Wow, you're an idiot.

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

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.

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?

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!

obvoiusly protecting its members. its members are the ones affected by the new regulations. :1orglaugh

glad we are members :)

Duke

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.

:2 cents:

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

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.

50....,,..

Bingo, Lenny. I'd back off if he just admitted the HUGE FAULT in his statement, or just left it alone.

tell me to join because it will help the industry and i will. tell me to join or else and ill say fuck off. ill wait for the press release before i make that decision

Let me be clear(er) on this..... I have my own doubts about the statement of an injunction covering only FSC members .. i even consulted my attorney who said that an injunction is an injunction, but also, the law is about the details, none of which we have, and if FSC believes it can protect its members, that is their charter and duty.

Let me make it also clear, that FSC marketing campaign is not about "join us and you can be apart of our injunction."

*I* brought this up as ANOTHER reason to join FSC.

If you don't agree with .XXX, FSC is against it. Joining FSC means helping to fight against the "ghettoization" of the online adult space.

If you disagree with "community standards" and obscenity charges, then joining FSC means helping in that fight.

There are many reasons to join FSC. Obviously, the misconstruement of my first post has caused quite the stir, but nonetheless, there are many good reasons to support FSC.

I admire your viewpoints on many issues where you have held a level head and made very rational posts, and your bashing was a surprise since I have nothing to gain in my posting, and the point i presented was based on fact.


Fight the Zinging!

I'll take that as an apology then I guess.

ummm.. I am at fault for typing up the direct answer to a direct question that many have wondered about?

Do you cry bullshit to newspaper and cable news for the stories they run? Maybe you do.. Do you always shoot the messenger? Do you attack the mail man when he brings you bad news?

Thanks again for the bump.

Fight the what-are-we-fighting-about-again!

Hey everyone... been watching everyone take swipes at Brandon here and have a few comments which may or may not be helpful.

1) It doesn't do a lot of good for us to be at each other's throats right now. I know flaming is a time-honored tradition in this industry, but it seems to me a little unity isn't a bad idea right about now.

2) Brandon is not a representative of the FSC, other than possibly a member. So he isn't trying to drum up profits, and would not benefit in any way if people did sign up for the FSC.

3) I too was surprised by what Brandon posted when I read it on YNOT, and since then I called Michelle and asked her -- and yes, what Brandon is reporting here is also what she told me. However, she stressed that it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that the government would prosecute AT ALL if an injunction in in place since they have no way of knowing who is and isn't a FSC member. For this reason she said the FSC hasn't been botherting to mention this issue much, but added that some people have expressed concerns about the possibility, which she says exists. It is possible that Michelle got this wrong, and I'm sure we'll hear more about this soon. It's also possible that she got it right, and that there IS a technicality that could lead to select prosecutions even if the injunction is granted. I would assume that this is something that everyone would want to bring up with their attorneys. I don't know either way, but wanted to at least post that Brandon was only repeating what he was told, and you people are all over him about it. The old "don't shoot the messenger" wisdom comes to mind.

All that aside, is there anyone who wasn't planning on joining the FSC anyway in light of today's news? I would think that very few webmasters would be in the position of NOT being a member come 30 days from now, so most of this will me moot.

This is EXACTLY what Michelle told me last week. In fact I posted about it in a thread here and got the same response Brandon is getting.

I support the FSC 110% (I'm a member)- that's why I don't like the idiot that started this thread..."Hang together or hang separately" - that is a good saying and it's what we need to do. The FSC is our best shot right now.

Fear mongering and spreading bad information for your own profit is spineless IMO.

So, typing up what Michelle said to me is bad information? Do you read what you write?


please tell me how i am profiting from all of this?

please be specific, since you have made the accusation.


Fight the Questions!

shooting the messenger seems to be a popular sport around here.

It's almost like people were blissfully happy with their heads in the sands, and when you poke them on the shoulder to warn them about the flow of yellow pee about to run into their ear from little johnny in the corner, they get all bent ouf of shape.

I am aware of your efforts to help bring in more support for FSC (i read through the beginning part of your thread). You made alot of good points (much like you did with IMPAI at the time), and you stuck your neck out there to help with some solutions. :thumbsup



Fight the Nahsayers!

So basically FSC is virtually blackmailing us to send them money, using fear tactics. Got it.

The official DOJ release of comments on submitted comments is very interesting... and a very long read. For those that haven't seen the link posted to it, here's a copy:
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...5/05-10107.htm

I am about 1/3 the way through... alot to take in, but they state their reasons for what they chose to include and not include. Even if you have an attorney that is overlooking these issues for you, it's still a good read to peer inside the minds of DOJ.


Fight the never ending story!

Dude nobody is blackmailing anyone. Brandon asked a exact question and got a exact answer. Because it is not the answer you wanted to hear does not make it blackmail. According to the FSC TECHNICALLY speaking if a injunction on thier behalf is granted, only members of the FSC are protected. FSC does not make the fucking laws. Jeesh

Not quite the conclusion I had in mind, but here's an absurd conclusion based on the tone of various posts:

*I* am blackmailing everyone to seek an attorney about 2257 issues and their business because I get a 5.32% referral fee from all the attorneys when a new client comes in and says "i read about 2257 on GFY ..... "



Fight the Absurdity!

They're not saying "Pay $300 to be a member, and we'll try to protect you. Or you can go to jail." ?

Why would FSC members only be protected US law and it apply differently to everyone else ? Isn't that the advice FSC is giving ?

Usually...if not always...when a class action law suit is filed and an injunction is sought...it is sought on behalf of the clients that are actually listed as part of the class action...but when an injuction is granted on behalf of the clients involved in the class action...usually...if not always...there will be no further effort to enforce...upon anyone...whatever the injuction was granted for...until the matter is ajudicated and this sometimes takes multiple years.

Thus if the FSC files for an injuction upon behalf of its clients...and said injuction is granted...this injucntion...will probably...if not mandantorily...stop the DOJ from attempting to prosecute anyone until the matter is ajudicated.

BTW...I am not an attorney...the above is just my laymans understanding of how it works.

Where did they say that numnuts? Ask your fucking congressman why the law is as it is. FSC is not giving anyone advice as far as I have heard. You are just a fucking asshole, or a real dumbass. Pick one.

I certainly am not aware of any advice the FSC has provided for the new 2257 regs.

The people who are going to jail are the ones that failed to comply with 2257, should there be a successful prosecution. It is very unfortunate if someone doesn't have an CP material on their site, but yet go to jail for a felony because they have failed (or were lazy) in keeping proper documentation.

Being an FSC member is NOT the get out of jail free card.

Should it be true that the injunction can be granted over a class as defined by being an FSC member, then it only means prosection of the individually targetted companies are held off until the outcome of some bigger case.

It also may be true as Michelle has said in other articles, that having an injunction might cause the courts to hold off on all other cases, until the outcome of the FSC lawsuits that are attacking various parts of the 2257 language.

If there was no FSC, then who would be filing multiple federal court opposition?

Who? Anyone? Beuller? ACLU? EFF? the answer would be that the big companies would hire their big time attorneys and pay out their big time bucks to defend their companies against any possible charges, but first, having their records in order.

All those that couldn't afford big time lawyers, would get stuck with dealing with very broad terms and definitions and general apathy towards the federal requirements for recordkeeping.

So for those that are going to take this absurd moral argument, that if it is indeed true that FSC members are covered by a granted injunction and not support FSC, then you might as well chop your nose off now.


Fight the No More Smelling of bullshit!

"They're not saying "Pay $300 to be a member, and we'll try to protect you. Or you can go to jail." ?"

No, they're not. Some people were concerned and ASKED them if there was a POSSIBILITY that non-members could still be prosecuted after an injunction, and they answered the question to the best of their understanding but still downplayed the possibilty that anyone would get prosecuted if an injunction were issued. I hardly think the FSC needs to drum up reasons for webmasters to join right about now. Look, it's the height of foolishness to rely solely on message boards for information about things as important as 2257. There's a very simple solution to all of this. Call your attorney and ask -- if an injunction is granted on behalf of FSC efforts, will I need to be a FSC member to benefit from that? If you are comfortable with your counsel then that should finish the issue in your mind. Every person here gets to decide for himself or herself how best to proceed. The more information you have, the more likely you'll make an informed decision.

For those that have made it this far, it's because you are either amused at the drama, or want to learn about 2257. So here's a quick summary so that you can then ask good questions to an attorney.

For content producers (primary record keepers), you need to document the models that you use in every shoot. if you use the same model every 2 weeks, you get a new model release each time, because part of the model release is the documentation of the time/date of the production, what color their hair/eyes are then, etc. You need to be able to cross reference by date of prodution, model name, model aliases, nicknames, production title etc. You can use multiple filing cabinents with multiple paper copies, or use a database. You need proper government issued material to document the age. If you don't have a model release, or know how to create a cross-indexed filing system (or database), consult an attorney familiar with 2257.


For paysite webmasters (secondary record keepers), know where you received your images from. Document the content producers on your 2257 page. Create a listing of each URL to an image on your site to where it came from. Create folders or naming structures for your galleries as an alternative to atleast be able to answer where a specific image comes from. Use a spreadsheet to maintain your records.

For affiliate webmasters, not sure about how this all affects you if you receive sexually explicit content from a paysite. By all indiciations so far, you need to be able to document where the images came from.

For secondary record keepers in general about keeping IDs of the models, that remains to be seen where that goes, which is one of the targets by FSC in their lawsuits.

Until that gets resolved, compliance with CURRENT 2257 is something that anyone can do to be proactive. It will cost money and time to do so, and to remember 2257 is a recordkeeping statue, it is an actual law that says you have some responsibilities if you are going to produce or show sexually explicit materials. The new additions certainly go alot further, but better to atleast have the current 2257 requirements in place.

And when you do seek an attorney, be sure to tell them "i read about 2257 on GFY...." so that i can collect my 5.32% referral commission :1orglaugh



Fight the Answers!

if the free speech wants to only cover those who have supported them in a legal battle they are entitled too.. just because the word free is in their title - why should they fight for those that wont even help in the cause? too many are getting a free ride on the backs of others who were willing to fight.

You dont see that in the real world. Dont get pissed off if the press release comes out and your left in the dust crying because lawyers only look after their clients "first" and arent out there to save the industry as a whole.

You're an idiot. Read your comments, and wonder why anyone would listen to anything you say. It sounds like you are an 8th grade dropout with no sense that has to resort to insulting someone in order to hold a conversation.

Hang together, or hang seperately comes to mind.

You being the knowledgeable one however, please list an example where a US law injunction protected members of an organization while simultaneously being enforced against a non-member.

I agree with everything you've said. I'm not uncomfortable contributing to FSC, for a great cause. It's the inferring that you might not be prosecuted if you're an FSC member, or at least not right away, if you pay $300 per year.

I apoligize for calling you names. You remind me of a bitch that like you loves to twist and manipulate others words, puts words in peoples mouths. I detest people who try to do this. I notice you do this a lot. Here in this thread is a prime example of your bullshit....

quote from you ....So basically FSC is virtually blackmailing us to send them money, using fear tactics. Got it.

This sir is what whining bitches do. Where the fuck do you see FSC using scare tactics or blackmailing anyone?

A getting a injuction for a law suit that stops the action aka first data dropping ibill is very different then a injunction against a law and gov regulation .The example I use is COPA it was filed by the aclu (I think thats it) it doesnt mean just their members benefit. Think about it they are going to come to your door and you are going to show them your membership card and then they will go away. I dont think so, Also in my opinion they come to see your records ,they already have you in the gunsights for obscenity.

First post quote by Michelle Freridge (Executive Director):

Why approach it that way at all ? "Join us now, or you're fucked." Rather than just inform about how important it is ?

Further, Choker.. if you read this thread you'll find several others with the same opinion. Pounding your chest and shouting like an idiot isn't going to get anyone to change their mind.

There was no "approach"... it was a direct answer to my direct question. There was no marketing spin prepared, it was her answering what i was hearing from various places.

As far as how important this is???? You must have missed ALL the articles and Press releases, and stories, and postings on 2257. There were articles that said they started a 2257 defense fund. There was press releases about how industry attorneys were mounting up defense lawsuits.


Fight the blinders!

Hey guys the FSC online form is not a secure page, or am I missing something?
http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/application3.php