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!

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

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

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!

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.

uh oh...


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

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!

hmmm...is that bullshit I smell?

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

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.

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

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

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.

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!

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.

Fight the headaches!

Fuckin Scamming Cocksuckers
yes that is bullshit you smell

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.

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

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!

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!

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 :2 cents:

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

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!

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!

I caught that too....lol

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

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.

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.

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.

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!

HAHAHAHAHAHAH :1orglaugh

That is classic.

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!

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

says nothing about members only :disgust

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 !