Quote:
|
Originally Posted by guitar riff
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.
|
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
