For those of you waiting for an injunction on 2257...
 

I was just at a meeting of the FSC and I heard it from the horses mouth:

If there is an injunction filed by the Free Speech Coalition -- IT WILL ONLY COVER MEMBERS OF THE FSC. That is a fact. I disputed this yesterday with somebody on this board, but now have found this to be true. You could file your own injunction to avoid prosecution, but if you want to be part of the FSC injunction -- you need to be a memeber.

End of story.

http://www.freespeechcoalition.com

Thanks for the info XXXJAY. I plan to send them a nice donation this week. Upon getting an injuction would you know if they are required to submit a list of their donors/members to the DOJ to show which business/individuals are cover by the injunction?

Thanks Again,
Steve

It would be nice if they would get their site fixed to take online registrations again.

Jay, it depends on the type of injunction they intend to seek.

I am concerned that FSC is using this as a way to driver memberships, but doesn't seem to be much better than the actions of the other side either.

Alex

In theory a injunction only protects individuals covered in the lawsuit.
Historically, the DOJ has not started seperate prosecutions when an
injunction has been entered. That would show disrespect for the court
system and the judge who entered the injunction.

unfortunately, u have 2 use internet explorer (not firefox) for everything to go thru properly... i belive jay (or someone else associated w/FSC) mentioned they were working on fixing this in another post.



...

I'm not 100% sure I want the FSC to give the gov't my info...seems like that'd be a good list for them to use as a starting point if this goes thru :(

Jay, I think in reality it depends what type of injunction they are looking for and the motion they make - they could easily ask for the DOJ to be enjoined from taken ANY enforcement action.

If they challenge the validity of the law itself, and the court issues an injunction barring enforcement until such time as a court has reviewed the case, then ALL enforcement should stop. COPA, COPA II - the same thing has happened each time.

With a specific on point ruling (sundance vs reno) saying that this type of action doesn't pass the smell test in a federal court, an injunction should be a fairly easy and clear thing to obtain.

FSC is a great group, but for some reason I catch a wiff of opportunism in the air.

Alex

I spoke to the Executive Director, Michelle, yesterday and was told that our information is not shared. Not sure how that works in terms of an injunction. And was also advised that the online payment option should be up and running by Tuesday. She said Monday then I reminded her that Monday is Memorial Day.

Anyhow, they have a toll-free number and added more people to handle calls. Call them if you have questions.

Gee... I thought the FSC, by virtue of its very name, was designed to protect free speech, not only its card-carrying members. Sounds to me like a ploy to get members and increase revenues, and that doesn't exactly give me the warm fuzzies.

Jay ya sure about this I am a member of FSC now but this doesnt seem right. I don't know a law that covers only certain people or exclude certain people. Maybe im a dumbass but just doesnt seem to sound right. That would be like a group of D A M M drunks against madd mothers saying we have an injunction on the drunk driving rule so we can drive drunk.

But if in fact the regs are changed due to an injunction does that not then cover everyone sublect to the law? They don`t make two tired laws for members and non mebers.

Not to say that a contribution to FSC would`nt be a good thing otherwise.

2257 is the new buzzword |shocking|



..

If you visit the front page of the FSC website, it says right there, I think in the last paragraph, that what Jay says is true... the injunction will only involve FSC members.

Keeping in mind that IANAL, I suspect that this may be due to practices regarding class-action lawsuits in which a bunch of individuals are lumped into a group and that group is given a "name" for the purposes of filing (as opposed to listing each name individually). The lawyers for this group know who all the individuals are, but it's my understanding that information is not made public in court.

After further thought today, it's my belief that the FSC will have a lot more leverage if they approach this from the point of view of a given number of "clients" rather than the "you can't do this to adult webmasters you big bullies" angle. This is a little distressing to me as I'm not in a position to pay their membership fees at this moment in history, but regardless of who they are specifically identifying as clients/defending/going to bat for, any success they achieve will absolutely affect us all and that is a good thing.

Someone else may have more information, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it :D

Ok now I was just talking with my old roomate who is a paralegal and she works on the federal level.

I'll have her come over here and signup and post she is reading the whole law again top to bottom

"Therefore only the Free Speech Coalition and its members will be covered by an injunction and only to the extent the injunction restricts the government enforcement. "

This statement might be true in other non federal law cases but it will not apply here as this is already a federal law and any adjustments or injunctions will affect the whole country not just one or two certain groups of people. This law can be amended but cannot include or exclude certain parties.

That would be like a law being passed that its legal to smoke pot if your name is green guy but if your name is cleo its againt the law to smoke herb.

And if this statement was true how would the government know who to prosecute and who not to prosecute Unless Your names are handed over to the feds.

I've been following this thread with great interest.

I'm certainly not a lawyer, but if an injunction is issued by a court against the proposed 2257 law, common sense (at least IMO) dictates that the result will have effect for everybody, not just the party who actually filed for an injunction.

True. But, what does common sense have to with law and government? |dizzy|

Heh. It often looks that way, doesn't it.

The one thing keeping me moderately sane right now is my belief that, ultimately, it does make sense, and it does work. There are a lot of ways for any of us to get run through the wringer, but ultimately the US legal system works, most of the time. We only hear about the times when it goes terribly, terribly wrong.

No, I'm not lying in a field of daisies drawing sweet, sweet relief from a well-stocked hookah. Just another anxious webmaster trying to find my zen place.

As long as we have a religious fundamentalist/nazi/retard for president, probably very little. :(

It makes no difference if it covers members only. You should join no matter what because they're the best chance of keeping our freedoms safe and allowing you to feed your families.

What a cop-out.

Exactly what am I copping out of? I donated just like you.

If the DOJ did get a list of names from the FCS who do you think they'd go after 1st? The people trying to fuck with them (at least in the eyes of the DOJ) or start with everyone in the world?

Greeny I donated just like you too but I wonder about a few things.

When I read this statement from FSC page "Therefore only the Free Speech Coalition and its members will be covered by an injunction and only to the extent the injunction restricts the government enforcement. "

It makes me think back to the letter I got from acacia awhile back Pay Patent fees now and we wont prosecute you.

Its almost the same scenario Pay Donation fees and Become a member and avoid prosecution.

Maybe I'm fucked up but thats the way I see it. This statement will prolly bring alot of negative replies but thats Ok I can take a good flaming once in awhile.

guitar_riff...I agree with you.

I am actually hesitating to join the FSC now, because of that bullshit clause. I smells too much like Mafia 'protection' to me. At the minimum, it's naked opportunism and smells of greed. If it's wasn't, why didn't they mention they would file an injuction only for members until thirty days before the law takes effect? They have been planning a challenge since Ashcroft announced changes LAST YEAR.

Sounds like they want a panic and stampede of webmasters to their checkbooks.

I think maybe I'll just switch business models and send my $300 to the ACLU. (Make that $1200...FSC wants three hundred per site).

Did everyone think that the FSC was doing this out of the goodness of thier hearts?

I think they're a bunch of hot shot lawyers trying to make some coin. I don't care if they're using scare tactics or not. Not only are they trying to protect my family but they're also trying to protect the rights of every US citizen under The Constitution.

One group is anti-American and the other is greedy. Which one is defending your freedoms and protecting your ability to put food on your table?

Stop complaining about scare tactics and face the facts. They're not doing this as charity. They're doing it to make dollars but they're doing it!

SirMoby nails it.

They're lawyers and at their base they're a business designed to make money. They're wanting to make money off you.

But who fucking cares?

They're performing a service no one else in this country wants to perform for you. If it costs you some coin that's the way it rolls.

:)

Wasn't that who acacia was too a bunch of lawyers trying to make some coin LOL!!!

They thrive on the ignorance of people I guess.

Wouldn't it be ignorant to think that lawyers spent all that time in law school to do charity work?

Personally, I think they will start with some of the extreme producers first on an obsenity case, but will use 2257 as a backup.

I haven't heard the ACLU say anything about this, so that is a waste of your money.

The Feds do not usually try and prosecute laws that are injoined, so even if you are not a member it will help.

I'm getting really sick of people getting so divided and so fucking cheap when this is such a big issue.

If you don't want to get behind the FSC, then don't. If it wasn't for them, we would all just be scrambling to get our paperwork together waiting for the deadline to expire on the 23rd.

If this (your) business is shut down by 2257 then I truely believe you (we) deserve it.

First off, I didn't say the ACLU was going to weigh in on this. However, they defend non-members if they believe the government is assaulting the principles of their charter. They don't require you to carry their membership card to benefit from their services. They likely won't go near 2257, but at least they don't muscle people last minute on membership fees.

Second of all, I believe the FSC is a NON-PROFIT institution. Am I wrong? Non-profits muscling for pay like a private lawyer is bullshit.

Thirdly, I have never had a problem paying lawyers or anyone else for their services, so don't lump me in with penny pinching freeloaders. I have paid out over three thousand in the last three years for private and business lawyers fees. Another $1500 was paid last week.

I do take offense at a non-profit acting like a for-profit institution. If they aren't a non-profit, then I am wrong. If they ARE a non-profit don't make excuses for them wanting to make extra coin. If they wanted to make it all about the money, they should have gone into private practice and pay the same tax rate as any other bunch of lawyers.

I just double checked the FSC's website. They claim to be a mix of non-profit and for profit institutions.

If you want to make it about the cash...pull the non-profit from your tax status.

The Red Cross is non-profit to. Perhaps they will just not help out folks who didn't contribute to them?

Or is it that you just don't understand what non-profit institutions are?

i think the ACLU would love this case, i was involved in a federal ACLU lawsuit along time ago and they were great. I called my local office saturday and left a message hope to hear from them soon. when i was involved in the 1st amendment federal lawsuit they took care of everything and didnt ask us for a cent we had a huge top law firm etc and we won. I went to FSC's website i didn't see any prices, do you have to call to get them? p.s. it is a dotcom not a dotorg so i asumed they were for profit.

Aren't they already doing that with the Extreme Associates thing?

And I'm still wondering exactly what I copped out on |confused|

If I wasn't a member of the FSC, then you could call that a cop out.

If I wasn't linking to them in my sig (it rotates) then you could call that a cop out.

But me being concerned that my name is on a list that the DOJ might see - that's a cop out?

ummmm... i sorta understand where u r coming from but i think u r looking at it the wrong way. these cats have clients but everything they do (including actions outside of the scope of client billing) costs $$$. i don't mind throwing a couple hundred dollars their way to help them. that's the whole point... its not like they r trying to make a fortune or demand a certain amount.

i know all about how much profit is in "non-profit" so that classification in itself means nothing. if you don't want to send'em some dough... DON'T. plain & simple.


...

It seems you are confusing non-profit with charity work. The two have nothing in common.

It seems you don't want to donate to the cause and that's your choice. Why bitch about the situation when others are going to pay your way for you? Come on, you're getting a free ride so what's to bitch about?

Ok Everyone Should Go Out and Just Hire a Lawyer and be Done with it let them and the FSC and the ACLU do their shit.

And just and FYI its good to get a lawyer for yourself in this matter anyhow because it is illegal in a shitload of counties to posess porn if they want to be Pricks they will. once you post your name and address on your sites for records inspection. Lets say for example the mayor needs to get of wanking before lunch so he surfs your site and sees your a hometown porn pusher well Golly Gee Jester theres a hometown boy we can get some money from and we can house him in our new All expense paid secure facility with bubba. And he will explain how he found you was by some anonymous tip.

Alot of people didn't think about this I bet. Check Your Local Statutes and see if porn is actually illegal to posess or redistribute in your county or town. Because is easy now to hide but when you have to post the info it wont be easy anymore.


For Example I live in the Keystone and this county it is legal but in the next county it's not.

GR: You are spotting what is the biggest danger to individual porn webmasters: Local, county and state ordinances against porn or porn related businesses. I am confident that with the DOJ requiring secondard producers to identify themselves, and indentify their locations, that this information will be used to apply those laws.

How many porn webmasters live in an area with a "no adult buisness within 1000 yards of a school" law? Clark County (home of las vegas) has very restrictive rules on sex businesses... if I lived and worked from home there, I would be concerned that this could happen.

If I was operating in New York City, I would have the same fear. The Mayor there has successfully used zoning laws to move all the porn out of times square. Do you think it might apply to you too?

It's not fun.

Alex

PS: Just for bill: federal butt slamming prison!

They don't do a lot of butt slamming in woman's prisons.

i am gonna bullshit talk here, in holland we have freedom of speeche, now that whole 2257 thing is driving me nuts i am just from yesterday back on the net and i have the feeling i was away for years, oh yeah i dont mind to donate to the thing xxxjay is talking about, now my thinking and believe me they wont do it, do you realy think the us goverment will go after the small webmasters first? if they are realy going for that new 2257 wouldnt it be easier to type porn in google ses and look what pops up first, believe me it are not the small webmasters, now the foreign webmasters even they use us host and sponsors, it will cost huge money to go after them, yeah right i have to exepct someone from us law at my door in holland to say hey, you are not by the us rules! it will cost the us millions, and geuss what those foreign webmasters will have it that way that the us wont manage to get money from us, we are not stupid ( well some of us are not) do i care about the new 2257, yes i do , do i wanna play by the rules ? yes i do, but does that mean i have to join FSC...well i wont mind that, but saying FSC will only speak for those who have joined FSC is bullshit, that is calling ....getting members, and if i have insulting someone by saying this ..i am sorry, but thats how i see it. and yes i can also see the other side....alot will wait what FSC will manage to do that by the people who surporting them.......so i can see 2 ways..Hey i told you i would talk bullshit in this post..........i need to review now:D