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

xxxjay · 2005-05-27, 12:48 AM

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

Steve · 2005-05-27, 12:59 AM

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

Chop Smith · 2005-05-27, 12:59 AM

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

RawAlex · 2005-05-27, 01:30 AM

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

xxxjay · 2005-05-27, 03:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RawAlex

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.

Qon · 2005-05-27, 04:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chop Smith

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

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.

...

Greenguy · 2005-05-27, 07:18 AM

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

RawAlex · 2005-05-27, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxjay

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.

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

PhoneMistress · 2005-05-27, 09:31 AM

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.

Wenchy · 2005-05-27, 11:26 AM

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.

guitar riff · 2005-05-27, 02:05 PM

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.

Robbo · 2005-05-27, 02:06 PM

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.

Qon · 2005-05-27, 06:42 PM

2257 is the new buzzword |shocking|

..

Wenchy · 2005-05-27, 07:59 PM

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

guitar riff · 2005-05-27, 09:51 PM

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.

Lemmy · 2005-05-27, 11:01 PM

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.

Trev · 2005-05-27, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lemmy

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?

Mishi · 2005-05-28, 05:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trev

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

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.

Lemmy · 2005-05-28, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trev

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

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

SirMoby · 2005-05-28, 03:37 PM

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.

xxxjay · 2005-05-28, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greenguy

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

What a cop-out.

Greenguy · 2005-05-29, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxjay

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?

guitar riff · 2005-05-29, 10:57 AM

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.

domweb · 2005-05-29, 11:05 AM

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).

SirMoby · 2005-05-29, 12:56 PM

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!

2005-05-27, 12:48 AM	#1
xxxjay You can now put whatever you want in this space :) Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: atlanta Posts: 1,787	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 __________________ Circle Of Violence

2005-05-27, 12:59 AM	#3
Chop Smith Eighteen 'til I Die Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Mississippi Posts: 2,168	It would be nice if they would get their site fixed to take online registrations again. __________________

2005-05-27, 07:18 AM	#7
Greenguy The Original Greenguy (Est'd 1996) & AVN HOF Member - I Crop Pics For Thumbs In My Sleep Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Blasdell, NY (shithole suburb south of Buffalo) Posts: 41,929	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 __________________ Promote POV Porn Cash By Building & Submitting Galleries to the Porn Luv Network

2005-05-27, 11:26 AM	#10
Wenchy Trying is the first step towards failure Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Mile High City Posts: 120	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. __________________ I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, "I drank what?"

2005-05-27, 02:05 PM	#11
guitar riff Asleep at the switch? I wasn't asleep, I was drunk Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: In a van Down by the river. Posts: 216	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. __________________ Join The Rage!!!

2005-05-27, 12:59 AM	#2
Steve Are you sure you're an accredited and honored pornographer? Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 61	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

2005-05-27, 01:30 AM	#4
RawAlex Took the hint. Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 5,597	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

2005-05-27, 09:31 AM	#9
PhoneMistress Operator! Give me the number for 911! Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Washington DC Posts: 138	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.

2005-05-27, 02:06 PM	#12
Robbo No matter how good you are at something, there's always about a million people better than you Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Greenguy County, NY Posts: 236	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. __________________ The hardest thing for an intelligent man to understand is stupidity.

2005-05-27, 06:42 PM	#13
Qon The only guys who wear Hawaiian shirts are gay guys and big fat party animals Join Date: May 2005 Location: HELL Posts: 170	2257 is the new buzzword \|shocking\| .. __________________ OP Links \| Webmaster Programs \| Thailand Dream Vacation Tour -

2005-05-27, 09:51 PM	#15
guitar riff Asleep at the switch? I wasn't asleep, I was drunk Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: In a van Down by the river. Posts: 216	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. __________________ Join The Rage!!!

2005-05-27, 11:01 PM	#16
Lemmy You can now put whatever you want in this space :) Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Next door to a kid with a moped. Posts: 1,492	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. __________________ BUY MY PORNSITES!

2005-05-28, 03:37 PM	#20
SirMoby Jim? I heard he's a dirty pornographer. Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 2,706	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.

2005-05-29, 10:57 AM	#23
guitar riff Asleep at the switch? I wasn't asleep, I was drunk Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: In a van Down by the river. Posts: 216	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. __________________ Join The Rage!!!

2005-05-29, 11:05 AM	#24
domweb I'm going to the backseat of my car with the woman I love, and I won't be back for TEN MINUTES Join Date: May 2004 Location: Midwest USA Posts: 85	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). __________________ gender enigma relaunching July 17. 2009...ish

2005-05-29, 12:56 PM	#25
SirMoby Jim? I heard he's a dirty pornographer. Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 2,706	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!