Correct me if I'm wrong, on this 2257 deal
 

While I certainly applaud the FSC for going to bat for their member base, and for working out a stopgap sort of measure with the DOJ, I've yet to see it stated clearly anywhere that if the FSC does not receive an injunction from the courts on August 8th, or if the FSC does not prevail in court ultimately --

that anyone, including FSC members are getting a "get out of jail free" card for failing to be compliant today.

What I am asking is for someone to show me where it's written that if the DOJ wins on this case, it is stated that anyone who is out of compliance today will not have to answer for their non-compliance.

My main reason for bringing up this point is that I've had several people icq me saying things along the lines of them not having to worry about what they have today on their servers. That they'll join FSC and they'll somehow be safe no matter what the outcome is on the court battle.

I'm not trying to scare anyone, but unless someone has this in writing from the DOJ, what is to stop them from screen shotting everyone they think might be non-compliant today, and then should they win in court, coming back and saying on June 23rd, the date for compliance, you had this on your tours, your member areas, whatever, and requiring you to prove compliance on the images or videos?

I just don't see this deal as changing potential indictments in the event that the DOJ takes the day in court down the road.

very interesting stuff kimmy

No, you are right. Today simply buys time for everyone. That week of August everyone will be nervous once again.

This does seem like the study of the Talmud sometimes.

Lack of an injunction is disturbing, I am not really sure why they settled for less.

Damn it woman you're doing it again. :winkwink:

we were all advised to be compliant by TODAY.

sorry 2257 on my dick

That's the interpretation I got from it too.

If you're not compliant TODAY and the FSC loses, you're in danger of being charged.

The only thing non-compliant people will have going for them, is the DOJ has to KNOW how to create screenshots first.

And I applaud you for showing the good sense not to pass judgement yet. And stating it as a question which is a fine example for the sheep.

Some days I just get a wild hair up my ass ;)

That's how I feel

these fuckers could do that

"listening.jpg"

I'm off to go sailing, but my point in starting this thread was to bring up the fact that as an industry, we are way too used to being overly complacent until the 11th hour, so to speak.

It's been a year since the original proposed changes were released, and while everyone had to know that something was coming down the pipe, very few did anything to get themselves at all prepared.

When I say I talk to people that have been on the short end of the DOJ prosecuting stick before, I should use the listening.jpg image.

EXACTLY what one of them told me would happen is EXACTLY what did happen. The DOJ would get everyone into an uproar, then back off for enough time to get everyone back to thinking they were above the law or above the cold, skeletal clutches of the law.

Then they drop the bomb on you.

What makes anyone think this is any different? Hell, I'd bet that Justice isnt anywhere near having the cases they want against their original target list. But I also bet that target list didn't change at 12:01 am today.

If you aren't compliant today, and you take this as some sort of stay of execution, you're crazy and probably stupid. A 7 year old can take a screen shot, what makes you think the DOJ can't or won't?

There's an old saying about giving someone enough rope.

I certainly hope the DOJ isn't hanging a number of you with their deal today.

and small asian boys

I have discussed this matter with my attorney and he said it would be rarethat they go back and get someone who was a part of the lawsuit, it would just be bad faith on their part.

And the list for "what happened today is not necessarily good for webmasters" continues to grow.

Yeah, this administration and justice dept is known FAR and WIDE for their good faith ain't they? lol

well..if you have your records in order by the time the grace period is over how are they going to know you didn't have them today?

I said the same thing days ago ... when someone brought up well, we won't get busted in 13 hours, blah, blah, blah ... I said, who is to say they don't have computer junkies with a list of paysites/programs that they go through, find non-compliancy THEN come after you at a later date ...

If ultimately the fsc fails to win an injunction, will that membership list continue to be sealed?

I don't get how being a member of a club makes you immune to prosecution and all non-members are ripe for the pickin. I'm not familiar with many US laws but that seems pretty weird... Was there an attempt at getting an injunction or did the FSC broker this sweetheart deal to encourage webmasters (most likely by the hundreds) to sign up. :2 cents:

On a side note, if I was a US webmaster I'd already be signed up for no other reason than to support a group that was fighting for my industry.

It will probably remain "sealed" but that's irrelevant. The DOJ merely has to ask the Special Master enough names and eventually they'll know most if not all of FSC's members.

been compliant on the front of my site since the proposed regs

Why is this so hard to understand

1. The lawsuit was filed by a few individuals and the Free Speech Coalition for it's members. They are the people covered by the agreement.

2. The law is still the law and has been the law since the last century.

3. The new regulations still apply for EVERYONE, all that is delayed are inspections for the protected class.

4. If you a member of the protected class use the time to get your records in order because unless a permanent injunction is granted they can come and enforce the law in the future.

If you are not willing to participate in the law suit you can file your own or quit complaining about paying for less than one hour of an attorney's time.

Very true, and very interesting, but I think that it was a MAJOR fuck up on their part for the part about ONLY protecting thier paying members. I thought that free speach was for everyone.

well if they already have the names to ask, then you're already on the list.

Money talks, BS walks :Oh crap

HEY, Whoa! I paid for a FULL hour of the attorney's time.

Did you have to be compliant as the clock struck 12 last night, or do we have to become compliant today?

Well, let's just say for the sake of proving how irrelevant that might be --

They don't inspect ANYONE for the next 3 months, for example. The FSC does not win their injunction. The DOJ then comes to inspect someone, who happens to be an FSC member. The DOJ asks for compliance back to yesterday. The person is non-compliant.

At this point the DOJ really doesn't care whether you are, were or even have heard of the FSC, since there is no injunction.

How is this bad faith?

Just an example of what might happen. There is no excuse for not being compliant today.

That seems to be the part people are missing.

From my understanding, KK, you are not wrong in your assertion.

Marty actually has a very logical point. If they investigate someone that isn't compliant, then they are not compliant and the timeframe is not as relevant. However, if they go after someone and they prove compliant, I doubt they would backtrack just to make a case. You have to think, if they backtrack on a current compliant defendant, the case would be tough. They would fair better to just move on to someone that would be easy to prosecute.

Of course, that is just my opinion.