general?

This is one argument for having something that is posting on hundreds of individual domains, rather than a centralized statement.

But, a centralized statement is more likley to be taken seriously, to be found by many many surfers, and to be repeated, to become a meme.

This same "public figure" problem affects dealing with the FSC and all other attempts to gain some type of political power and influence.

The only 'public figure' I expect we could all agree on here is Greenguy. But that would be a tough job to try to foist on a nice guy.

Connor Young seems to be the other alternative.

IMHO, Sometimes its a good idea to throw everythig at the wall and see what sticks and then refine that. A "public figure" might indeed be hard to come up with initially and even unnecesary at this juncture. Getting started is always the hard part but getting started with what we have I think is the easiest (a gazillion CPU cycles). A web site, everyones website, an official position, a modified official position can all be done at the same time.

What I'm thinking is that an "official position paper" can be carved and sculpted right here with the input of everyone over a period of time. This could go as a top post of a thread for those "in da biz". Not everyone is a great writer (link descriptions aside ) so if there was a "generic paper" they could cut and paste into their own site with a link to something more substantial that was hosted on its own site just like we have a link to WM info this would be a start.

The "generic paper" could be modified by WM's that had the inclination.
The "official paper" could be referenced by media, other boards, groups, by the link provided within the gneric papers on in dividual sites.

With the FSC, I think we need to first see where they are coming from and determine their willingness to bring us more actively into the fold and incorporate our point of view (s). Connor was cool, probably a good start.

[DJilla]

BTW, I've just emailed Connor Young with the "heads up" to these threads.

[DJilla]

Update: Thought I'd email Connor Young (FSC board member) and alert him to the many constructive thoughts and desires to "get involved" that have been demonstrated by many in these combined threads along with my own offer of help at the FSC website. By accident I emailed it instead to Tom Hynes/Commuication Director at FSC who forwarded it on to Connor.

Tom has sent me a very thoughtful and insightful return email that essentially outlines an ongoing effort now that the elections are over to really reach out to WM's and many of the issues we have. He has indicated that either he or Connor (or both) will be posting here soon. I hope our reactions will be engaging. Let's try to not complain too much and see if we can't really get this relationship going.

[Bill]

Excellent job, Djilla!

I'll be back later on today to add a few more notes and thoughts.

[Tom Hymes]

Hey. Tom Hymes here from the FSC.

Sorry in advance for this loooooooong post, but my son is 2 today and we're going out, so I won't be able to hang around today.

Djilla actually sent me an email, which I replied to and forwarded to Connor, who should be showing up to post also.

I was actually alerted to this series of threads yesterday, but was swamped and not able to get here to post until now.

This is an awesome thread. So many good ideas, so many experienced voices weighing in. I read some posts late last night to a couple of FSC board members, to hammer home points that I've been making and to show them the level of... um, intercourse.

Board dialogue that results in a consensus decision is of course difficult, if not impossible, but I don't think that's the point. As has happened here, a discusssion takes on a life of its own, and if most people stick to the issue at hand a valuable progression of ideas unfolds. Now we need to figure out how to follow up on it.

I would just like you to know that there are people at FSC who take Internet issues very seriously, and have for a very long time. The old days of a video-centric org are over, but the fact remains that we are an association in transition. There are no obstacles to webmasters getting involved here, running for the board, joining one of the committees, or helping out in other ways. We just had BoD elections, but very few people ran, and there was not much interest from internet folk. I was kind of surprised, but I figure there's always next year.

I tell you right now, I have specific plans for getting our message out into mainstream media unfiltered through a reporter's sensibility. I'm sick and tired of being dependant upon them, hoping that they are fair, and usually being disappointed. Even in the best circumstances, the message is always tweaked. But I have a plan, and if it unfolds as it should, mainstream news alerts should include our articles now instead of just MSM and religious right propaganda. When that happens, I'll be looking to expand the chorus of voices that fully represent who we are.

We are also now lobbying in Washington, with a new lobbying group, the Raben Group, very cool, smart people who have a long history working with civil rights groups and are eager to get our message across. Did I say message, singular? I think we all know that one message does not fit all, and that we are in fact a cross-section of opinions and perspectives.

Likewise, do all the members of FSC have the same interests? No. Does FSC favor one group over another; say, a huge powerful video or Web company over a single webmaster working out of his/her home? As hard as it will be for some of you to believe, the answer is emphatically no. The fact is, we care deeply about every level of member, and I would say almost obsessively about the most vulnerable. I have seen it with my own eyes, when we could have taken positions that served the interest of big comapnies to the detriment of smaller ones or individuals, how determined the legal staff was to protect the weakest member, and I was very impressed and more than a little surprised.

So we have to somehow speak to the needs of all our members, and over the past year the membership base has expanded to include people who would never have considered joining, many of course because of 2257.

I am always available at tom@freespeechcoalition.com and Connor is too at connor@ynot.com. But we'd like to ramp up the dialogue, and get more aggressive about hearing what you think we should be doing, what our lobbyists need to know when they speak on your behalf in D.C.

What about an informal get together at Phonix Forum, where we can listen to you and maybe, maybe come to some sort of consensus about these issues? We can't of course have a thousand cooks making the meal, but we can try to take all your recipes and come up with a solid foundation of policies and proposals that represent the needs of webmasters without giving away any of our cherished rights, or give something away without getting something back in return!

Anyway, I'll be there, so we can do it as a group or people can hit me up one by one, or in an email. If emailed I usually reply with all my contact info and am then the easiest guy on the planet to reach.

And by the way, we are on record here as favoring filtering IN solutions, like .KIDS or tagging child-appropriate sites, but I am also on record as supporting both that and a code for use by adult webmasters that the filters will recognize. I am conviced that making such a code available on a voluntary basis takes the issue off the table and allows us to focus on solutions that may actually work. If it is misused by ISPs or other gateways, poof, the code goes away and we can say as a fact and with a straight face that we tried, but we are not going to stand for being censored at anything but the end user level. Period. I say, make good faith efforts, find a balance with what you are willing to do, never give away the store, support responsible business practices, and leave options available if your enemies try to violate your core rights. We will ten support legislation that targets actual behavior that all (or most) agree is egregious and illegal, and put the onus (or anus) where it belongs

We need to hear what you think those responsible business practices should be. I know that a lot of people want to censor the speech of others, arguing that the extreme stuff puts them in a bad light, but I can tell you right now that we abhor censorship of any kind and consider it an insidious cancer that kills the entire body in the end. But short of measures that encroach on others reasonable rights, we are open to all suggstions. In the near future, we will be querying our membership for their opinions on these and other issues, but feel free to let me know now if you like.

And again, sorry for the long post.

Tom

[Bill]

Hello Tom - first of all, I want to say thank you for coming by and talking with us. It's clear from your words that you've been thinking about these questions even before coming here and that is immensely gratifying.

Even tho the FSC has been in existence for a long time, the organization is still a new and unknown entity to most of the online sector. 2257 brought the online sector and the FSC closer together than ever before. This presents an oppurtunity to everybody. There are some big fights coming up, fights over legalities and fights over principles, fights over the right to conduct business. There's never going to be a better time to get started on working together and getting prepared for the struggle that's coming.

Onliners have had a very easy time of things the last six years, we haven't had to be that political, and we haven't had to be very unified. A certain degree of dispute, disagreement, bickering, and bitching is just business as usual for us. So, hopefully the FSC can bear with the amount of daily disagreement we take for granted. And bear with us while we try to figure out how we want to do the political thing, because it's new for us.

---

To start, I want to make one suggestion to you that I think everyone here would agree with. We'd like to see improvements to the website, to have the website modernized a bit. An online system for accepting memberships and contributions would probably be the most important thing, and something that allows quicker two way communications, like a blog. A blog would cost almost nothing, but it would require some human attention on a regular basis. An online system for accepting credit cards will cost something to install, but it should pay for itself very quickly if properly promoted.

So, we'd kinda like to talk with your webmaster and see what has to happen to get some improvements made.

---

Again, thank you very much for coming by.

[furrygirl]

I'm not personally into the idea of one figurehead. No one person represents all sides of the adult internet, and no one would be able to agree on one person to trust.

As I said in one of the other threads, I really believe in having a number of different voices to be most effective, including women and performers. Yes, we horny cocksuckers can string words together, and you're only shooting yourself in the foot to limit yourselves to seeking out figureheads who are well known male webmasters. (Not to say that Conner or Greenguy wouldn't make great participants in such a project, but everyone needs to think outside the boy's club.)

I'm down for working on something like this. How about Seska, Tasty Trixie, Darklady, Violet Blue, or Heather Corinna? Or bigger names like Nina Hartley, Annie Sprinkle, and Tristan Taormino? Has anyone heard of any of these kick-ass women in adult and the personal fights many of them have fought to try and make adult better and speak out on behalf of porno?

(And how about throwing in some gay and trans people as well? While I'm not in gay circles, I'm sure there are wonderful people there, as well, who have even more stigmas and neo-con bullshit to battle.)

I think people are getting confused about their opponents in this matter, and forgetting that only half the argument against porn is based on protecting children. The other half is based on protecting women, and as someone who devotes no small amount of time to feminist/gender/sexuality studies, I know that a group helmed by a man who's never been in front of a camera wouldn't be received well by many women, intellectuals, and people on the liberal/left side of things. And yes, liberals and lefties *do* hate smut, too. Nothing confounds the shit out of them like having a porn chick back-sass their perfectly formed notions about how women need someone to protect them from themselves.

[Bill]

Well, I don't think we are anywhere near the point where we are defining figureheads and representatives. Altho I tend to agree with the points you make, especially the idea that having women speaking for porn publishing is particularly effective.

I like the idea of Tristan Taormino as a representative - she's an excellent writer and speaker.

Are you referring to what I was saying about 'who hosts the position statement'? I think it would be a good idea to have a woman hosting it, and serving as the contact point for it.

Altho, I think there's a real possibility that it could become a hard job, and that whoever does it might find themselves on the sharp end of "fifteen minutes of fame".

---

On a related note, I thought Tom Hymes statement about censorship and extreme materials was very interesting. It started me thinking - I don't know if there is a clear and concise "position statement" that I've seen for the Free Speech Coalition.

But I like the idea of a fierce constitutional position, especially nowadays when the constitution seems to be the neocons favorite kicking boy, just another rag that obstructs their "war on terror" or "war on drugs" or "war on women" or "war on porn" or whatever the "war du jour" happens to be.

[DJilla]

Originally Posted by furrygirl

I'm down for working on something like this. How about Seska, Tasty Trixie, Darklady, Violet Blue, or Heather Corinna? Or bigger names like Nina Hartley, Annie Sprinkle, and Tristan Taormino? Has anyone heard of any of these kick-ass women?

The other half is based on protecting women

Nothing confounds the shit out of them like having a porn chick back-sass their perfectly formed notions about how women need someone to protect them from themselves.

Very good points! Personally, I have found that a well spoken women in conservative dress that is calm and clear always makes the best "spokesperson" and is commonly received better by a public than her gender counterpart. BUT, I would seriously suggest that there should be a context and manner without militancy, no bashing, no attack style, no overt feminism (you try not to attach additional potential irritants to an already irritable subject to the people you're speaking too hence conservative style and look). Again, its all about the "message in a wrapper". I'm all for a female (s) voice, face, front, whatever. All she/they have to do is step forward.

Which brings me to my next point: As these posts (and the one also going on about labels and metatags is a perfect example) develop themselves into "good rounded ideas" and a seeming general agreement begins to appear, all it takes is someone to step up and begin doing some work on the project that interests them and other people will fall in line to help and support. Don't necessarily need to wait for someone to be "appointed". Like the Nike commercial used to say "Just Do It"! Do the work and then report back here or start a thread asking for feedback and reporting on updates. For example, I'm going to follow up on preliminary emails with FSC re: a webpage that will outline examples in the history and consequences of government (and religious) censorship. If they don't want to host it I'll put it on one of my own mainstream sites. The same can go for the technical subject of tags with someone of that experience. All it takes is contact. Its amazingly easy (and interesting) to reach out and contact people who count and can exert influence. Collect position papers, suggest changes, etc. There are staffs at W3, MS & MSN, Google, and the like whose whole job is to respond to things like this with position papers and the like. Anybody can begin to move them forward by just tickling a little. This is the preliminary or reaguard actions that are needed for any "movement" to be successful. IMHO

Also One More Idea For Individual Action: it has been my experience that reporters are a generally fun, easy going, and approachable group more than willing to exchange info and resources. If you know any or like a particular one's writing, email them and begin to cultivate a relationship that you can feed into down the road. The important point to remember is that one is representing a large group when they speak or write upon these subjects and you/they have the responsibility to always tone down one's personal point of view and soften it to include the larger group's perspective.

[furrygirl]

Originally Posted by DJilla

Don't necessarily need to wait for someone to be "appointed". Like the Nike commercial used to say "Just Do It"!

I don't think I'm the only one who does take small actions all the time. I am out about being a pornographer to everyone but my landlord and bank, from grand parents to people I meet on buses and on non-adult boards. (The reason I don't tell me bank or landlord is because I am not willing to risk being out a bank account and a place to live, which puts be out of business.) I have been in countless discussions about the industry with people who range from fascinated by the glitzy world of porno to those who believe I am no better than a rapist ans treat me as such. I see many of the women I mentioned above also taking on such discussions, but I don't think they're as widely read by webmasters as say, Conner Young.

I think that the best personal action anyone can take is to tell even one friend/family member about what they do. The reason that there's this image of pornographers as waiting around high school parking lots trying to drug and trick girls into fucking on camera is that very few of us are willing to counter that. I certainly do not look like someone who makes "extreme porn", I look like a nerdy college student who dresses relatively conservatively. I'm not outing myself to *everyone* in my life, but the more people who we all come out to, the more we shatter stereotypes about who we are.

Originally Posted by DJilla

BUT, I would seriously suggest that there should be a context and manner without militancy, no bashing, no attack style, no overt feminism (you try not to attach additional potential irritants to an already irritable subject to the people you're speaking too hence conservative style and look). Again, its all about the "message in a wrapper". I'm all for a female (s) voice, face, front, whatever. All she/they have to do is step forward.

I'm not sure if it's how you meant it, but I could read that to say that you're not interested in feminist perspectives, just a woman to say what the guys would be saying. Involving women in any project like this involves taking into account their own perspectives, and for many of us females in adult, that perspective includes the big scary F-word.

Anti-sex and anti-porn feminism has slowly been dying out, and the "new wave" tends to embrace sexuality and smut a lot more than we did 30 years ago. My personal sum of being a feminist is that all women should do whatever they want with their own bodies, and that anyone telling them otherwise needs to mind their own business. (Be it anti-abortion lawmakers, homophobes, or people who don't think women should be allowed to fuck for money, or fuck before marriage.)

It amazes me that some women who tout themselves as "feminists" believe that their job is to tell other women how they are supposed to live and what they're allowed to do. Excuse me? Makes no sense, but it's a part of our "nanny culture" in America.

So, while a lot of people might only be thinking of Andrea Dworkin when they conjure up the image of "feminist", "feminism" really isn't something to be afraid of and dismiss as some out-there militant bull dyke idealism. And trust me, if having "women can do what they want to do with their own bodies" sounds too radical as a part of a pro-porn project, remember how extreme it is in many eyes, in and of itself, to be a pornographer.

[docholly]

It amazes me that some women who tout themselves as "feminists" believe that their job is to tell other women how they are supposed to live and what they're allowed to do. Excuse me? Makes no sense, but it's a part of our "nanny culture" in America.

REAL feminists don't label themselves. They act, live and do.

[SirMoby]

Please, this can still be a good thread. There is no reason to be discussing feminists here unless the goal is to kill another productive thread.

[walrus]

SirMoby, thank you for that reminder. It saved me from getting into something I probably shouldn't!

By the way, the FSC does have a pretty interesting / funny article about how the media got the govt / google search subpoena thing wrong which I think I shall link to from one of my blogs. http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/

[Bill]

Something that I think would be worthwhile to do in this thread is to "brainstorm" a bit about what we would like to see happen between us and the FSC.

By brainstorming I mean just throwing in quick ideas, to create a list of things to talk about. These brainstorm ideas don't have to be anything special or thought out - they are just there to get discussions started.

1. For instance, here's an idea. We know FSC will bitch about the cost of revamping their website. So we have a fund&skills drive here at GG&J, pull together the few thou and the workers it will take to give them a CC processor and a blog. In exchange the FSC puts a banner to GG&J on their website, making GG&J the "official" cool webmaster board.

If anybody else has any ideas - and they don't have to be especially serious - of what the FSC can do for us, just toss them into the hat.

[RawAlex]

Well, here is my 2 cents... FSC was in the position to appoint one new person to the board after the elections (an open space, I guess) and rather than adding from the online world, they added from the video world.

This while most of the legal action is surrounding online porn.

I shake my head.

Alex

[Bill]

Well, I tend to believe that the FSC is getting most of it's money from the video and bookstore crowd.

So, it doesn't surprise me that they would bend over backwards to please the 'whale' donors.

I tend to believe that the online sector is making less money overall than it would like to think. And, that the sponsors don't contribute much, leaving the mom and pop webmaster types to pony up the dues and the contributions.

What we onliners have to offer is speed, numbers, and a certain loud-mouthedness. I think we are going to have to be agressive with the FSC to get what we want - representation.

[MadMax]

We'd need someone from the online community to actually run for the FSC board in the next election.