![]() |
Quote:
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 $$$$ |
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
Quote:
|
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.
|
Candy, you make a very good point.
|
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 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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Send the damn fax and stop bitching. |
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
|
Quote:
|
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. |
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. |
Quote:
I'm sure they love it. |
Quote:
|
Indentity theft crisis
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. |thumb
|
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
|
Test your site
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. |headbang| |
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.
|
Quote:
|
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 |
Yeah, the discussion has taken a bit of a left turn. Maybe we're all getting tired of discussing 2257? ;)
|
I think 2257 needs a swift overhaul
Quote:
|
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!
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:10 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© Greenguy Marketing Inc