2257 - Only FSC Members covered by injunction - GoFuckYourself.com

FightThisPatent · 05-24-2005, 01:42 PM

After reading various bits about FSC filing its injunction, and about who it will cover, I gave Michelle Freridge (Executive Director) a call to ask her this direct question:

When FSC is granted its injunction, will it cover only FSC members, or all adult websites?

Her answer is that "the injunction will ONLY cover FSC members. "

She also said that an official PR on this subject should be coming out shortly.

If DOJ knocks on a FSC member door, the company should comply with DOJ requests, and then get on the phone to FSC. It doesn't appear that FSC will be handing over a list of FSC members to DOJ, so when DOJ picks its target(s), those that are FSC members will have a calm reaction.

Does this sound like a reason to join FSC? Sure does. Being an FSC member doesn't get you a legal defense. You still need to have your records straight. Being part of the injunction would mean that while the constitutional issues are being worked out in court, that you won't be bothered (which gives you more time to get your 2257 records in order, if you haven't done so already by June 23rd). I've never been involved in court criminal court proceedings nor dealt with injunctions, so I too will be interested to read the offical word from FSC.... this is atleast a heads-up on this issue.

http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/application.php

This has been a Public Service Annoucement by Fight The Patent.

Fight the PSA!

iBanker · 05-24-2005, 01:44 PM

Not that we are nor a member, but that is bullshit. Law is Law, no matter what organization you are with.

newbreed · 05-24-2005, 01:48 PM

There join form is messed up, it refreshes to the same form with no info after you enter all your info and click next.

FightThisPatent · 05-24-2005, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iBanker

Not that we are nor a member, but that is bullshit. Law is Law, no matter what organization you are with.

I think it has to do with the issue of how you define the class.

Saying the injunction is to be filed on behalf of all adult websites is too broad.

Sounds like they define the class as those that are FSC members.

Fight the Members Only!

Lensman · 05-24-2005, 01:50 PM

Funny, I was planning on leading a fund raising drive for FSC as soon as they file.

It seems to me an injunction is an injuction, either the law gets enforced or it doesn't.

dropped9 · 05-24-2005, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lensman

Funny, I was planning on leading a fund raising drive for FSC as soon as they file.

uh oh...

On another note... I hope they dont plan on spinning shit to lead the sheep to slaughter

FightThisPatent · 05-24-2005, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lensman

Funny, I was planning on leading a fund raising drive for FSC as soon as they file.

It seems to me an injunction is an injuction, either the law gets enforced or it doesn't.

I think the issue is that while the case is in court, it stays off further contact with DOJ.

I understand yours and other posters point that if an injunction is granted, that it should apply to all.. and that's why I asked specifically about this point, and the answer is that technically, it only applies to FSC members.

Waiting to see the PR when it comes out to explain this further, since this is a new area for me (ie. legal proceedings).

Alot of people have been posting that they were going to donate to FSC. I posted in one thread, that people should be sure to apply the first $300 of their contribution to atleast get a membership, and then anything in excess would most likely go specifically to the 2257 defense fund.

FSC still needs alot of support from new and existing members... so you taking the lead on one angle of webmaster support is exceptional.

Fight the Apathy!

eroswebmaster · 05-24-2005, 01:57 PM

hmmm...is that bullshit I smell?

StickyGreen · 05-24-2005, 01:58 PM

you think they will even go after sites with only mugshot/non-explicit thumbs leading to the explicit fhg?

Cassie · 05-24-2005, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lensman

It seems to me an injunction is an injuction, either the law gets enforced or it doesn't.

i believe you are correct. i do not believe you can legally separate an injunction based on "the who's who of members". the injunction is based on a law as a whole - he new 2257 laws. nothing more - nothing less.

jimmyf · 05-24-2005, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lensman

It seems to me an injunction is an injuction, either the law gets enforced or it doesn't.

this is what the cop's will say, as they serve that papers

tony286 · 05-24-2005, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iBanker

Not that we are nor a member, but that is bullshit. Law is Law, no matter what organization you are with.

Yep the lawyer said they sue and get a injunction it effects us all,when the aclu sued for copa it wasnt just for their members .THey win and get the regs changed its not just for the members of fsc its for everyone. I guess they are trying to get new members lol

V_RocKs · 05-24-2005, 02:03 PM

It will be an injunction that will cover only FSC members. But you can use it in your own individual case and ask the judge to use it as precidence in your own case. It will be up to the judge. Keep in mind the judge will be effecting either your state or the entire US so the judge will prefer to just let your case be tried.

FightThisPatent · 05-24-2005, 02:04 PM

While various parts of 2257 are being challenged, there are many parts that will still stick.

The issue about requiring webmasters as secondary producers to have ID, will be one that i believe gets stuck down in the end.

The original part of 2257 about the webmaster being able to atleast identify where an images came from is one that will continue to be on the books. It makes sense, if an image is suspected to be under 18, then DOJ needs to know where/how to find the content producer.

So for webmasters who have "sexually explicit" content, document where the images came from that are on your site. It will take more work than just listing the content producers contact info on a 2257.html page

Being a FSC member or not, you still have some recordkeeping responsibilities to do.

Fight the Books!

iBanker · 05-24-2005, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lensman

Funny, I was planning on leading a fund raising drive for FSC as soon as they file.

It seems to me an injunction is an injuction, either the law gets enforced or it doesn't.

God damn right. Law is law = injuntion is injunction.

This original post was a pathetic attempt are "fear marketing". Dude, just explain the situation to people HONSETLY and you will get more donations. You don't have to spin the shit to suck money out of people. What a joke and a black mark on the cause.

Tala · 05-24-2005, 02:08 PM

Fight the headaches!

circlekhabib · 05-24-2005, 02:10 PM

Fuckin Scamming Cocksuckers
yes that is bullshit you smell

FightThisPatent · 05-24-2005, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iBanker

This original post was a pathetic attempt are "fear marketing".

Then wait for the press release.

Business owners can support FSC because of its stance on looking out for adult biz owners interests (albeit FSC members). That's the real reason to join.. and for $300 a year, it really isn't that high of a cost.

If an injunction is an injunction, much like a cigar is a cigar, and if it does cover everyone, then so be it... but the fact stil remains about representation as a group.

And as i posted, i asked a direct question and got a direct answer. If you don't like the response, and that's your reason for not supporting FSC, then you probably weren't serious about doing so anyways.

Fight the Ostriches!

iBanker · 05-24-2005, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FightThisPatent

Then wait for the press release.

Business owners can support FSC because of its stance on looking out for adult biz owners interests (albeit FSC members). That's the real reason to join.. and for $300 a year, it really isn't that high of a cost.

If an injunction is an injunction, much like a cigar is a cigar, and if it does cover everyone, then so be it... but the fact stil remains about representation as a group.

And as i posted, i asked a direct question and got a direct answer. If you don't like the response, and that's your reason for not supporting FSC, then you probably weren't serious about doing so anyways.

Fight the Ostriches!

Just so you know, we are already a member through a parent organization. Makes me a little embarassed to say so if this is how you recruit more members.

Don't try to twist my words. Check your records and back the fuck off.

iBanker · 05-24-2005, 02:19 PM

Fuck this, I am done bumping your thread and helping you promote anything like this type of marketing. You are on your own here.

FightThisPatent · 05-24-2005, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iBanker

Makes me a little embarassed to say so if this is how you recruit more members.

I don't recruit for FSC.. i support what they are doing (especially on issues like . XXX and 2257).

Chill out on the hostile typing before you cramp up.... just posting up a message that is more of topical interest than "would you hit this".

Fight the Messenger!

tony286 · 05-24-2005, 02:22 PM

that would also mean they would have to give a list fsc members to the court or would you present your card when they came in the door ?

FightThisPatent · 05-24-2005, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

that would also mean they would have to give a list fsc members to the court or would you present your card when they came in the door ?

I asked about that exact point you brought up, and she mentioned that their membership list would not be given to DOJ. The issue that if/when the injunction is granted and DOJ knocks on an FSC member door, ya, showing them the FSC membership card might be something that you do *grin* or atleast, make a call to FSC to let them know that they have a visitor.

Fight the Unexpected Visitors!

goBigtime · 05-24-2005, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lensman

Funny, I was planning on leading a fund raising drive for FSC as soon as they file.

It seems to me an injunction is an injuction, either the law gets enforced or it doesn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FSC Homepage

"FSC intends to test the validity of the new rules by filing multiple lawsuits, asking for a temporary restraining order and an injunction."

They used the word "restraining order" with injunction.... not sure if this will change the way it applies.

Maybe this is a strategy on the FSC's part to help ensure that they are properly funded after seeing how much financial support IMPAI got?

I know alot of you wont consult with attorneys. So if someone can't afford $300 to donate to a defense fund like this then maybe they're in the wrong business.

For Lens the fees would be much higher though due to the size of his enterprise.

Anyway, just my

xxxjay · 05-24-2005, 03:05 PM

I'm am calling a massive BULLSHIT ON THIS THREAD -- STOP READING IT NOW. Don't you find it funny that the guy who started this is selling a 2257 solution in his sig? An injunction is an injunction...don't waste you time with this thread!

thonglife · 05-24-2005, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StickyGreen

you think they will even go after sites with only mugshot/non-explicit thumbs leading to the explicit fhg?

I think it's unenforcable, however, better safe than sorry.

FightThisPatent · 05-24-2005, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxjay

I'm am calling a massive BULLSHIT ON THIS THREAD -- STOP READING IT NOW. Don't you find it funny that the guy who started this is selling a 2257 solution in his sig? An injunction is an injunction...don't waste you time with this thread!

In case you didn't look at that almost 1 year old website of 2257lookup.com you will have noticed that its way out of date.. meaning, there has been no development on the idea due to lack of interest.

Should anyone inquire about 2257lookup for its use in assisting with 2257 compliance, my answer will be that it's not available and won't be since i don't have time to make it all work.

In case you didn't notice, there is no affiliate code or link on my link to FSC.. which means i don't gain anything or profit from FSC gaining members.

If an injunction is an injunction... that that's the answer, but maybe there is more to the legal issues than oversimplification....like the actual details that none of use are privy to at the moment.

Fight the BIG CAPS!

FightThisPatent · 05-24-2005, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxjay

Don't you find it funny that the guy who started this is selling a 2257 solution in his sig? [/SIZE]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention.. since 2257lookup is outdated and not being pursued, it doesn't make sense to waste screen space with it, so now i can put up my venture www.T3Report.com/adult for traffic linking reports to maximize your existing linking relationships or to find out who drives traffic to your competitors.

So now if i post in a thread about government regulations over sending of traffic, I'll get razzed for that as well.....

Fight the Plug!

iBanker · 05-24-2005, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxjay

I'm am calling a massive BULLSHIT ON THIS THREAD -- STOP READING IT NOW. Don't you find it funny that the guy who started this is selling a 2257 solution in his sig? An injunction is an injunction...don't waste you time with this thread!

I caught that too....lol

DWB · 05-24-2005, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FightThisPatent

After reading various bits about FSC filing its injunction, and about who it will cover, I gave Michelle Freridge (Executive Director) a call to ask her this direct question:

When FSC is granted its injunction, will it cover only FSC members, or all adult websites?

Her answer is that "the injunction will ONLY cover FSC members. "

She also said that an official PR on this subject should be coming out shortly.

If DOJ knocks on a FSC member door, the company should comply with DOJ requests, and then get on the phone to FSC. It doesn't appear that FSC will be handing over a list of FSC members to DOJ, so when DOJ picks its target(s), those that are FSC members will have a calm reaction.

Does this sound like a reason to join FSC? Sure does. Being an FSC member doesn't get you a legal defense. You still need to have your records straight. Being part of the injunction would mean that while the constitutional issues are being worked out in court, that you won't be bothered (which gives you more time to get your 2257 records in order, if you haven't done so already by June 23rd). I've never been involved in court criminal court proceedings nor dealt with injunctions, so I too will be interested to read the offical word from FSC.... this is atleast a heads-up on this issue.

http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/application.php

This has been a Public Service Annoucement by Fight The Patent.

Fight the PSA!

seeric · 05-24-2005, 03:48 PM

i'd join, jsut out of support and unity, i need no 2257 stuff though. i would advise anyone to join it if you maintain or should maintin records as a secondary producer.

im no lawyer, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that there's strength in numbers.

Snake Doctor · 05-24-2005, 03:49 PM

Fight the bullshit from Brandon.

This is complete BS.
It's like saying that members of the Brown family were the only ones allowed to attend all white schools after Brown V. Board of Education.

After Shock Media · 05-24-2005, 03:51 PM

First off our parent company is a member.
Now I completely dissagree with these scare tactics used to drum up cash support. Either be honest and say it how it really is, or do not say such bullshit that makes some of us question your legal ability in the first place making us wonder if we are throwing good money after bad.

FightThisPatent · 05-24-2005, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lenny2

Fight the bullshit from Brandon.

I didn't make this "bullshit" up, ... so you flaming me for posting it at the same time for showing support for FSC?

puh-lease.

Fight the BS!

iBanker · 05-24-2005, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lenny2

Fight the bullshit from Brandon.

This is complete BS.
It's like saying that members of the Brown family were the only ones allowed to attend all white schools after Brown V. Board of Education.

HAHAHAHAHAHAH

That is classic.

iBanker · 05-24-2005, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FightThisPatent

I didn't make this "bullshit" up, ... so you flaming me for posting it at the same time for showing support for FSC?

puh-lease.

Fight the BS!

Look at the first line of your post you tool.

FightThisPatent · 05-24-2005, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iBanker

Look at the first line of your post you tool.

I thought you stopped posting in this thread.

Maybe you should spend more than 5 seconds in reading my first post.

I posted up a direct answer to what many have been wondering. I told it like it was... and if it is a reason that finally motivates someone to join, then i see no wrong with that. There are plenty of other reasons to join, all of which i have promoted in various past threads.

Thanks for the bump

Fight the couldn't stay away!

xxxjay · 05-24-2005, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FightThisPatent

In case you didn't look at that almost 1 year old website of 2257lookup.com you will have noticed that its way out of date.. meaning, there has been no development on the idea due to lack of interest.

THEN TAKE IT OUT OF YOUR SIG, DUDE!! -- TILL THEN STOP SPREADING MISINFORMATION!

bringer · 05-24-2005, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Freridge was optimistic. "It won't stick," she said. "First thing we're doing is filing an injuction to prevent prosecution, so that while the law is being reviewed, no one will be prosecuted. This is important because without the injunction, they can prosecute and tie people up in court and keep them in limbo until it's resolved. We're asking for an injuction on both the new and the old regulations," she added.

http://www.ynot.com/modules.php?op=m...rder=0&thold=0

says nothing about members only

FightThisPatent · 05-24-2005, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxjay

THEN TAKE IT OUT OF YOUR SIG, DUDE!! -- TILL THEN STOP SPREADING MISINFORMATION!

I did, you replied too soon... as far as misinformation, try reading this again:

--------------------
I gave Michelle Freridge (Executive Director) a call to ask her this direct question:

When FSC is granted its injunction, will it cover only FSC members, or all adult websites?

Her answer is that "the injunction will ONLY cover FSC members. "
------------------

Now if you feel that Michelle is misinformed, then that's your beef with her. If their injunction does hold up and it does technically only cover FSC members, then you can post up in very small font how you were wrong.

If the injunction does cover anyone, i'm not wrong, i just posted up the direct answer to a direct question. what might be "wrong" is connecting the injunction issue with FSC membership.. but no different than connecting the .XXX issue with FSC membership, or connecting COPA with FSC membership, etc.. there are many reasons to be joining FSC.. pick one.

Fight the Disservice !

txl · 05-24-2005, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FightThisPatent

Thanks for bringing this to my attention.. since 2257lookup is outdated and not being pursued, it doesn't make sense to waste screen space with it, so now i can put up my venture www.T3Report.com/adult for traffic linking reports to maximize your existing linking relationships or to find out who drives traffic to your competitors.

So now if i post in a thread about government regulations over sending of traffic, I'll get razzed for that as well.....

Fight the Plug!

Wow, you're an idiot.

FSC should get an injunction to keep you from posting ever again.

iBanker · 05-24-2005, 04:12 PM

Look what you even named the thread. You sir, are an idiot. Next please.

If you want to know how I really feel, look at AaronM's name in any thread on the left and read what it says under it.

FightThisPatent · 05-24-2005, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bringer

says nothing about members only

please see article on front of site http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/ third paragraph up from the bottom.

"FSC intends to test the validity of the new rules by filing multiple lawsuits, asking for a temporary restraining order and an injunction. By taking swift proactive steps, FSC hopes to protect its members from prosecution, while challenging the law as unconstitutional."

Fight the Counting!

After Shock Media · 05-24-2005, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FightThisPatent

please see article on front of site http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/ third paragraph up from the bottom.

"FSC intends to test the validity of the new rules by filing multiple lawsuits, asking for a temporary restraining order and an injunction. By taking swift proactive steps, FSC hopes to protect its members from prosecution, while challenging the law as unconstitutional."

Fight the Counting!

It does not say protect only its members now does it?

FightThisPatent · 05-24-2005, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by txl

FSC should get an injunction to keep you from posting ever again.

Either you are a brilliant satirist or just ignorant...

FSC, which looks over free speech and 1st amendment issues, would file to restrict someone from excercising their free speech???

now that's funny.

Fight the Humour-Challenged!

bringer · 05-24-2005, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FightThisPatent

please see article on front of site http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/ third paragraph up from the bottom.

"FSC intends to test the validity of the new rules by filing multiple lawsuits, asking for a temporary restraining order and an injunction. By taking swift proactive steps, FSC hopes to protect its members from prosecution, while challenging the law as unconstitutional."

Fight the Counting!

obvoiusly protecting its members. its members are the ones affected by the new regulations.

Major (Tom) · 05-24-2005, 04:16 PM

glad we are members

Duke

Snake Doctor · 05-24-2005, 04:20 PM

Brandon I've always liked you, but this is over the line.

If someone in a position of authority at the FSC did actually tell you this then they crossed the line as well. It's dangerously close to raising funds under false pretenses.
It'l like someone from the NAACP telling all the black families in the ghetto that affirmative action won't apply to them unless they join the NAACP and pay thier dues on time.

You're an intelligent guy, and I know you posted this for a good reason, but I also know that IF someone from the FSC told you this on the phone that you screamed "BULLSHIT!!" when they did.

tical · 05-24-2005, 04:21 PM

so if im not a member, was my donation to their cause a waste?

VirtuMike · 05-24-2005, 04:22 PM

Some of you might not like him. I do. Some of you did not read the new 16 pages. I did. Some of you aren't worried. I am. Some of you are not supporters of the FSC. I am.

He, from what I know, does not work for the FSC and does not receive revenue from them. I could be wrong, hell I am wrong about many things. But the bottom line is this group is very important right now and has a tremendous task ahead of them. They need support. They are not doing this for money. The staff there could probably make a hell of a lot more money selling their time in other places. They are fighting the good fight and need funding to continue. I think he should be commended for momentum. What does he have to gain or lose here?

FYI reread the 16 pages - you'll see them talk about him and they don't like him much. How many of you took the time to write in? Or to put money into the fight? Or your time? Or do you think it's better to sit in your mom's basement and flap your talkholes so you look cool and get the sig revenue? How much longer do you plan on getting sig revenue if your sig sponsor walks?

You know what you need to do. Do it.

Hang together or hang separately.

05-24-2005, 01:42 PM	#1
FightThisPatent Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 4,090	2257 - Only FSC Members covered by injunction After reading various bits about FSC filing its injunction, and about who it will cover, I gave Michelle Freridge (Executive Director) a call to ask her this direct question: When FSC is granted its injunction, will it cover only FSC members, or all adult websites? Her answer is that "the injunction will ONLY cover FSC members. " She also said that an official PR on this subject should be coming out shortly. If DOJ knocks on a FSC member door, the company should comply with DOJ requests, and then get on the phone to FSC. It doesn't appear that FSC will be handing over a list of FSC members to DOJ, so when DOJ picks its target(s), those that are FSC members will have a calm reaction. Does this sound like a reason to join FSC? Sure does. Being an FSC member doesn't get you a legal defense. You still need to have your records straight. Being part of the injunction would mean that while the constitutional issues are being worked out in court, that you won't be bothered (which gives you more time to get your 2257 records in order, if you haven't done so already by June 23rd). I've never been involved in court criminal court proceedings nor dealt with injunctions, so I too will be interested to read the offical word from FSC.... this is atleast a heads-up on this issue. http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/application.php This has been a Public Service Annoucement by Fight The Patent. Fight the PSA! __________________ http://www.t3report.com (where's the traffic?) v5.0 is out! \| http://www.FightThePatent.com \| ICQ 52741957

05-24-2005, 01:44 PM	#2
iBanker Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: San Diego, moving to Portland. Posts: 2,758	Not that we are nor a member, but that is bullshit. Law is Law, no matter what organization you are with. __________________ www.JasonandAlex.com Christopher's ICQ: 268-843-170

05-24-2005, 01:48 PM	#3
newbreed Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: ThatOneProgram.com Posts: 9,898	There join form is messed up, it refreshes to the same form with no info after you enter all your info and click next. __________________ Want to promote SUCCUBUS? Click HERE!!!! \| Want to buy SUCCUBUS? Click HERE!!!! Yeah, yeah, you know, That One Program! \| Want to trade links with StompBunny.com? Loryn ‎(3:16 PM): I love it, just as long as we keep the bedroom door closed from all ears then we can have throw down hard core sex that makes us money haha fuck it we can have sex on money never did that before

05-24-2005, 01:57 PM	#8
eroswebmaster March 1st, 2003 Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Seat 4 @ Venetian Poker Room Posts: 20,295	hmmm...is that bullshit I smell? __________________ For rent - ICQ 127-027-910 Click here for more details

05-24-2005, 01:58 PM	#9
StickyGreen . Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 13,076	you think they will even go after sites with only mugshot/non-explicit thumbs leading to the explicit fhg? __________________ Refer Cam Girls and Take Home 10% of Everything They Make For Life

05-24-2005, 01:50 PM	#5
Lensman GFY Chaperone Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Adult.com Posts: 9,846	Funny, I was planning on leading a fund raising drive for FSC as soon as they file. It seems to me an injunction is an injuction, either the law gets enforced or it doesn't.

05-24-2005, 02:03 PM	#13
V_RocKs Damn Right I Kiss Ass! Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Cowtown, USA Posts: 32,409	It will be an injunction that will cover only FSC members. But you can use it in your own individual case and ask the judge to use it as precidence in your own case. It will be up to the judge. Keep in mind the judge will be effecting either your state or the entire US so the judge will prefer to just let your case be tried.

05-24-2005, 02:04 PM	#14
FightThisPatent Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 4,090	While various parts of 2257 are being challenged, there are many parts that will still stick. The issue about requiring webmasters as secondary producers to have ID, will be one that i believe gets stuck down in the end. The original part of 2257 about the webmaster being able to atleast identify where an images came from is one that will continue to be on the books. It makes sense, if an image is suspected to be under 18, then DOJ needs to know where/how to find the content producer. So for webmasters who have "sexually explicit" content, document where the images came from that are on your site. It will take more work than just listing the content producers contact info on a 2257.html page Being a FSC member or not, you still have some recordkeeping responsibilities to do. Fight the Books! __________________ http://www.t3report.com (where's the traffic?) v5.0 is out! \| http://www.FightThePatent.com \| ICQ 52741957

05-24-2005, 02:08 PM	#16
Tala Fucked if I know Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Do you have a flag? Posts: 23,368	Fight the headaches! __________________ ICQ: 11120676 \| Google: mindcrime \| Skype: suitemindcrime\|E-Mail: mindcrime AT gmail.com\|PR girl with great writing skills for hire!!!! Contact me to work for YOU!\|TECHIEMEDIA? 24/7 support from some of the best techs in the biz. Tell Jim that I sent you.

05-24-2005, 02:10 PM	#17
circlekhabib Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 490	Fuckin Scamming Cocksuckers yes that is bullshit you smell

05-24-2005, 02:19 PM	#20
iBanker Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: San Diego, moving to Portland. Posts: 2,758	Fuck this, I am done bumping your thread and helping you promote anything like this type of marketing. You are on your own here. __________________ www.JasonandAlex.com Christopher's ICQ: 268-843-170

05-24-2005, 02:22 PM	#22
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	that would also mean they would have to give a list fsc members to the court or would you present your card when they came in the door ?

05-24-2005, 03:05 PM	#25
xxxjay Tube groupie. Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: LoScandalous, CA Posts: 13,482	I'm am calling a massive BULLSHIT ON THIS THREAD -- STOP READING IT NOW. Don't you find it funny that the guy who started this is selling a 2257 solution in his sig? An injunction is an injunction...don't waste you time with this thread! __________________ http://donttellmehowtoruinmylife.com/ - http://www.jmdigitalmarketing.com/my...s-and-reviews/ - http://www.wouldyouhitit.org - http://shinyobjectreviews.com/

05-24-2005, 03:48 PM	#31
seeric .......... Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: .......... Posts: 41,917	i'd join, jsut out of support and unity, i need no 2257 stuff though. i would advise anyone to join it if you maintain or should maintin records as a secondary producer. im no lawyer, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that there's strength in numbers.

05-24-2005, 03:49 PM	#32
Snake Doctor I'm Lenny2 Bitch Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: On top of my soapbox Posts: 13,449	Fight the bullshit from Brandon. This is complete BS. It's like saying that members of the Brown family were the only ones allowed to attend all white schools after Brown V. Board of Education. __________________ sig too big

05-24-2005, 03:51 PM	#33
After Shock Media It's coming look busy Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn". Posts: 35,299	First off our parent company is a member. Now I completely dissagree with these scare tactics used to drum up cash support. Either be honest and say it how it really is, or do not say such bullshit that makes some of us question your legal ability in the first place making us wonder if we are throwing good money after bad. __________________ [email protected] ICQ:135982156 AIM: Aftershockmed1a MSN: [email protected]

05-24-2005, 04:12 PM	#42
iBanker Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: San Diego, moving to Portland. Posts: 2,758	Look what you even named the thread. You sir, are an idiot. Next please. If you want to know how I really feel, look at AaronM's name in any thread on the left and read what it says under it. __________________ www.JasonandAlex.com Christopher's ICQ: 268-843-170

05-24-2005, 04:16 PM	#47
Major (Tom) Boomer Woffen Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Null Posts: 30,532	glad we are members Duke __________________ My mother said, to get things done You'd better not mess with Major Tom

05-24-2005, 04:20 PM	#48
Snake Doctor I'm Lenny2 Bitch Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: On top of my soapbox Posts: 13,449	Brandon I've always liked you, but this is over the line. If someone in a position of authority at the FSC did actually tell you this then they crossed the line as well. It's dangerously close to raising funds under false pretenses. It'l like someone from the NAACP telling all the black families in the ghetto that affirmative action won't apply to them unless they join the NAACP and pay thier dues on time. You're an intelligent guy, and I know you posted this for a good reason, but I also know that IF someone from the FSC told you this on the phone that you screamed "BULLSHIT!!" when they did. __________________ sig too big

05-24-2005, 04:21 PM	#49
tical Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 6,504	so if im not a member, was my donation to their cause a waste? __________________ 112.020.756

05-24-2005, 04:22 PM	#50
VirtuMike Confirmed User Join Date: May 2002 Location: Seat 1A Posts: 2,483	Some of you might not like him. I do. Some of you did not read the new 16 pages. I did. Some of you aren't worried. I am. Some of you are not supporters of the FSC. I am. He, from what I know, does not work for the FSC and does not receive revenue from them. I could be wrong, hell I am wrong about many things. But the bottom line is this group is very important right now and has a tremendous task ahead of them. They need support. They are not doing this for money. The staff there could probably make a hell of a lot more money selling their time in other places. They are fighting the good fight and need funding to continue. I think he should be commended for momentum. What does he have to gain or lose here? FYI reread the 16 pages - you'll see them talk about him and they don't like him much. How many of you took the time to write in? Or to put money into the fight? Or your time? Or do you think it's better to sit in your mom's basement and flap your talkholes so you look cool and get the sig revenue? How much longer do you plan on getting sig revenue if your sig sponsor walks? You know what you need to do. Do it. Hang together or hang separately. __________________ Host it in AMSTERDAM at EUROTIVITY! - We also offer BACKUP SERVICES! XYZZY4L