Thank you Free Speech Coalition for...
 

....bringing PUSSY shots back to Lightspeedcash Affiliate content!

The way we read the latest announcements regarding 2257, Lightspeedcash affiliates WILL NOT be expected to maintain records regarding our models or content, and WE HAVE PERFECT RECORDS HERE!

So we've just finished putting the first 30 pics from EVERY ONLINE SET back into the free affiliate content zip files at Lightspeedcash, including pussy, finger and toy masturbation, and lesbian licking shots!

Thank you FSC, keep up the good fight!

Steve Lightspeed

Glad the FSC was of help Steve... especially in getting pussy shots back at Lightspeed. Heh... :thumbsup

nice :thumbsup

yeah, its great fuckin news

Mmmm...Jordan. ; )

Congrats to the FSC and of course to all the Lightspeed webmasters who can now get much more aggressive in promoting the Lightspeed sites!

Matt

A fine example of why it pays to support the FSC. Glad to see one of the FSC's solid supporters, and his affiliates, reaping the benefits of the good fight. :2 cents:

Great News. Thnx.

:thumbsup :thumbsup

Sorry to bum anyone out but as far as I know, only FSC members are covered. So Lightspeed affiliates that are non FSC members cannot use hardcore photos. I hope I am wrong but I had a discussion about this in a previous thread.


http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=558368

fucking awesome steve!

Well... technically it's true. However, there's no mechninism in place for the government to find out if someone is an FSC member or not. That whole list with the "special master" thing is void with the judge's ruling. Meaning, I don't know how the government is supposed to know who IS and who ISN'T an FSC member. That said, I'm not sure why anyone wouldn't be a member at this point...

Awsome news.

The Gov't will just supena the FSC for their current list...

The newest ruling makes it legal for affiliates to show hardcore without needing the 2257 info, you only need to specify where it is available from the source (the programs 2257 link will do)...

The ruling states that you can NOW join the FSC and still be covered. The old ruling stated that you needed to be a member before the deadline. That is null and void. Now you can join today and be protected as of today... However, if they started investigating you yesterday, you are up shit creek (and you guessed it, no paddles).

I like this new ruling... I am 100% legal!

I was soooo happy when that came out.

I'm liking the direction this is heading.

I agree :thumbsup

I don't know. For some reason I just don't want my name on a list of guys that are taking on the DOJ. I also don't see why only FSC members should be covered. Plus, this is also only a temp. injuction. It's not that I wouldn't mind contributing but I don't want my name on any list.

Yeah...time to go grab some Jordan zip files...

Matt

I don't think that's possible. Ask your attorney as I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think there's any scenario by which the government could subpenea the FSC's membership list.

No offense, but don't you think that announcing to the government on a public webmaster message board that you're not protected by the injunction is worse than being on an FSC membership list that the government cannot access? I dunno, I think you may want to reconsider. :upsidedow

Not possible? Ynot?

Whew?
 

But primary producers (someone who arranges for talent and shoots the video/stills/etc) like me still must comply---IMO, my neck remains fully exposed to a chopping block, even if an inspection results in only a minor admin error:-((.

Dave Cummings
Who Recommends Being/Joining FSC NOW!

Definitly a thumb up for them . They did a great job so far, hopefully this will keep going

There is an advantage to solo girl sites, it is dealing with a limited number of models.

The thing is I don't have any pics on my site that would be considered hardcore. There would be nothing to inspect. Right now I am playing it totally safe so I don't have to worry about 2257. I am just considering putting hardcore images up.

The main purpose of my post is that Steve might want to clarify that it is only safe for FSC members to avoid any confusion for affiliates that read this thread. When I read his first post in the thread, to me it kind of implies that all Lightspeed affiliates are safe.

Gotta love it, the FSC came through

I've seen several lawyers comment that the laws cover EVERYONE... there is no way the law (or a ruling on it) could only apply to FSC members. If it's decided in court that a portion of a law is changed or revamped, it applies to everyone. Any legal counsel want to comment on it?

I would love to know too
:helpme

Mr Pinks, here's the deal:

FSC got a judge to say "secondary records thing would likely get shot down if challenged in court". If you were to get stopped as a secondary producer for not having records, you can pull this PUBLIC judgement out, and show that you would likely be able to defeat the rule as well. Thus, it is unlikely (99.99%) that the DoJ would take any action on secondary producers knowing that the rule would likely be defeated, and that the courts would take a dim view of them attempting to end run around the judgement as rendered in the FSC case.

So knock yourself out and enjoy being a secondary producer.

Alex

i dated a prosecutor in l.a., a cum laude stanford law school grad at that. she laughed at me when i told her about all this. that is so b.s. to apply something in this sense to one person over another because they are a member of an organization is definitely not impartial or judicial. i'm not trying to rain on the fsc's parade here, but it seems pretty silly to me for someone the think the judicial system cares more about someone who is a member of a coalition. we're all equal citizen's of a country that prides itself on our so called "justice" system. otherwise, what the hell good is our constitution? it's almost like saying "well, your a platinum level citizen, you're good." meanwhile, "you're only a bronze level citizen sir, looks like you get to have a records inspection." i think what the fsc is doing is great, but the whole "you're protected thing and you're not" doesn't add up to me. has any of the lawyers like j.d, greg, or clyde said anything to support that statement. my post is purely inquiry based here and not attacking fsc. this is what i know and have been told by my x-girlfriend.

You took the words out of my mouth. You have the same standpoint as me when you said " I think what the fsc is doing is great, but the whole "you're protected thing and you're not" doesn't add up to me. "

First, never trust a prosecutor... girlfriend or not. That said, it's my personal feeling that it's VERY unlikely that ANY secondary producer, FSC member or not, would need to keep records at this point. While technically the injunction is issued on behalf of the party that is challenging the law, I just can't imagine how the government could determine who is and who isn't an FSC member... or when they joined... so, seems secondary producers are in good shape all the way around. BUT... and I said this before... it also makes no sense to me to NOT be an FSC member, especially now that we've all seen the benefit of the industry having this kind of united voice.

Lightspeed affiliates are enjoying one of the benefits right now, in fact. :) Pussy shots return!

Sweet!!!!

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

true on the trusting part, lol. at least i can say i fucked the prosecution.

we are a secondary producer with exclusive content shot by third parties. i have every record and such so i'm safe. our parent company is an fsc member and i am glad that lightspeed got their pussy shots back :)

Especially the Jordan pussy shots... damn, what a hottie. Was surprised to see that Steve took her to Vegas... although I didn't get a chance to speak with her much. Taylor made a good impression though... that girl knows how to have fun. :)

Thank you, Steve, and congratulations on the re-insertion of certain content on your websites. FSC was glad to get its licks in so that you could get your licks back up. ;-)

We would, however, recommend that affiliates confer with an attorney before making any decisions regarding the re-posting of 2257-valid content to their websites.

Onward and upward!

Good news.

I LOVE it when armchair lawyers weigh in....

hello Hymes,

Since you seem to work for the FSC, can you give us some clarification on the subjects we have been discussing? Are non FSC members protected?

Mr Pinks,

Sorry for the late response but I was knocked offline all afternoon. I hate Adelphia!

According to the rules of civil procedure, only the paintiffs in a lawsuit are covered by either a temporary or preliminary injunction. Even if we wanted to include everyone on the planet, we could not do so.

So no, if you are not a member of FSC the ruling does not apply to you. If you are being told otherwise, you are being misled.

But if you joined or join the FSC yesterday, today, tomorrow or any day up until a final resolution of this case, you are covered under the 12/28/05 ruling as of the date of your sign-up.

However, the actual result of many, if not most, preliminary injunctions is that the government does not enforce the underlying law against anyone. Such is the case with COPA, which was enjoined about four years ago and is due to head back into court in October 2006. The odds are that whether you are a member of FSC or not, the feds are not likely to enforce 2257 while the preliminary injunction is in effect.

But it is always better to be safe than sorry, and the cost of FSC membership is nothing compared with defending yourself in court. You can also think of supporting us as spreading the cost of a very expensive lawsuit among many people rather than concentrating it in a few.

We still have a big challenge ahead preparing for the full 2257 trial, and membership in the Free Speech Coalition is still a good idea for that and a hundred other reasons.

And to whose who think the feds or anyone else will ever get the membership list, sorry to disappoint but it will never happen.

Cheers,
Tom

Thanks for the clarification. One more quick question. Let's say the injunction becomes permenant after the trial and the judge throws out the secondary producer crap, will it be the same result that only FSC members are covered or will it affect all secondary producers?

How much is membership BTW?

No, in that case it will extend to everyone, member or not.

FSC Chair Jeffrey Douglas also said at the show that after anticipated appeals he does not expect a final ruling on 2257 for 2-3 years. In other words, it is expected that the current status quo will last that long. He also said that the current ruling is the worst outcome we can expect, but that we still expect to prevail on arguments that the judge declined to address in December.

Regarding the future, Sen. Hatch has introduced a bill that will change the underlying statute to make 2257 cover all producers, including secondary, so the fight may be far from over. However, if that bill becomes law it will not impact this case. In other words, if it becomes law secondary producers will have to comply with 2257, but only from the date the bill becomes law. And of course, if we have to challenge it we will, and our attorneys will continue to argue that the entire 2257 regulatory scheme is unconstitutional and should be completely struck down.

Membership dues vary according to what area of the industry you work in, and if you are signing up as a company it is determined by how much annual revenue the company generates. Please check out the Become A Member section on www.freespeechcoalition.com for the categories and dues amounts, and for details on how to sign up.


Tom

Great news indeed