Freedom Isn't Free! Fuck the FSC!

[koolkat]

Well... from seeing from the offical announcement from the Free Speech Coalition, that their "agreement" with the D.O.J. is only for members of the FSC! Well, I can officially say now that the FSC can go fuck themselves. I was considering spending the $300 to support them, but since they felt it was neccessary to look out only for their "members", rather than the free speech rights of all person, I will use my $300 for anything else! What's next... if you haven't given them $10,000 then you won't be included in the TRO/injunction if they win on Aug 8th!?!?!?

[PhoneSexChick]

I'm sure glad others are as pissed off about this whole FSC membership thing as I am. I had actually planned on joining up, but then got a little creeped out when rumors started that FSC members would be protected and nobody else would. I kept wondering, if this turns out to be true (which I kept doubting), how would DOJ know who's a member and who isn't? And if FSC eventually loses in court, would FSC members be more of a target?

So I decided to take a wait and see approach, and now I've seen. Total crap, IMO. And they make a point to say the membership list will be "under seal" and DOJ police won't see it. (Until when?)

So what, the feds will start showing up at places of business (in my case, my house, which is why I'm going softcore for awhile because I have too many stalking issues to put my address and real name online) and if you pull out an FSC card they'll say "Oh, pardon us, our mistake. Please accept this sticker for your window so we'll know we can't bother you until later. Pssst, anybody on your street that you know of who isn't a member?"

Right.

I'm so pissed about this there's no way I'm joining FSC now. This crap about having until Saturday night to join up? You've got to be fucking kidding me.

Call me paranoid, but there's just something really fucked up about this.

[chadknowslaw]

OMG! !

I am not the only FSC detractor!!!

This agreement rubs me the wrong way. In my OPINION< the agreement they have laid out would result in an unconstitutional violation of equal protection if the DOJ tries to enforce new 2257 regs against a non-member of the FSC. The government cannot selectively enforce laws!!
As a proud member [and former Board Member] of the ACLU, I cannot think of any case that the ACLU went to bat or fashioned an agreement that would only benefit its members. I cannot think of any case where Lambda Legal went to bat or tried to fashion an agreement that would only benefit its members. In fact, I cannot think of any advocacy group that has gone to court to fight ONLY for the rights of its members--they always benefit ANYONE in the plaintiff's class, whether they are a member of the group or not. However, the adult industry is not known for its cohesiveness or community spirit.

[Chop Smith]

Another sad day for America - selective enforcement of laws. What happened to our valuable concept of freedom for all?

[Linkster]

Actually I was just thinking that the ACLU would love a piece of this one - against the FSC and DOJ as co-Defendents

[koolkat]

I'd rather spend the $300 for my own lawyer and know I was getting looked out for! I really wonder what is next with the FSC!

[Mr. Blue]

Actually I was just thinking that the ACLU would love a piece of this one - against the FSC and DOJ as co-Defendents

The ACLU stayed out of it because the FSC got there first...perhaps they'll enter the arena now. As for joining...Don't know, I'm as compliant as I possibly can get right now...will it delay inspections, yeah, but what about future actions? A list of all members that won't be inspected handed over to the DOJ somehow? Hmm, lol, the ACLU would have never made such a deal.

[Greenguy]

Scream that really loud 3 times:

Freedom Isn't Free! Fuck the FSC!
Freedom Isn't Free! Fuck the FSC!
Freedom Isn't Free! Fuck the FSC!

I'm selling picket signs :D

[koolkat]

Scream that really loud 3 times:

Freedom Isn't Free! Fuck the FSC!
Freedom Isn't Free! Fuck the FSC!
Freedom Isn't Free! Fuck the FSC!

I'm selling picket signs :DI'll give you $300 towards getting them made up! :D

[Wenchy]

OMG! !

I am not the only FSC detractor!!!

This agreement rubs me the wrong way. In my OPINION< the agreement they have laid out would result in an unconstitutional violation of equal protection if the DOJ tries to enforce new 2257 regs against a non-member of the FSC. The government cannot selectively enforce laws!!
As a proud member [and former Board Member] of the ACLU, I cannot think of any case that the ACLU went to bat or fashioned an agreement that would only benefit its members. I cannot think of any case where Lambda Legal went to bat or tried to fashion an agreement that would only benefit its members. In fact, I cannot think of any advocacy group that has gone to court to fight ONLY for the rights of its members--they always benefit ANYONE in the plaintiff's class, whether they are a member of the group or not. However, the adult industry is not known for its cohesiveness or community spirit.

No way are you alone, Chad... I'm so pissed I can't see straight!! Many, many people on this board have chastised others for fear mongering, but if this isn't a screaming example of that practice at it's finest, I'd like to know what is!

IMHO, it doesn't matter that the adult industry has issues with cohesiveness and/or community spirit. We're all in this boat together and the laws, applied or not, will affect each of us equally... anything less is absolute discrimination of the worst kind.

I can't even put into words my fury at this whole FSC debacle. Here we sit in a situation where potentially hundreds of people are losing a large portion of their income, and the FSC has balls enough to expect $300 PER REMAINING WEBSITE for their holy-rolling "protection"?!? What the fuck is that about? Some of us are trying to figure out how to replace our missing income... we certainly aren't in a financial position to be coughing up large sums of cash to a somewhat questionably intentioned group of lawyers who supposedly "represent the entire adult entertainment community". Bah! |angry|

I'm going to stop here as I've already made one reputation-destroying post on this matter in another thread... gotta save what's left of my rep and my brain for later on today or maybe even tomorrow :D

[cosmiccat]

I was thinking seriously about joining the FSC. Not because I wanted to cover my ass but because I believe what they are fighting for is right. Now...no way! I will give my money to the ACLU instead. The ACLU doesn't work only for the people who give them money...they work for everyone. And they do it because it's right - not because it's profitable.

[Useless]

Avatar placement.

[Chop Smith]

They could be taking me to jail and tell me I would not have to go if joined the FSC and I would say "Fuck you and the horse you rode in on." Last night something told me not to send out my bull shit newsletter about this 2257 shit. I'll revise it and maybe Jim and I can share the same cell.

I am not against record keeping but equality is to apply to all Americans. At least that was what we were told in the 60's

[Lunatic]

I wonder if this agreement sets some sort of legal precedent.

[Mr. Blue]

Scream that really loud 3 times:

Freedom Isn't Free! Fuck the FSC!
Freedom Isn't Free! Fuck the FSC!
Freedom Isn't Free! Fuck the FSC!

I'm selling picket signs :D

Can I use the "No Justice, No Peace" picket sign? I've lived in NYC, whenever we have a protest, quasi-riot that's the war chant.

[PhoneSexChick]

Scream that really loud 3 times:

Freedom Isn't Free! Fuck the FSC!
Freedom Isn't Free! Fuck the FSC!
Freedom Isn't Free! Fuck the FSC!

I'm selling picket signs :D

Hello PhoneSexChick

Hi doll! I'm glad I'm not stoned or all these refs to PhoneSexChick would make me run screaming into the basement.

[PhoneSexChick]

Wait, is that another of these horrible scripts? You're really from the DOJ here just to mess with the paranoid folk.

[Naughtie]

These Fuckers are out for themselves and their members ONLY. Maybe all the pissed off webmasters should ban together and get our own lawers to attack the DOJ on Discrimination charges. The US economy is not in very good shape and now they want to try and scare webmasters out of business. This should help out the economy alot. The FSC just boosted their income by how much, and how many of the NEW members are joining to keep the eye of justice off them. Thank you to the DOJ and FSC, next time can I get a kiss before you fuck me!!!!!!

[cosmiccat]

If John Kerry had been elected president instead of George W, would we still be talking about this 2257 bullshit? Thought so! |angry|

[SlickRick]

I just knew this was going to be the answer that was given from reading last nights xbiz comment on this.

I didn't plan on joining today, yesterday, a week ago, and don't plan to joining.
this law with having to keep records is unconstitutional and now this new stuff is unconstitutional as well. I feel the US Court system works and this will all be thrown out in do time.

[plateman]

I agree and this is just another way to gain a bunch more money before they throw it all out...

[Ms Naughty]

OK, I've woken up to read this news, and I'm feeling disappointed, mainly because it seems the FSC wants to negotiate this rather than fight it. Their case looked really strong and winnable, but now it looks like they're going to cave in on things.

We don't want them to water down these new rules. They need to be scrapped altogether because they are grossly unfair, burdensome and unconstitutional.

Already I find myself wondering what they're going to try for.

- Will they fight to remove the retroactive clause but agree that it's reasonable for webmasters to post their home address on the net?
- Will they say it's OK to distribute model's addresses, but only if their middle name is blacked out?
- Will they negotiate so that the DOJ can still investigate without a warrant, but they need to knock first and say the secret password?

OK... I'm getting flippant here LOL

[sam]

I just knew this was going to be the answer that was given from reading last nights xbiz comment on this.

I didn't plan on joining today, yesterday, a week ago, and don't plan to joining.
this law with having to keep records is unconstitutional and now this new stuff is unconstitutional as well. I feel the US Court system works and this will all be thrown out in do time.

I feel the same way Rick...however, I hope your right about it getting thrown out in do time.

[docholly]

Can I use the "No Justice, No Peace" picket sign? I've lived in NYC, whenever we have a protest, quasi-riot that's the war chant.

omg that is so true.. as the proud owner of 5 arrests, no convictions, during the apartheid pickets in the 80's.. i do believe i can still belt that one out and on key..

I can't even put into words my fury at this whole FSC debacle. Here we sit in a situation where potentially hundreds of people are losing a large portion of their income, and the FSC has balls enough to expect $300 PER REMAINING WEBSITE for their holy-rolling "protection"?!? What the fuck is that about? Some of us are trying to figure out how to replace our missing income... we certainly aren't in a financial position to be coughing up large sums of cash to a somewhat questionably intentioned group of lawyers who supposedly "represent the entire adult entertainment community". Bah!

the word i'd use would be oh let me think..

extortion comes to mind..

and as card carrying member, as everyone who believes in our constitution should be, of the ACLU, i think its time those of us who are members should do a little politicing ourselves.

[Mr. Blue]

and as card carrying member, as everyone who believes in our constitution should be, of the ACLU, i think its time those of us who are members should do a little politicing ourselves.

I wish the ACLU handled this instead of the FSC. Instead of going after the target before them, they found a nifty way to circumnavigate the issue for a few months at what cost? They didn’t go for an injunction of the reg. as they knew that would have to be all inclusive and not just for their members.

There’s so many downsides to this type of plea bargain agreement which in essence it is..a plea bargain agreement. I’m still not sure whether I should pay the extortion or not, but I’ll say it repeatedly…I wish the ACLU handled this from the start.

[SlickRick]

I feel the same way Rick...however, I hope your right about it getting thrown out in do time.


ya well I am keeping my fingers crossed. I am not an attorney and dont know what was said in the court room. I'd like to read the court room transscrips though.

stranger things have happend, this is just a bad case of "BIG BROTHER" getting into everyones personal life and business.

[sue-fl]

Well this is just great... |angry| |angry| I've been off the computer most of the day thinking everthing was going to work out. Ha was I wrong! No I didn't join the FSC and glad I didn't now. How can shit like this happen? I know you don't have to tell me his name is Bush! Well I didn't vote for him what else can I do but just get angry which is not healthy.

God this is just getting worse and it sucks!!

[Lemmy]

This "deal" is no less unconstitutional than the 2257 regs themselves. I would normally just laugh and shrug, but with the other news today about the Supreme Court ruling in the Connecticut eminent domain case and DoD creating databases of all teenagers it looks like the values that once made America unique are being flushed down the toilet. Anything is possible, maybe the sky is falling...

[fudge]

Every couple of years I feel the need to post something, I'm feeling the need again |waves|

I think the subject of this post reflects my feelings. The FSC can no longer claim to represent the adult entertainment industry.
If the DOJ thought they would defeat the motion for the TRO they wouldn't have cut this deal. It's no more complicated than that.

FSC have said their phone has been ringing off the hook with people wanting to join. The industry as a whole has been let down, and I know several FSC members who are unhappy with the situation.

I have had misgivings about the FSC for a long time, hence I decided not to join, although it did seem for a while there that they were doing ok. I am now going to go and join the ACLU, something I should have done a long time ago, they seem like our best hope for a wide ranging long term fix.
I find it very telling that the FSC described this as great news.

[Greenguy]

Avatar placement.
If I wasn't married, I'd call T Pat & ask about getting me set up south of the border :D

[koolkat]

I am seriously looking at offshore dealings for my main site. Not that I have anything to hide, and the costs are much more, but it makes me sick to see stuff like this in our country. With the internet being worldwide, it makes me what to share some with the rest of the world!

[SlickRick]

I am seriously looking at offshore dealings for my main site. Not that I have anything to hide, and the costs are much more, but it makes me sick to see stuff like this in our country. With the internet being worldwide, it makes me what to share some with the rest of the world!



there inlies the problem koolkat.
if you reside in the US you can not be exepmt from this by moving to a hosting company thats not in the US. The only way is to move to that country. At least thats what I was told from my attorney.

[koolkat]

I was looking at the works... hosting, banking, billing, etc all out of the US

[Toby]

I was looking at the works... hosting, banking, billing, etc all out of the USNone of that makes any difference if you yourself still reside in the U.S.

[PhoneSexChick]

I was looking at the works... hosting, banking, billing, etc all out of the US

I don't think it matters. What matters is where YOU live. My hosting has been in Canada for years, and it wouldn't be that hard to set up a PO box and bank account there.

But my ass is right here in the USA, and I've read those regs again and again trying to find *something*

I think the only way around it would be to transfer everything - domain registrations, payment, etc. - to a friend in Canada or somewhere and have them write you personal checks. Probably illegal as hell, and you'd have to really trust the person on the other end, but I suppose that might work. (But I'm not going to try it...was just a thought I had and then said nah)

[Chop Smith]

Actually I was just thinking that the ACLU would love a piece of this one - against the FSC and DOJ as co-Defendents

I am not a joiner or a crusader but I just joined the ACLU. Now to figure out how to suggest they file against FSC and DOJ for selective enforcement which violates the 14th amendment.

[docholly]

I am not a joiner or a crusader but I just joined the ACLU. Now to figure out how to suggest they file against FSC and DOJ for selective enforcement which violates the 14th amendment.

|thumb way to go chop..

[Toby]

The Equal Protection provisions of the 14th Amendment only apply to the States, not to the Federal government. However, there would still be some major due process issues if the DOJ were to try and prosecute any "non-members" during the terms of this agreement with the FSC.

[Chop Smith]

The Equal Protection provisions of the 14th Amendment only apply to the States, not to the Federal government. However, there would still be some major due process issues if the DOJ were to try and prosecute any "non-members" during the terms of this agreement with the FSC.
Just relying on what my lawyer said. Of course we met in his office which is under a shade tree.

[RawAlex]

Why do I think a T-shirt with this logo would be a good thing to wear in Miami?

Just a thought.

Alex

[Toby]

Just relying on what my lawyer said. Of course we met in his office which is under a shade tree.My kind of office. :D

www.law.cornell.edu/... (http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/equal_protection.html)
The last paragraph has the pertinent info.

[Lunatic]

Maybe this is the only way the FSC can do anything. The members are identified and verified and so can be protected temporarily until the courts hash things out. But everything the FSC accomplishes from an injunction on will apply towards everyone won't it?

[domweb]

Maybe this is the only way the FSC can do anything. The members are identified and verified and so can be protected temporarily until the courts hash things out. But everything the FSC accomplishes from an injunction on will apply towards everyone won't it?That's what everyone thought the first time around.

Shall we go double or nothing?

[Tubey]

This whole thing should be thrown out and some more thought put into it. The FSC can shove it....This is an extortion tactic to get us signed up as members. I'll wait to see what they come up with. Is there some kind of icon they are putting on members sites to keep the DOJ off them?? I haven't seen one yet..... so how do they know if we are members or not.....they may give all that info to the DOJ hitlist as being people needing protection from the 2257 laws........something to think about.

[Tubey]

and after thinking about it...why can't they make this easier on everyone...the content producer keep a list of all sites using the content and the website showing which content producer is being used. The producer keeps all records within his building and the DOJ doesn't have to visit 30,000 of us seems simple enough to me.

[xxxjay]

Oh lord, you guys...you could do 2 things, the way I see it:

1. Get a lawyer and file your own injunction (much more than $300)

2. Get 100% 2257 compliant and pray they don't come knocking

It is Gonzolez vs. The Free Speach Coalition not Gonzolez vs. The Earth!

Do you think all of the people that want porn gone to be part of the injunction? Nope.

Grow up people...$300 ain't shit and if you can't afford it -- this obviously hasn't been working out for you and you should consider another job.

[lassiter]

If John Kerry had been elected president instead of George W, would we still be talking about this 2257 bullshit? Thought so! |angry|

Yep, we sure would. The move started under Ashcroft in Dubya's first term, and Kerry isn't the type who would want to be seen as halting any so-called "anti-CP" initiative, so matter how phony.

And don't forget that Kerry not only voted for Scalia's nomination to the Supreme Court, but actually made a speech on the floor of the Senate praising "his good friend." He's no friend of civil liberties.

[Useless]

Grow up people...$300 ain't shit and if you can't afford it -- this obviously hasn't been working out for you and you should consider another job.OK, I'm convinced - I quit.

Everyone please stop submitting to me and pull all of my links. I'm too immature, too ignorant, and don't have any tattoos or piercings, so I can no longer remain in this industry. As of noon today, my domains will be used for selling bibles.

[Useless]

And another fucking thing,
Oh lord, you guys...you could do 2 things, the way I see it:

1. Get a lawyer and file your own injunction (much more than $300)

2. Get 100% 2257 compliant and pray they don't come knocking

It is Gonzolez vs. The Free Speach Coalition not Gonzolez vs. The Earth!

Do you think all of the people that want porn gone to be part of the injunction? Nope.Maybe the ignorant cock that wrote the 2257 announcement for OC Cash (http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/showthread.php?t=20707) should have mentioned that only FSC members are safe from justice before OC Cash told us to pretty much not worry about complying. What'ya think there, tough guy?

[Linkster]

I dont know where ya'll are getting your history on 2257 - but it started being written under the first Bush and went through under Clinton - its been around for a long time - just nobody payed any attention to it including the DOJ

[babymaker]

My balls ache :D

[domweb]

Oh lord, you guys...you could do 2 things, the way I see it:

1. Get a lawyer and file your own injunction (much more than $300)

2. Get 100% 2257 compliant and pray they don't come knocking

Do you think all of the people that want porn gone to be part of the injunction? Nope.

Grow up people...$300 ain't shit and if you can't afford it -- this obviously hasn't been working out for you and you should consider another job.Cool Jay. I took the third option...but I CAN afford the $300.

This isn't about the money. This about the principle. So if you don't wanna hear...don't read the "FUCK THE FSC" post....it will only upset you.

As for 'cant afford it" comment:

You are a webmaster who has had TIME to develop your business and was ABLE to build his site when the ridiculous regulations were NOT in place. Now that things are different and you are in a position of serious traffic, it's cool to throw the newbies to the lions?

Screw the little guy! Make him post his home address!

Did you post your home address on your site, Jay?

Or are you successful enough now to run it all out of an office?

[Boogie]

Or are you successful enough now to run it all out of an office?

he definately runs it out of an office. a damned nice office too judged by the shots he's posted. but it doesnt mean i agree with hsi entire message ;)

[Wenchy]

I personally don't know anyone to whom "$300 ain't shit", present company included. Some of us sling porn as a second income, not so we can drive a fucking Hummer and shop at Neiman-Marcus. I have many other important and valid places for my $300 (like braces for my kid) and I refuse to accept the idea that I am a bad person or too "lowly" to be a porn webmaster because of my situation. |angry|

I'm certainly not attempting to pick a fight with anyone, especially xxxjay, but sometimes things aren't as simple as perhaps they appear to be at first glance.

[xxxjay]

Cool Jay. I took the third option...but I CAN afford the $300.

This isn't about the money. This about the principle. So if you don't wanna hear...don't read the "FUCK THE FSC" post....it will only upset you.

As for 'cant afford it" comment:

You are a webmaster who has had TIME to develop your business and was ABLE to build his site when the ridiculous regulations were NOT in place. Now that things are different and you are in a position of serious traffic, it's cool to throw the newbies to the lions?

Screw the little guy! Make him post his home address!

Did you post your home address on your site, Jay?

Or are you successful enough now to run it all out of an office?

Dude, you can't re-write the way our system works. I don't think the FSC could do an injunction in a way the would satisfy you even if they could.

Even if you are not a member, as long as it is enjoined - there is a 99.9% chance nothing will happen to you.

[xxxjay]

And another fucking thing,
Maybe the ignorant cock that wrote the 2257 announcement for OC Cash (http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/showthread.php?t=20707) should have mentioned that only FSC members are safe from justice before OC Cash told us to pretty much not worry about complying. What'ya think there, tough guy?

Easy killer...you need to make up your own mind about things and not determine what you will do by a program's announcement (or boards for that matter)...

BTW: the "ignorant cock" you are speaking of is working on the injunction, which is the only thing that kept the feds from potentially coming knocking on your door on the 23rd.

[Tubey]

I think Jim said it best......"BRING IT ON COCKSUCKERS"
Don't worry Jim we say it even if you don't

[Useless]

...which is the only thing that kept the feds from potentially coming knocking on your door on the 23rd.I'm not scared.
|buddy|is my co-pilot.

you need to make up your own mind about things and not determine what you will do by a program's announcement (or boards for that matter)...I decided how I would react far before any sponsor bothered to release a statement. I'm not a member of the FSC, I haven't removed single or link, and oddly enough I have not been arrested. I'm ruled by common sense, not fear.

[Tubey]

UW, do you have an extra seat for me???

[Chop Smith]

Most of us that have been around here for awhile have little problem with FSC other than Jay and a few others here turned this 2257 stuff into a membership campaign for them. It is way passed time to turn loose of this.

[Carmilla]

I'm not a member of the FSC, I haven't removed single or link, and oddly enough I have not been arrested. I'm ruled by common sense, not fear.

|thumb Right on.

I'm a lowly small private webmaster; my sites number in the double digits not triple nor quadruple, and I've yet to have to pay any taxes on any of my web earnings (after nearly 6 yrs of doing this) because I make so damned little at it, who the hell cares? Not even the IRS! Hence, while I am certainly concerned for my Constitutionally-assured rights, for my personal self I have little worry. I just can't see the DOJ hitting even 1/10th of the existing porn sites OR porn webmasters, regardless of their income and/or prominence (or total lack thereof).

To my mind, "civil disobedience' should be the order of the day, here. If we don't like the law, we just don't observe it. Kinda like smoking pot, y'know? Did the laws against that ever stop any stoner from getting high? Not on your doobie-doobie-doo. This pornophobic administration will be out of office probably before they finish debating this issue, so why worry?

We need an Alfred E. Neuman icon for this.

Millions of people want porn. The millions who don't want them to have it will not be able to stop them, nor those who provide it for them. MORALITY CANNOT BE LEGISLATED. Perhaps the Supreme Court will remember this, even if no one else in this reactionary gov't does.

Ok there's my 2 cents. Don't spend it all in one place. |blowkiss|

Carmilla |waves|

|potleaf|

[xxxjay]

Most of us that have been around here for awhile have little problem with FSC other than Jay and a few others here turned this 2257 stuff into a membership campaign for them. It is way passed time to turn loose of this.

Hey, they deserve support. Massive court battles aren't free.

[Chop Smith]

And that is the reason lots of us joined

[xxxjay]

Jay and a few others here turned this 2257 stuff into a membership campaign for them. It is way passed time to turn loose of this.

Are you trying to say that I have anything to gain by the FSC getting more members?

[Chop Smith]

No is the answer to the question.

Do I think you used bad judgement in the way you worded your 2257 posts? Yes!

[Jim]

I think Jim said it best......"BRING IT ON COCKSUCKERS"
Don't worry Jim we say it even if you don't
I just don't want to bring heat to those on this board that don't want it. I still feel the same though :)

[guitar riff]

Things that make ya go hmmmm LOL

wonder what will happen if alberto gets put in the empty seat in the supreme court I'm hearing alot of talk about him being a top choice with two distant competitors behind him and this case ends up getting kicked around for awhile then ends up in the supreme court in front of the creator or author of the new revisions.

[Toby]

...then ends up in the supreme court in front of the creator or author of the new revisions.These current revisions were initiated under Ashcroft's watch, Gonzales just inherited them. Still, I can think of many others I'd prefer to see fill that vacancy on the Supreme Court.

[Chop Smith]

|deadhorse

[SirMoby]

These current revisions were initiated under Ashcroft's watch, Gonzales just inherited them. Still, I can think of many others I'd prefer to see fill that vacancy on the Supreme Court.
Gonzales is considered to moderate for the religious right to consider him and if appointed the conservatives could see some lack of support in the mid term elections so I don’t think it will happen. 63% of Americans believe that Dubya will appoint someone that will consider their own personal religious beliefs when interpreting the law. That should disqualify them from being a judge but it doesn’t.

My only real concern about Gonzales is that he’s stated numerous times that his #1 priority is to fight obscenity and not protect children. He may be saying this because he’s doing as told and that’s admirable. I think if he is appointed he may end up with a mind of his own and be more moderate and more focused on the law then many others that will be appointed in the next 3.5 years.

[plateman]

|deadhorse
LOL I been beating a dead horse most of my life and to be honest my stick is about worn out :D

[pornodoggy]

Hey, they deserve support. Massive court battles aren't free.

I want YOU to pay for it so it's free for me.

[pornodoggy]

These current revisions were initiated under Ashcroft's watch, Gonzales just inherited them. Still, I can think of many others I'd prefer to see fill that vacancy on the Supreme Court.

Gonzales may have inherited them from Asshat, but he was proud enough of them to make a brief mention of 'em in a speech given in front of the National Press Club a couple of days after he signed them. Of course, he was using the "save the children" justification.

The audio of the speech is available with a quick search on npr.com.

[xxxjay]

I want YOU to pay for it so it's free for me.

That is a really lame position to take. After your first 2257 bust - call a lawyer and tell him exactly that.

Cry in one + shit in the other = see which fills up first! :)

[xxxjay]

No is the answer to the question.

Do I think you used bad judgement in the way you worded your 2257 posts? Yes!

Can you expound upon that?

[Chop Smith]

Can you expound upon that?
Jay, in all due respect, I decline. It would probably lead to a pissing contest which would not be beneficial to either of us.

[xxxjay]

Jay, in all due respect, I decline. It would probably lead to a pissing contest which would not be beneficial to either of us.

Bring it on. Pissing contests aren't always bad...sometimes people learn things.

[Erick G]

Wont the DOJ go mostly after teen sites?
I do mature sites and if the DOJ thinks my grannies are under 18 they got serious problems.

[xxxjay]

Wont the DOJ go mostly after teen sites?
I do mature sites and if the DOJ thinks my grannies are under 18 they got serious problems.

They are most likely going to go after "extreme" material that they can demonize in court.

[urb]

What a total waste of money and resources. :(

The DoJ should be tackling violent crime and drugs. Tidy up that mess first and then worry about putting manpower into enforcing 2257.

It's very simple priority management.

[Kinky]

:D What a total waste of money and resources. :(

The DoJ should be tackling violent crime and drugs. Tidy up that mess first and then worry about putting manpower into enforcing 2257.

It's very simple priority management.
geez Urb don't go using common sense now :D i would be happy if they would find the fuckers that keep stealing my cars!! if anybody sees a couple of nice nissan 300zx's with dvd players and tv's inside for sale really cheap lemme know, they are probably mine! LOL

[xxxjay]

What a total waste of money and resources. :(

The DoJ should be tackling violent crime and drugs. Tidy up that mess first and then worry about putting manpower into enforcing 2257.

It's very simple priority management.

I agree 100%...well, err...50% -- they should keep up with the violent crime. They lost the drug war a long time ago. :)

[xxxjay]

What a total waste of money and resources. :(

The DoJ should be tackling violent crime and drugs. Tidy up that mess first and then worry about putting manpower into enforcing 2257.

It's very simple priority management.

Oh yeah, I just rememebered...there is thsi guy running around in the middle east they haven't been able to catch...I can't remember his name...his initials were O.B. or something like that...

[urb]

Oh yeah, I just rememebered...there is thsi guy running around in the middle east they haven't been able to catch...I can't remember his name...his initials were O.B. or something like that...
You mean the guy who's family left the United States under the protection of the DoJ before the FBI were allowed to interview them regarding the whereabouts of O.B.?

[Far-L]

The only reason you all are pissed about the FSC is because you are misinformed.

I think if you knew more then you wouldn't see the FSC in such a negative light.

Here are some things to consider:

The FSC is a TRADE ORGANIZATION not the ACLU. That means it acts on behalf of its members which is different than the ACLU that works on constitutional issues.

There are plenty of problems the adult industry has faced over the years that the ACLU has done nothing for so don't think that is some sort of porn protection agency.

On the other hand, the FSC is a trade group that has paid lobbyists working to address issues that concern the adult industry directly.

The FSC has worked and is working on issues that have very far reaching benefits that extend to the entire industry. But keep in mind that effort costs money and the money is paid by its members. Why should the members want to spend to defend every single person in this industry when so many of them:
A. Don't put in a friggin dime to deal with the problems
B. Don't run above board legal operations and thumb their nose at the law in the first place
C. Want to run offshore rather than deal with the issue

I know from our Acacia suit that people have similar expectations but the truth is we are all just business people trying to protect our own businesses. Sure it is nice to be complimented and told "you are fighting the good fight" but at the end of the day I would much rather see someone throw in some coin so I don't have to spend as much. I laugh at all the people that will still be paying their "good business decision" licenses if we get out on non-infringement. Nothing noble about that.

I won't be crying either over any company that closed or closes down due to the new 2257 regs either. That is not vary couragous either.

I will be looking at my brothers and sisters in FSC though and saying thanks for standing up in a time of need. You can say whatever you want about that. I am just truly grateful for the FSC and what it does for our industry.