Slick Legal Fund - Is FSC taking this case on?

[pocketkangaroo]

Just wondering if the FSC is taking on this case for Slick. Nothing against your lawyer Slick, but you are probably better off with lawyers more experienced in this matter. This isn't going to be a tough case for them.

If they are, please let people know where they can fund it.

[DamageX]

I'm willing to contribute and also help raise more funds for this, should it go to court.

[sicone]

I agree, you need to get some experienced adult lawyers on your side

[darksoul]

I was just about to ask what is FSC doing for the adult community.
Have they done anything so far ?

[TampaToker]

Originally Posted by darksoul

I was just about to ask what is FSC doing for the adult community.
Have they done anything so far ?

If i am correct they did help in one case with a webmaster and he was found guilty or accepted a plea deal. It was over the war photos i think but i could be wrong...

[DamageX]

Originally Posted by darksoul

I was just about to ask what is FSC doing for the adult community.
Have they done anything so far ?

Got an injunction on 2257.

[darksoul]

Originally Posted by DamageX

Got an injunction on 2257.

From what I've read that injuction is worth about ?

[Matt 26z]

I haven't read through all the threads entirely. Was he able to obtain the age docs for all those models? If not, would he really want to take this matter into court?

[darksoul]

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

I haven't read through all the threads entirely. Was he able to obtain the age docs for all those models? If not, would he really want to take this matter into court?

He can sue DN for damage, he doesn't have to prove he's not guilty.
DN (from what it looks so far) took his domains with no court order.

[realed]

I'm assumming that Slick was using legitimate content from sponsors..... enough said.... he should be fine!

Terry

[DamageX]

Originally Posted by darksoul

From what I've read that injuction is worth about ?

Not really their fault that the feds don't respect a judge's ruling.

[Matt 26z]

Originally Posted by darksoul

He can sue DN for damage, he doesn't have to prove he's not guilty.
DN (from what it looks so far) took his domains with no court order.

Typical GFY reasoning.

Even if he beat DirectNic, that doesn't change the fact that the court is now aware of the content on his site. Gee nothing bad could happen there, Huh?

So many TGP's think they can post hardcore thumbs and not be liable for any of it. The idea that someone would post hardcore "teeny" content without having age docs is just ridiculous.

To me this is like carrying around flour in plastic bags and then complaining that police detained you. Sometimes the only thing that matters is the appearance.

Slick screwed Slick. I can't believe he even brought this to the boards.

[darksoul]

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

Typical GFY reasoning.

Even if he beat DirectNic, that doesn't change the fact that the court is now aware of the content on his site. Gee nothing bad could happen there, Huh?

So many TGP's think they can post hardcore thumbs and not be liable for any of it. The idea that someone would post hardcore "teeny" content without having age docs is just ridiculous.

To me this is like carrying around flour in plastic bags and then complaining that police detained you. Sometimes the only thing that matters is the appearance.

Slick screwed Slick. I can't believe he even brought this to the boards.

The problem here is a registrar taking your domains with no legal grounds.

[darksoul]

This shit was pulled by Joker in Ogrish's case.
and they actually had a government order
they had to let the domain go in the end.

[Matt 26z]

Originally Posted by realed

I'm assumming that Slick was using legitimate content from sponsors..... enough said.... he should be fine!

Terry

I'll agree with you... BUT the content in question is so scary that nobody should be surprised if hosts, registrars, billers or even the authorities start to ask questions.

Responsible business people using this type of content should be ready, willing and able to answer such questions instead of screaming that their rights were violated.

And let's not forget that an affiliate of Justin Berry's site was recently convicted for using a promo video. His defense was that he had no idea the video featured a 16yo. That wasn't enough. The jury convicted him on that charge. So don't just assume sponsor content is legit, or you may end up in prison.

[TampaToker]

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

And let's not forget that an affiliate of Justin Berry's site was recently convicted for using a promo video. His defense was that he had no idea the video featured a 16yo. That wasn't enough. The jury convicted him on that charge. So don't just assume sponsor content is legit, or you may end up in prison.

oh wow you got a link to this?

[fris]

this is insane what they did

[realed]

I guess we've all got to be careful... Only use sponsors that you can trust and only post stuff that you believe is legal. If somebody looks too young then don't post or link to it... simple as that.

I think Slick is a really good and honest guy. It's unfortunate what has happened here with his domains and i hope it's just a temp blip for him...

Ter

[TampaToker]

Originally Posted by realed

I guess we've all got to be careful... Only use sponsors that you can trust and only post stuff that you believe is legal. If somebody looks too young then don't post or link to it... simple as that.

I think Slick is a really good and honest guy. It's unfortunate what has happened here with his domains and i hope it's just a temp blip for him...

Ter

Man that a big frigin risk and alot of trust to be puting in a sponsor

[Shakula]

He is innocent until proven otherwise, its one thing if they give him a month to show all the information and he doesnt...

But in this case, he didnt get the time..
They just pulled the plug. This could be you next time!

[darksoul]

Originally Posted by realed

I guess we've all got to be careful... Only use sponsors that you can trust and only post stuff that you believe is legal. If somebody looks too young then don't post or link to it... simple as that.

Uhm, who says whats too young ? I'm sure that depends by country right ?
The problem here is legal/ilegal not some half assed opinions.
There are girls looking like 20 at 15, you wouldn't have a problem with that ?

[Matt 26z]

Originally Posted by TampaToker

oh wow you got a link to this?

I can't find any news stories about his conviction. Going by his published letters from prison (freecasey.com), after Justin had turned 18 he asked him to host his site. He agreed and also used some content to push the site, allegedly having no idea Justin included underage content.

This sort of stuff really spotlights the fact that you need to choose who you do business with very carefully. I for one will not work with 18yo webmasters running sites out of their bedrooms. Nor will I work with sites featuring Eastern European or Russian "18yo but looks younger" type content. You've got to believe there is a high level of risk with this stuff.

[darksoul]

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

Nor will I work with sites featuring Eastern European or Russian "18yo but looks younger" type content.

how about sites featuring USA "18yo but looks younger" type of content ?
Aren't you beeing a bit hypocrite ?

[Slick]

Good morning everyone ! Thanks for your concern and support for me, it really means a lot at a time like this.

As far as my attorney goes. I was referred to one that's a good friend of someone that I'm good friends with. He has a background in the business, he was an attorney for Adult Check for a while, back in the days, so he definately has experience. He had a LOT of connections to a lot of the bigger adult attorneys including Jeffrey Douglas.

The biggest problem we had though, is that everything going on is out in New Orleans, so in order to get any instant action, we needed to find somene out there to handle it, which is a lot tougher than finding one in L.A.

Anyways, after my attorney busted his balls, checking on a few attorneys out in the New Orleans area, he found one that definately understands where we're coming from. It was kinda late yesterday, so with a fresh full day in front of us, we'll see what happens today.

As far as FSC goes, I am a member, but I myself haven't heard anything about them doing anything.

[BoyAlley]

Originally Posted by Slick

Good morning everyone ! Thanks for your concern and support for me, it really means a lot at a time like this.

As far as my attorney goes. I was referred to one that's a good friend of someone that I'm good friends with. He has a background in the business, he was an attorney for Adult Check for a while, back in the days, so he definately has experience. He had a LOT of connections to a lot of the bigger adult attorneys including Jeffrey Douglas.

The biggest problem we had though, is that everything going on is out in New Orleans, so in order to get any instant action, we needed to find somene out there to handle it, which is a lot tougher than finding one in L.A.

Anyways, after my attorney busted his balls, checking on a few attorneys out in the New Orleans area, he found one that definately understands where we're coming from. It was kinda late yesterday, so with a fresh full day in front of us, we'll see what happens today.

As far as FSC goes, I am a member, but I myself haven't heard anything about them doing anything.

Hey slick, hit me up on ICQ when you get a chance plase (icq is in my sig)........

As for everyone else, obviously I've been very vocal against the "policies" of DirectNic, but I DO think for Slick's own sake, a little bit more needs to be found out about things before we start rushing to raise money for him.

[stickyfingerz]

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

I can't find any news stories about his conviction. Going by his published letters from prison (freecasey.com), after Justin had turned 18 he asked him to host his site. He agreed and also used some content to push the site, allegedly having no idea Justin included underage content.

This sort of stuff really spotlights the fact that you need to choose who you do business with very carefully. I for one will not work with 18yo webmasters running sites out of their bedrooms. Nor will I work with sites featuring Eastern European or Russian "18yo but looks younger" type content. You've got to believe there is a high level of risk with this stuff.

This part is interesting....

Shortly after starting his website, and still while he was just 18 years old, he met his first love, Patrick Lombardi ("Kyle"). Although Kyle was 4 years younger, the two were similar size and both new to the dating world. Over the next four years, their relationship flourished. On the outside, everything seemed happy; but that wasn't the full picture.

14 year old boy hmm.

[tony286]

Why not get the docs to show the girls are of age? If they are not, even if you get your domains unlocked your going to be seriously fucked once you go to court and let the whole world know about this.

[tony286]

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

Just wondering if the FSC is taking on this case for Slick. Nothing against your lawyer Slick, but you are probably better off with lawyers more experienced in this matter. This isn't going to be a tough case for them.

If they are, please let people know where they can fund it.

Your fucking kidding right, didnt you watch the senate hearings with Paul Cambria. The Senator told him, either you starting regulating yourselves or we are going to do it for you.
That means for those who are a little slow, we dont wait for the police to knock on the door. its hard for many who feel on the net they can do whatever they want til arrested. Self policing is good, a few lose but the majority get to keep doing what they love. Better than when governments starts to get involved.

[devilspost]

Originally Posted by tony404

Your fucking kidding right, didnt you watch the senate hearings with Paul Cambria. The Senator told him, either you starting regulating yourselves or we are going to do it for you.
That means for those who are a little slow, we dont wait for the police to knock on the door. its hard for many who feel on the net they can do whatever they want til arrested. Self policing is good, a few lose but the majority get to keep doing what they love. Better than when governments starts to get involved.

We are governed by law not a porn industry union lol. or DirectNic

[BoyAlley]

Originally Posted by tony404

Your fucking kidding right, didnt you watch the senate hearings with Paul Cambria. The Senator told him, either you starting regulating yourselves or we are going to do it for you.
That means for those who are a little slow, we dont wait for the police to knock on the door. its hard for many who feel on the net they can do whatever they want til arrested. Self policing is good, a few lose but the majority get to keep doing what they love. Better than when governments starts to get involved.

Actually I did watch it in full, apparently you didn't.

The senator who made those comments, Senator Stevens, was specifically talking about LABELING of adult sites. Nothing in that hearing said anything like "You guys better find someone to arbitrarily remove sites from the internets in a unilateral fashion without proof of actual illegal wrong doing, or else"!

WHY did they say nothing like that? Because even the fucking 800 year old senator has more fucking common sense than that.

[pornguy]

Originally Posted by DamageX

Got an injunction on 2257.

What they did there was NOT for the industry, but for thier own pockets.

[Matt 26z]

Originally Posted by darksoul

how about sites featuring USA "18yo but looks younger" type of content ?
Aren't you beeing a bit hypocrite ?

Sounds to me that you are a pretty big supporter of this type of content, which is fine as long as the models are 18+.

Do you feel as though the legitimacy of teen content shot in Russia is just as high as that shot in North America?

I don't like how a lot of the age docs from that part of the world are nothing more than laminated pieces of paper. Faking an ID here is a bit more difficult than a trip into the local office supply store.

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

Hey slick, hit me up on ICQ when you get a chance plase (icq is in my sig)........

As for everyone else, obviously I've been very vocal against the "policies" of DirectNic, but I DO think for Slick's own sake, a little bit more needs to be found out about things before we start rushing to raise money for him.

The first non-rant I have seen in this whole process. Did a good night's sleep rremind everyone that things are not as they seem?

All I can say is "Shitman". Go read history.

[Peaches]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

All I can say is "Shitman". Go read history.

[BoyAlley]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

The first non-rant I have seen in this whole process. Did a good night's sleep rremind everyone that things are not as they seem?

No, it didn't. There are two different issues here:

1. DirectNic's policy of unilateral action that I'll continue to speak out against.
2. Slick's specific case, which I've said in the beginning, my comments aren't based on.

I'm speaking about the greater good of the internet, and what's right and wrong, slick, at the end of the day, needs to do what's best for his specific individual case, something that I don't have to worry about with my comments.

As for you and Peaches, aren't your tongues getting sore yet from performing non-stop analingus on MikeAI?

You two have been replying to virtually EVERY post, and your biased rants are doing nothing to shape the opinions people have of DirectNic.

[tony286]

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

Actually I did watch it in full, apparently you didn't.

The senator who made those comments, Senator Stevens, was specifically talking about LABELING of adult sites. Nothing in that hearing said anything like "You guys better find someone to arbitrarily remove sites from the internets in a unilateral fashion without proof of actual illegal wrong doing, or else"!

WHY did they say nothing like that? Because even the fucking 800 year old senator has more fucking common sense than that.

its all about self regulation, I thought gay people were usually very smart. If we don't do it , someone will do it for us. We can use a scalpel or wait until the government uses a board sword. Also why hasnt he come up with the ids yet whats taking so long? Also did you ever think if everyone policed against cp on the net it could cut it down probably 80 percent instead of waiting for police to do it ? OH wait this is the internet where no can be restricted to do anything. Sorry I forgot. My father has a saying "then they wonder why" sadly it will fit for our industry.

[Peaches]

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

As for you and Peaches, aren't your tongues getting sore yet from performing non-stop analingus on MikeAI?

You two have been replying to virtually EVERY post, and your biased rants are doing nothing to shape the opinions people have of DirectNic.

Yeah, this is now my second post in this thread. The first one was about something you probably don't even know about and I laughed about it. I haven't said one thing about the case in this thread at all.

[BoyAlley]

Originally Posted by tony404

Also did you ever think if everyone policed against cp on the net it could cut it down probably 80 percent instead of waiting for police to do it?

You're missing one major point: The primary goal of the Innocent Images division of the FBI isn't to simply "shut down CP sites". It's also to FIND THE CHILDREN THAT ARE BEING ABUSED AND PUT AN END TO THAT ABUSE!

That's something DirectNic, or any other registrar, or any private company, can simply not do.

Truth be told, as far as I'm concerned, unilaterally shutting down CP sites without talking to the authorities first, could very easily hinder active on going investigations.

Just because a CP site is online, doesn't mean the feds don't know about it, it doesn't mean they don't have taps in place, and it doesn't mean they're not watching the people running those sites.

Sometimes the cost of finding children being victimized is allowing a CP site to stay online for a while, so that those responsible for actually producing the content can be tracked down.

Once a site is shut down, or a registrar contacts them, or puts a hold on their domain, the hat is tipped. All too often, children have been "disappeared" because their molesters realize someone's on to them.

CERTAINLY I'm not saying that's got anything to do with this particular case, but it's something that could easily take place if these types of policies are allowed to stand.

[RawAlex]

BoyAlley, a nice long story. Simply put, there is no law in the US that can oblige a company to continue to offer service to, or remain in business with, anyone that they feel is breaking the law. You also have no idea of what contacts (if any) Directnic may have had with authorities on this matter. Rampant speculation has lead this whole deal all over the place.

However, that is not the purpose of this thread.

If you are going to go off on a "raise funds for Slick", I truly recommend that you follow your words carefully... find out who Slick is, maybe have a chat with his lawyer, and perhaps, maybe, contact Directnic and ask them if they care to comment, before you start raising money and end up in an unhappy position of having supported something that either wasn't how it appears or worse was exactly the opposite.

Being better informed would be a very good place for you to start.

[stickyfingerz]

Originally Posted by tony404

its all about self regulation, I thought gay people were usually very smart. If we don't do it , someone will do it for us. We can use a scalpel or wait until the government uses a board sword. Also why hasnt he come up with the ids yet whats taking so long? Also did you ever think if everyone policed against cp on the net it could cut it down probably 80 percent instead of waiting for police to do it ? OH wait this is the internet where no can be restricted to do anything. Sorry I forgot. My father has a saying "then they wonder why" sadly it will fit for our industry.

Are you saying DirectNIC should police us? How is that self regulation.

[pocketkangaroo]

Originally Posted by tony404

its all about self regulation, I thought gay people were usually very smart. If we don't do it , someone will do it for us. We can use a scalpel or wait until the government uses a board sword. Also why hasnt he come up with the ids yet whats taking so long? Also did you ever think if everyone policed against cp on the net it could cut it down probably 80 percent instead of waiting for police to do it ? OH wait this is the internet where no can be restricted to do anything. Sorry I forgot. My father has a saying "then they wonder why" sadly it will fit for our industry.

Self regulation? The industry is regulated by the government. There are things that are illegal (such as CP), and owners of that content can be arrested and convicted of the crime. The decision about the legality of that is made by our judicial system, as it is in every single industry in the country.

So what you are saying is that everyone should be allowed to "self-regulate" the industry? So I could padlock the doors of a restaurant down the street because I think they got me sick the other night? That form of "regulation" is just a window to abuse, blackmail, and fraud. The only one that should determine legality is our judicial system.

When it comes to CP, I'm all for our government convicting more webmasters of it when they do it. I hope they catch every one of them and throw away the key. But that's their job, not DirectNics. DirectNic is a company that provides a service, nothing more. If they choose not to do business with someone, they have every right to say so. They don't have a right to hold domains hostage because of a hunch.

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Are you saying DirectNIC should police us? How is that self regulation.

Nobody is saying Directnic should police us, don't be obtuse.

Directnic apparently had a valid complaint in hand. Should they (a) do nothing, and hope someone else gives a shit, or (b) ask the domain holder for some information so that they can write the complaint off as false or justified and work from there?

Self regulation isn't about appointing anyone police, it is about each of us checking out links twice... not turning away and saying "someone else will handle it" when we see something wrong.

How fucking hard is it to understand?

[John69]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

All I can say is "Shitman". Go read history.

[pocketkangaroo]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Nobody is saying Directnic should police us, don't be obtuse.

Directnic apparently had a valid complaint in hand. Should they (a) do nothing, and hope someone else gives a shit, or (b) ask the domain holder for some information so that they can write the complaint off as false or justified and work from there?

Self regulation isn't about appointing anyone police, it is about each of us checking out links twice... not turning away and saying "someone else will handle it" when we see something wrong.

How fucking hard is it to understand?

But what you are suggesting is that they should ask for the documents and if they aren't satisfied, kill the domain. I just don't see how you can say that DirectNic should play judge, jury, and executioner, yet not be considered policing the industry.

[pocketkangaroo]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

If you are going to go off on a "raise funds for Slick", I truly recommend that you follow your words carefully... find out who Slick is, maybe have a chat with his lawyer, and perhaps, maybe, contact Directnic and ask them if they care to comment, before you start raising money and end up in an unhappy position of having supported something that either wasn't how it appears or worse was exactly the opposite.

To me, the issue isn't about what Slick does with his sites. The issue is whether registrars can take your domains whenever they feel like it if they think you are doing something wrong. I believe that no registrar has any right to decide what is legal and what is not. If they believe his content is illegal, they should request he move it to another registrar, and contact the authorities who are the only ones that should be determining what is legal and not.

It's the principle of the issue, not the actual case. It's no different than supporting the KKK in a case because you stand behind freedom of speech. You may not approve of their message, but you approve of their right to say it. I hate CP, and even hate sites that pretend to be CP even more. But our police and judicial system should be handling those issues, not DirectNic.

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

No, it didn't. There are two different issues here:

And what makes you think that the DN cheerleaders can cope with 2 issues at the same time ?

[LadyMischief]

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

No, it didn't. There are two different issues here:

1. DirectNic's policy of unilateral action that I'll continue to speak out against.
2. Slick's specific case, which I've said in the beginning, my comments aren't based on.

I'm speaking about the greater good of the internet, and what's right and wrong, slick, at the end of the day, needs to do what's best for his specific individual case, something that I don't have to worry about with my comments.

Bravo this is the point a lot of people have been missing in the smokescreen of accusations of "CP". This is why this is an issue.

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Nobody is saying Directnic should police us, don't be obtuse.

Sorry, but Stickyfingerz is , in this case ... , far from being " obtuse " ... In fact, he sees the whole picture, out of the box.

On the other hand ....



DISCLAIMER: This post shall not be considered as an endorsment of STICKYFINGERZ in any way or viewed as a partnership , and certainly not an approval of his politic views ... but if he is right here, well he is right.

[stickyfingerz]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Nobody is saying Directnic should police us, don't be obtuse.

Directnic apparently had a valid complaint in hand. Should they (a) do nothing, and hope someone else gives a shit, or (b) ask the domain holder for some information so that they can write the complaint off as false or justified and work from there?

Self regulation isn't about appointing anyone police, it is about each of us checking out links twice... not turning away and saying "someone else will handle it" when we see something wrong.

How fucking hard is it to understand?

D. Report what they believe to be illegal activity and have the domain OWNER transfer the domain away from them.

[stickyfingerz]

Originally Posted by directfiesta

Sorry, but Stickyfingerz is , in this case ... , far from being " obtuse " ... In fact, he sees the whole picture, out of the box.

On the other hand ....



DISCLAIMER: This post shall not be considered as an endorsment of STICKYFINGERZ in any way or viewed as a partnership , and certainly not an approval of his politic views ... but if he is right here, well he is right.