Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyWhiteBoy
Does Lawrence Walters and Gregory Piccionelli still support .XXX? What about Alex Helmy?
Those cats are heavy weights, and unless they did the same miraculous flip flop that the FSC did, I'd say we're up shit creek without a paddle.
Money Talks, Bullshit Walks. 
What is Tom's official stance? |
I believe Greg's stated position on .XXX did indeed change. He sat on a panel at the XBIZ summer show in 2007 as one of the "anti" voices, opposite Lawley and Robert Corn-Revere (ICM's attorney), but I recall him taking the other side (or perhaps a "neutral" position?) at Internext in Florida a year or two prior to that.
I don't know for certain what Larry's position on it is these days, but I'm assuming he's still for it, or at the very least a member of the "it can't hurt" camp.
Alec's stated position is that he's against .XXX -- I know a fair number of people harbor a lot of doubt as to whether he's really against it; I have nothing substantial or factual to add to the speculation related to his position, however, one way or the other.
Tom's official (and consistent since the beginning of the debate over .XXX) stance is against .XXX. Tom is also a board member of the FSC, so you will probably doubt the sincerity of that stance. ;-)
Connor is another who has made no bones about being strongly against .XXX from the very outset, but since he was a board member of the FSC for several years, you might not trust his opposition, either. (For Connor's sake, I wouldn't advise openly doubting him on this; he might drop from a spontaneous aneurysm in response, because his passion on this issue is unrivaled, as near as I can tell.)
DWB, while your general skepticism as to the FSC is understandable, in a .XXX context I think you can trust the sincerity of their opposition. I may not agree with your characterization of them as being "in bed with Manwin," but I understand that depiction on your part, based on the 'monetization' aspect of the APAP digital fingerprint filtering program. On this particular issue, though, I think your mistrust of the FSC is misplaced.
The FSC has put quite a lot of time and effort into opposing .XXX, and while I might not agree with every move they have made with respect to his subject, and I might not think that their approach to opposing .XXX has been ideal (but what adult industry entity's approach to
anything has ever been "ideal," realistically?), I don't doubt for one second that their anti-.XXX position represents their board's true feelings toward the proposal.
In case you are wondering, I am not an FSC member (Pink Visual is as a company, though), nor am I an FSC employee. I do have a tendency to speak out in their defense, even when I'm not in perfect agreement with them on the issue in question, because I believe that to the extent that there is an organization out there trying to represent the interests of our industry across a broad range of issues (as opposed to having a singular focus related to one particular issue or type of service), the FSC
is that organization.