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

[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

[xxxjay]

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]

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?

[xxxjay]

Originally Posted by Greenguy

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?

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

[Greenguy]

Originally Posted by xxxjay

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

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?

[lassiter]

Originally Posted by Greenguy

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

Yep. I think the whole new 2257 flap is about the fact that the feds are very very scared to bring content-based obscenity prosecutions now, since, as the Extreme case showed, even a "conservative" district may find certain content "not obscene" thereby creating a bad precedent (from the feds viewpoint) for future prosecutions.

Whereas, the 2257 scheme is a "regulation," not a law, and therefore will be civil prosecution, not criminal. Under civil prosecution, the criterion is merely "preponderance of the evidence" so one cannot use the 1st amendment as a defense - the only question a lawyer can defend on or a jury can rule on is "was the webmaster in compliance with the written rules or not?" It's a much easier prosecution from the government's point of view, since ambiguous and flexible definitions like "what is obscenity" don't have to enter into the case. If your records aren't in order or you aren't home when the feds knock, you are automatically guilty without a judge or jury having to judge the content as obscene or not.