Free Speech Coalition - who to vote for 2006 Board of Directors?

[Bill]

So, I got a Free Speech Coalition letter today about voting for new board members.

The letter has almost no information, and I was wondering if anyone had any opinions about who should or shouldn't be on the board.

The candidates are:

Jim Everett
Sid Grief*
Joan Irvine*
William Murphy*
Gregory Shearer
Nellie Symm-Gruender
Connor Young*

* indicates current board member

Anybody have any opinions?

[RawAlex]

I have an opinion, but my opinions are not popular so I will not voice them.

Alex

[Bill]

Do you know much of anything about these candidates?

I recognize two names, Joan Irvine and Connor Young. And I don't know all that much about either of them.

[juggernaut]

I voted for ripping it in 1/2 and tossing it in the trash.

[Bill]

Yes, well, the FSC hasn't been a very good servant for the small online adult businesses, but they got more done for us on the 2257 attack than anybody else.

If voting for the next board is one of the few inputs we can make, it would be nice to know who we were voting for.

And maybe a boardtracker will bring us a rep to fill us in.

[Toby]

And maybe a boardtracker will bring us a rep to fill us in. |haha |haha |haha
That's a big part of the problem, other than their own web site they don't seem to have an online presence.

[SirMoby]

We can bitch all we want but haven't they done the one thing that was most important and that's challenge a terrible law that's unconstitutional and will increase crimes to barbaric levels.

Since no one else has stepped up to the plate to protect your rights then maybe we could just focus on this issue at hand. Does anyone have information about these canditates? If so, care to post some of it?

[kenny]

vote for all 7 and send it back - you're allowed

it says so on the letter

[Kinky]

http://freespeechcoalition.com/nominations.htm

is the only info I could dig up just in case it hasn't been seen yet

[emmanuelle]

I don't follow him and thus don't know his politics, but Connor seems to be the only one with first hand experience in OUR area of the industry. I think that might add an important perspective to the mix.

[RawAlex]

I have to say I find it interesting (and a little disturbing) that the majority of the people nominated are from the retail video / sex toy industry. That is right, retail.

Conner is the only person on that list that I could see that has a direct contact with the online adult industry.

Joan Irvine also leads ASACP, which makes me wonder if she has enough time and energy to properly do both jobs. I also find that the ASACP has undergone many changes in the last year, not all of which I am personally comfortable with.

Beyond that, it is pretty much flip a coin between "this retailer" and "that retailer".

Alex

[Redrob]

This is my statement on the FSC Nominations webpage. If you have any questions, I'll be glad to answer them.

SID GRIEF'S (aka Redrob) background includes 30 years of adult retailing in Texas including adult bookstores, video rental stores, newsstands, internet websites, internet content sales and internet fulfillment operations. His education includes BBA with Highest Honors, majors in Marketing and International Business and BA with High Honors, major in Asian Studies from UT.

Sid is one of the original founders of First Amendment Coalition of Texas, which has raised over $1 million for lobbying in Texas. Sid has served two terms as a VSDA Chapter President. Moreover, Sid has served as a member of the VSDA Adult Advisory Committee and the PBAA's Anticensorship Committee.

During his past term on the FSC Board, Sid has led the Internet Committee's redevelopment of the FSC website and served on the Legal and Government Committee which has overseen the major legal challenges undertaken by the FSC.

Sid states, 'I think the major challenges will be stopping the DOJ's expansion of 2257, securing the recognition of our Right to Privacy, and preventing the implementation of the XXX TLD . Moreover, I will work to defeat ultraconservative legislators during the next election and expand our membership base through the development of local FSC Chapters."

[emmanuelle]

Are you actually campaigning here?

[SirMoby]

This is my statement on the FSC Nominations webpage. If you have any questions, I'll be glad to answer them.

SID GRIEF'S (aka Redrob) background includes 30 years of adult retailing in Texas including adult bookstores, video rental stores, newsstands, internet websites, internet content sales and internet fulfillment operations. His education includes BBA with Highest Honors, majors in Marketing and International Business and BA with High Honors, major in Asian Studies from UT.

Sid is one of the original founders of First Amendment Coalition of Texas, which has raised over $1 million for lobbying in Texas. Sid has served two terms as a VSDA Chapter President. Moreover, Sid has served as a member of the VSDA Adult Advisory Committee and the PBAA's Anticensorship Committee.

During his past term on the FSC Board, Sid has led the Internet Committee's redevelopment of the FSC website and served on the Legal and Government Committee which has overseen the major legal challenges undertaken by the FSC.

Sid states, 'I think the major challenges will be stopping the DOJ's expansion of 2257, securing the recognition of our Right to Privacy, and preventing the implementation of the XXX TLD . Moreover, I will work to defeat ultraconservative legislators during the next election and expand our membership base through the development of local FSC Chapters."
Thanks for stopping by and I read your profile earlier today. The action items that you listed matches my list pretty well. |waves|

[Redrob]

Emmanuelle,

I just stopped in when I saw there was some interest in the FSC election. I was just trying to be helpful. Being in Texas, I am familiar with the censorial efforts of our local, state and federal governments. Anytime, I can raise awareness of our mutual problems, I try to do so.

|santa| Happy Holidays! |santa|

[docholly]

Emmanuelle,

I just stopped in when I saw there was some interest in the FSC election. I was just trying to be helpful. Being in Texas, I am familiar with the censorial efforts of our local, state and federal governments. Anytime, I can raise awareness of our mutual problems, I try to do so.

|santa| Happy Holidays! |santa|

the fact that you've survived the adult industry in Texas seems to speak volumes
.

[Jim]

I would rather vote for
Jack Meoff
Sue Perr
Willie Pounder
Ben Dover
Ivana Bangor
Sammy Terry Napkin
Rob Banks
Lois Price
Ivana B. Laid
Matt Sterbator
:)

[SirMoby]

Isn't the fact that someone that wishes to represent us against the unpatriotic administration a good thing? Why so many negatice remarks?

[Mr. Blue]

I'm consulting my magic 8-ball...I'll get back to you once it tells me who to vote for...either that or I'm writing in UW's name just because I want to see him yelling "cocksuckers" at some press junket.

[CatsEye]

I'm consulting my magic 8-ball...I'll get back to you once it tells me who to vote for...either that or I'm writing in UW's name just because I want to see him yelling "cocksuckers" at some press junket.

Just wanted to say, I've been having a crappy time lately, and reading that almost made me spit out my drink. Thanks for that imagery, and the laugh. |loony|

[DJilla]

I have to say I find it interesting (and a little disturbing) that the majority of the people nominated are from the retail video / sex toy industry. That is right, retail.

Conner is the only person on that list that I could see that has a direct contact with the online adult industry.


Now, I'm not making any accusations here but going on a trend that I've experienced with associations in other industries I've been involved with in the past.

1) Usually controlled and influenced by a small handful, cabal, of people that are serving their own interests and closely tied to the representative law firm which makes big bucks catering to their primary benefactors. The benefit for the small guy being usually and only being able to attach him/her self to whatever legal settlement is worked out (which is no small thing for example: the current 2257 protections and temp waiver)

For example: Any legal effort has numerous different avenues and/or paths/issues to follow. Why has there not been a menu of choices for members to VOTE on. You can do this or you can have that? Let's vote.

For example: I am aghast that there are no real personalities from the online world involved in this stuff. Why not? Is no one willing to step up (I'm not) and get involved or have they been shut out?

For example: I am aghast that FSC has not aggressively posted information and solicited opinoins on the larger boards like here? Why? I would suggest that they don't want them.

For example: I have been knocking myself silly trying to find a link to the public filings of the briefs in the 2257 issues. Non existent. The briefs SHOULD be freely available on their website. From what little info I've been able to find I'm a tad bit suspicious about how they are phrasing the argument (s) and what they appear to be willing to comprimise to and even the general direction they're taking it. BUT, honestly I don't have enough info to judge. WHY? I gotto go to CA and make a big mouth bitch at the meetings? Shouldn't have too... should we?

In a few more years porn delivery is going to be overwhelmingly digital. How we don't have MAJOR representation in this group is beyond me. Assoc. like this can be very powerful and are fairly easy to take over if a concerted effort is made by a handful of smart and involved people. Anybody interested?

[DJilla]

I gotta admit, I'm kinda surprised |confused| . This looks like its a dead thread. I thought I was going to come back and see tons of posts, opinoins, research, links, etc. here.

Is there another association out there that is relevant to anything we do that I don't know about?

How is it that we can go on and on about guns, or red content, or the nit picky political issues of the day and not have anything to say about the single most important voice and presence representing what we do? I've seen comments about FSC both good and bad in more locations having nothing to do with the adult biz than I generally see on the boards (but very little about the people in it) and I know there was a huge rush toward membership when it was clear that it was the only path toward temporarily saving your butts from an aggressive Justice dept. policy and then what...? Move on?

OK, its cool. I guess? But I'm wondering if this is not a statement on something though I can't figure out what that statement might be. Things that make you go hmmmmmm

[GonZo]

I have to say I find it interesting (and a little disturbing) that the majority of the people nominated are from the retail video / sex toy industry. That is right, retail.

Conner is the only person on that list that I could see that has a direct contact with the online adult industry.

Joan Irvine also leads ASACP, which makes me wonder if she has enough time and energy to properly do both jobs. I also find that the ASACP has undergone many changes in the last year, not all of which I am personally comfortable with.

Beyond that, it is pretty much flip a coin between "this retailer" and "that retailer".

Alex

Joan has plenty of time to waffle back and forth on the .xxx domain issue. Her "statement" on the panel in San Diego was 2 fucking pages long.

Of course if I had Steve Lightspeed up my ass...Id be scrambling like a skillet of eggs too!

[RawAlex]

I don't think Joan is particularly well prepared to handle the rough and tumble world of chat boards and "instant opinion" that forms up on these boards. Her opinion on .xxx has waivered, and she has done that waivering in public, which is never good.

By definition, ASACP should have had NO opinion to start with on the subject (it doesn't affect them one iota). FSC should have had only one position ("it potentially limits free speech so it is bad"). That ASACP apparently had an opinion on .xxx made me wonder if the name change of the organization was also an indication of a grup becoming more political and less, well, useful (IMHO).

It's not a simple situation, but ASACP could have simply stayed out of it.

Alex

[emmanuelle]

Isn't the fact that someone that wishes to represent us against the unpatriotic administration a good thing? Why so many negatice remarks?


Don't think for a moment that any of the candidates are running out of the goodness of their hearts.

[DJilla]

By definition, ASACP should have had NO opinion to start with on the subject (it doesn't affect them one iota).

I completely agree! I always thought it odd. But, I guess its kind of good that they are associated with FSC since it adds another sort of outside voice in support of their position (s)

I will do some research on the subject and post tidbits I find, but does anybody know if there is acrimony between FSC and ACLU? Seems they would/might be involved in this issue if only as a "friend of the court"? Guess they have their hands tied (pun intended) with civil rights of the "patriot" kind.

Finally, I've noticed a kind of undercurrent of unhappiness with the FSC, not just here but at other boards too. Nothing specific just a general kind of disregard. Maybe people could post here as to why or what they think about how the FSC has done so far?

[Surfn]

|yawn|

[SirMoby]

Don't think for a moment that any of the candidates are running out of the goodness of their hearts.
Why would anyone think that?

[SirMoby]

Finally, I've noticed a kind of undercurrent of unhappiness with the FSC, not just here but at other boards too. Nothing specific just a general kind of disregard. Maybe people could post here as to why or what they think about how the FSC has done so far?
I'm happy with the FSC. I'd like to see much better communications but the bottom line is that anyone that even looks at nude pictures much less makes a dollar from them should be happy with them.

I think in general us free wheeling webmasters don't like corporate types and many think that everything should be free. Many submitters bitch about paying for listings so why shouldn't they bitch about someone wanting money to save thier ass?

As far as I can tell the organization only recently got enough funding to do much of anything. It will probably take a couple of years before they have thier communication shit together. I wish it was different but do you want them to pay a full time employee about $50k a year to handle that? Would you rather that $50k went into lobbying and legal fees to fight those that hate freedom?

They are not a non-profit and they are not a charity. They need to make money just like you do. Surfers wish we would give away all porn for free so why don't we?

I'm tired of people bitching about the FSC. I've yet to hear anyone that's bitching come up with a better option.

There only seems to be 3 options right now.

1. Support the FSC either through joining or at least donating.

2. Freeload off of those of us that are paying for the fight.

3. Let those that hate freedom take it away. Once it's gone it's gone.

I'm sure if anyone wants to donate thier time to handle the communications and manage the web site that the FSC will be happy to put you to work for free.

[GonZo]

I don't think Joan is particularly well prepared to handle the rough and tumble world of chat boards and "instant opinion" that forms up on these boards. Her opinion on .xxx has waivered, and she has done that waivering in public, which is never good.

By definition, ASACP should have had NO opinion to start with on the subject (it doesn't affect them one iota). FSC should have had only one position ("it potentially limits free speech so it is bad"). That ASACP apparently had an opinion on .xxx made me wonder if the name change of the organization was also an indication of a grup becoming more political and less, well, useful (IMHO).

It's not a simple situation, but ASACP could have simply stayed out of it.

Alex
And miss out on that potential money?
Lens posted that he thought it was a good idea too. All the sheep at the Zoo were rapid to suck his dick over it too.

Funny though he left the room in San Diego when the topic came up and I wanted to ask him to explain to us all how .xxx was a good idea.

Wonder what Playboy thinks?

[RawAlex]

Gonzo, when it comes down to it, the big guys with the big names will do well. The rest of us would suffer because the domains would be more expensive, the existing domains that you have would become worthless in about 10 seconds, and all the traffic you have built over the years would become totally, completely worthless.

In my mind as soon as the .XXX thing came into place, Visa and Mastercard would be on the horn announcing new worldwide rules for adult sites requiring that they are all on domains in the .XXX tld. More importantly, they could require companies likes CCBill and others to refuse or bounce traffic that came from .com domains.

Imagine all those .com, .net, org, and .everythingelse domains suddenly becoming worthless.

The big get bigger... the big love regulation. The small suffer.

Alex

[Bill]

As I understand it, .XXX is a nonissue at the moment.

However, I do tend to think that Joan Irvines's support of it is a valid mark against her.

Yet, at the same time, ASACP hasn't been a negative force in the industry, and I can see arguments that an ASACP representation in the FSC is a good thing.

I figure the negative attitude towards the FSC among onliners is because the FSC is an old-school retail and movie production organization that has more or less ignored or exploited the onliners.

I can't say I especially like the FSC. I tend to think they would turn against the online sector in a minute to protect their retail and video sales business.

But, they accomplished _something_ for us, wether they did it for the onliners or not. I can't see anybody else even pretending to act on our behalf.

I think I'll add a letter to this ballot complaining about the lack of a better online presence for the FSC.

[DJilla]

I will do some research on the subject and post tidbits I find, but does anybody know if there is acrimony between FSC and ACLU? Seems they would/might be involved in this issue if only as a "friend of the court"? Guess they have their hands tied (pun intended) with civil rights of the "patriot" kind.


Six pages deep on two different google searches and nothing of any real note regarding ACLU's stance/activity re: 2257.

See now I'm learning alot

"They are not a non-profit and they are not a charity. They need to make money just like you do. Surfers wish we would give away all porn for free so why don't we?"

INTERESTING didn't know not a non prof!


"I'm sure if anyone wants to donate thier time to handle the communications and manage the web site that the FSC will be happy to put you to work for free."

GOOD POINT! If I could make a little more money from this particular project, I swear I would and I'm definitely putting it on the back burner. I'm trying to learn a little more about them first. This should be an encouragement to those making some big biucks here to push harder to create a larger online presence at FSC, as a group we could really have an impact on a number of different levels. My assesment is that they are not nearly as effective in Public Communication as they could be. They NEED help.


I think I'll add a letter to this ballot complaining about the lack of a better online presence for the FSC.

Yeah! Me Too, Right Now!

RawAlex, there's no point in even quoting you 'cause I find that we generally agree on a lot ie. "the big love regulation". I'm afraid that over the long term .xxx is an inevitablility. If many bible thumpers and right wing groups hadn't come out against it too I think it would have been a done deal already and everything you project would be on the way toward happening.

BTW, today announced that the stay on 2257 for FSC members extended to Dec30.

Slightly off topic but does anybody try NOT to read "All of 'Em" because if they did there would be no time to do anything else |loony|

[GonZo]

Gonzo, when it comes down to it, the big guys with the big names will do well. The rest of us would suffer because the domains would be more expensive, the existing domains that you have would become worthless in about 10 seconds, and all the traffic you have built over the years would become totally, completely worthless.

In my mind as soon as the .XXX thing came into place, Visa and Mastercard would be on the horn announcing new worldwide rules for adult sites requiring that they are all on domains in the .XXX tld. More importantly, they could require companies likes CCBill and others to refuse or bounce traffic that came from .com domains.

Imagine all those .com, .net, org, and .everythingelse domains suddenly becoming worthless.

The big get bigger... the big love regulation. The small suffer.

Alex

Alex thanks for the domain lesson but they have already become more expensive for me.

My first one was for free back in 1993.

.net and org is crap if your basing it totaly on the domain market value. I only own .coms.

Regulation is coming in one form or another. Ive already posted what Bill Margold is proposing.

If I was to have to guess Id say it will come from the billing companies. They have the missing and most important piece.

[RawAlex]

Gonzo, I don't mean the value of good .com real estate, but rather that the admission price to the game right now is low. For +- $10, you can pick up lesbian-girls-movies-porn-sexy.com and you too can be in the porn business.

With .XXX, that will move up, maybe upwards to $100 per domain.

If the processors move to only accept traffic from .xxx domains, then all that real estate you bought is suddenly worth very little.

Alex

[SirMoby]

If .XXX goes into effect then corporations with $100,000s and even $1,000,000s of dollars will register domains in groves within the first hour of availability or even before it's they're available to the general public. Then if we want the .XXX version of our own domains, then we'll have to fight them in court. Sure we can trade mark the names that we've spent year promoting but someone else will have the .XXX version until we win it back in court. Most webmasters won't have enough money to get a US, Candian and International trademark on every .com they own much less fight it in court against a compnay backed with big bucks.

Suddenly Internet porn will be controlled by just a few. A few that will donate heavily to the party that allowed them to steal other people's hard work.

[GonZo]

News Flash guys.... Icann has punked out any .xxx discussion in the near future.
Translation.... they tabled the .XXX discussion until some undiscoled time in the future.

I think we all can agree.... we need to keep our eye on this in the future.

[Chop Smith]

IThey are not a non-profit and they are not a charity
FSC is a nonprofit 501(c)(4), however it does need money to be successful in their efforts.

As I recall it, the bitching was about a few board members encouraging folks to join or go to jail over 2257. Frankly, many of them were preaching to existing members and did not have a clue.

[SirMoby]

FSC is a nonprofit 501(c)(4), however it does need money to be successful in their efforts.
I did not know that. I'm always amased at how non-profits can operate.

[RawAlex]

News Flash guys.... Icann has punked out any .xxx discussion in the near future.
Translation.... they tabled the .XXX discussion until some undiscoled time in the future.

I think we all can agree.... we need to keep our eye on this in the future.

It isn't gone that far...

""It was impossible to get sufficient time for consideration by the Government Advisory Committee members and therefore the board, the chairman decided to postpone the consideration," CANN president Paul Twomey said.

"Within the first quarter of next year is my expectation when it will come back up," he said."

http://www.techspot.com/news/19662-icann-postpones-decision-on-sex-domain.html


So we could still be looking at an implimentation of this deal in 2006... which may be the end of the line for many small and midsize webmasters.

Alex

[Surfn]

|yawn|

[SirMoby]

which may be the end of the line for many small and midsize webmasters.

Alex
Isn't that what the .XXX domains are designed to do? Of course the real purpose is to make the investors huge amounts of money but removing most of the competition in one swift move is brilliant.

[ConnorYoung]

Howdy... interesting discussion about the FSC going on here. I figured I'd drop in any offer to answer any questions anyone might have...

Although I'm not really surprised by it, and probably would wonder what the FSC was up to if I were not on the Board, for what it's worth I can pass on that my own experience with the FSC has been pleasantly positive. For quite a while I was VERY concerned about whether the FSC had the interests of the Internet community in mind... and frankly, back when Bill Lyon was Executive Director I don't think it was very concerned with the Internet community at all. Things have changed over the past two years... a LOT has changed, in fact. With a couple of exceptions (and no, I won't name them here) I believe that the current FSC Board is a very good group of people who have the best interests of the industry in mind.

What you need to understand is that FSC Board members do NOT make any money and do NOT get any benefit from serving other than perhaps the opportunity to make contacts with other Board members and a chance to influence the direction of the organization. Yet there are cheaper ways to make friends. FSC Board members pay for the expense of participating with the FSC out of their own pockets. It takes time, money and energy to sit on the FSC Board, and despite what was suggested here by one person, yes most of us DO make this decision out of the goodness of our own hearts. ;) In my case, it's just a matter of feeling so strongly that something needs to be done to counter the anti-porn zealots and to minimize the damage they do to our businesses... and anything I can do to fuck with them brings a smile to my face! If any of you ever get the chance, make it a point to meet and chat with Jeffrey Douglas and Reed Lee, two attorneys that sit on the Board. These are two of my favorite people in the industry, and both of them put a TREMENDOUS amount of time into protecting this industry... and by sitting on the FSC Board, they actually lose out on the opportunity to be lead attorneys in FSC cases like the 2257 challenge or the Utah Spam Law challenge.

I'd also encourage everyone to also find a chance to meet Michelle Freridge, the new Executive Director of the FSC. She has done fantastic things for the organization since she was hired... and again, I think that those of you who meet her will be impressed. She will be at Internext.

Communication is an issue of course... Tom is doing a lot of very good work for the FSC, but he's only one person. He gets calls from media companies all day long, helps develop position papers, has to coorditate with attorneys on both court challenges... as you can imagine, he doesn't often find time to visit every single message board in the industry. In fact, he generally doesn't have time for message board posting at all. But that doesn't mean the FSC isn't doing a lot to communicate with members. In fact, a new version of the website is pretty far along with the hope of better communicating... but this is a two way street. For those of you who are interested in what's going on with the FSC, sometimes you have to swing by the website and read the press releases... the FSC can't always take the news to you directly. There are also regularly scheduled membership meetings. That said, I think many of you will be very pleased over the next year with efforts that are being implemented right now to INCREASE the communication with members and INCREASE opportunities for members to speak out about what's important.

Finally, I would encourage everyone to be VERY wary of anyone who seems to show up with an anti-FSC agenda and tries to pass on some sense that there's widesperead discontent with the FSC. Sometimes these posters are genuinely expressing their sentiments, but sometimes they are simply using a very common "divide and conquer" technique that, frankly, infects the online message boards at times. The "divide and conquer" tactic isn't just used on the FSC but is also used on companies. It works pretty well: people from a competing group start talking on message boards about how this or that company is having problems, about how people are down on them, about how their efforts are suspect, etc, etc. They repeat it so often that eventually it starts to seem like reality. So I am VERY pleased to see a lot of kind comments about the FSC here on this board.

BTW, in terms of more Internet people on the FSC Board... I certainly would have welcomed more people from the Internet on the ballot to back me up in looking out for our unique interests, but nomination ballots were mailed out not long ago and nobody stepped up. People from the video and retail side did step up... nobody from the Internet. I even tried to recruit a few people myself, but at the end of the day when they find out that it takes WORK to be on the Board, few people are seriously interested. Others backed out because they were concerned that their image might take a hit if they lost the election. If anyone is interested in participating, hit me up... I can put you in contact with Michelle, and I'm sure there are ways you can get involved. And if you want to run for the Board, there's an election every year, so you will get a chance again in 2006.

I'll try to check this thread as often as I can if there are any questions...

[Chop Smith]

Did anyone here receive a nomination ballot? I am sure most would have been mailed back with Useless Warrior's name inserted.

[RawAlex]

Isn't that what the .XXX domains are designed to do? Of course the real purpose is to make the investors huge amounts of money but removing most of the competition in one swift move is brilliant.

Yes, alll it requires is the complicity (intentional or unintentional) of the credit card companies or to a lesser degree the US government to make it a slam dunk. I see a day when the only adult sites that can get processing are on a .XXX domain, and all the reasonable domains will be held by the big guys.

I could see companies like Google and Adbrite and whoever only accepting adult paid listings from .xxx domains, and I can even picture search engines like google filtering adult keywords to return only .xxx results, potentially banning or blacklisting .com domains in the process.

The end result is that the big guys will get MUCH bigger, remove the affiliate model almost entirely from the game, and keep all the pie for themselves (which in many cases would take marginal business into huge profit businesses overnight... all that affiliate money not getting paid out...)

Alex

[Bill]

Connor, thank you very much for stopping by and writing.

One of the weaknesses of the online adult business community is that we are so used to being able to do EVERYTHING online, that when online communications are missing, it just doesn't seem natural to us to pick up phones or write letters.

A lot of our dynamic towards the FSC is based on this. At a critical time, when we were all very interested in the FSC, we felt shut out by an older school organization that was built on phone calls and letters.

When I joined, I had to make a phone call and give my credit card info over the phone. I think that was the only phone call credit card order I've made in the last 3 years.

We are craving a better online experience with the FSC.

There are a lot of people ready to give more money for lobbying and legal war. I think there are a lot of people who would help pay for a better online presence, including board spokepersons whose job it would be to visit the boards, post updates, and try to answer questions.

I guarantee you we appreciate your stopping by and telling us something about your experiences and opinions.

[tickler]

Yes, alll it requires is the complicity (intentional or unintentional) of the credit card companies or to a lesser degree the US government to make it a slam dunk. I see a day when the only adult sites that can get processing are on a .XXX domain, and all the reasonable domains will be held by the big guys.

I could see companies like Google and Adbrite and whoever only accepting adult paid listings from .xxx domains, and I can even picture search engines like google filtering adult keywords to return only .xxx results, potentially banning or blacklisting .com domains in the process.

Alex
Have you noticed the discussion about forcing adult stuff to a different port instead of using the default port 80. It would make it real easy for surfers to deactivate the feed. But then who decides what has to go on the new port.

[RawAlex]

Tickler, it would be very hard to move protected free speech into a situation where it can easily be blocked or restricted by third parties. Imagine all adult sites on port 81. Imagine all "christian" ISPs and bandwidth providers refusing to carry port 81 traffic. It would only take one or two of the big backbone providers to pull this and the adult internet would effectively be unavailable in large parts of the world - or the routing to get there would be entirely too slow to make it functional.

Any move that restricts constitutionally protected free speech (even the DoJ has admitted that some adult material is legal) would almost certainly meet up with a legal challenge that would lock this thing up in knots for a long time to come.

I wouldn't expect ASACP to be leading the charge on that one, so I was confused when they came out with a stand and opinion on .xxx when it was announced. FSC should have one, that is for sure, but a company protecting against CP isn't exactly on the front lines of that deal.

Alex

[ConnorYoung]

Connor, thank you very much for stopping by and writing.

One of the weaknesses of the online adult business community is that we are so used to being able to do EVERYTHING online, that when online communications are missing, it just doesn't seem natural to us to pick up phones or write letters.

A lot of our dynamic towards the FSC is based on this. At a critical time, when we were all very interested in the FSC, we felt shut out by an older school organization that was built on phone calls and letters.

When I joined, I had to make a phone call and give my credit card info over the phone. I think that was the only phone call credit card order I've made in the last 3 years.

We are craving a better online experience with the FSC.

There are a lot of people ready to give more money for lobbying and legal war. I think there are a lot of people who would help pay for a better online presence, including board spokepersons whose job it would be to visit the boards, post updates, and try to answer questions.

I guarantee you we appreciate your stopping by and telling us something about your experiences and opinions.


Thanks for the kind words.

And yup, I was pretty amazed that online credit card services hadn't been set up... but turns out that was partially because of new FSC staffers who weren't up to speed yet on the website, and partially because what they thought initially would turn out to be a solution was not in fact a solution. Eventually CCBill stepped up to help, but it was very unfortunate that online credit card payments weren't set up back in, say, June. I saw the design of the new website... it's a step in the right direction, but there's still some refinement that needs to be done before it will be ready for prime time, so to speak.

[DJilla]

Welcome and thanks for your informative and well written response. I was wondering if we were going to tease somebody from FSC here to respond to the many questions and comments posed. Its obvious that you are in touch with most of the concerns and undercurrents that WM's have been sharing amongst themselves and seem to be willing to push FSC in the direction of adressing them and getting us more involved. That's Great! Thanks! We want to be involved and active.

I'm one of the posters that said it was my impression that there was a general feeling of negativity toward FSC and I still think that there was no particular "divide and conqouer" action going on. My take on the matter was there exists a frustration and suspicion from the LACK of information and inclusion as to what the heck is going on. The Old School vs New School dynamic is seriously at play here. You also made a strong statement when you pointed out that no great numbers from the so called "new school" have really stepped forward to take on the grunt work of what must be numerous tasks and matters that could be done and this most definitely needs to change!

There are a couple of points to make here which I'm sure you probably already realize such as the online community is HUGE and growing exponentially both in dollars and reach. Were 24/7, all time zones and continents. We never close and our gross will eventually easily overwhelm global mail order/retail if it isn't already. We are thousands, and have thousands and thousands of friends and associates. Most of us will never attend meetings in California. We get all the press releases already though our many and varied online media. We don't need the FSC website to check out the latest release. Any junior clerk with a little experience in Outlook could easily (almost easily) be sending us real updated information, or how about an RSS feed. I have never gotten an email asking for five more dollars, or giving me the contact of a particular legislator who may be on the fence and requesting that I send him an email about my feelings or even (yeck) make a call. I know its largely a court matter now, but I'm seeing new admendments proposed all the time. With regards to the boards, having someone spend time on the boards such as you just did here is EXACTLY what you need to marshall the additional strength, resources and money that you could get from a lot of really smart people with lots of contacts on a global reach. We want to know. We want to participate. We want to win. Our livlihood is on the line too!

Your single, reasonable, sensible, post here I guarantee has gotten peoples attention. Imagine what a steady stream of information and call outs would do. You've got people here that can put together a wiz bang website in 72 hours and we're looking at you like "what the heck are they doing"?

Strictly as a personal opinion but from someone who's had a little experience in the PR field, your PR stinks (language changed to protect the innocent). After the lawyers, and the fundraisers, a professional PR person is THE most important person in the organization. Lobbyists are important but unless he's got Tom Delay's phone number PR is written direct for the public and the public will do as much lobbying for you (see: Librarians March On Washington Over Records). Most of your present PR seems to swim only in the the adult community. My take on the public pulse is that they feel that the 2257 issue probably isn't a bad idea.... hey right now they're accepting that maybe torture is not a bad thing either in the right circumstance. You must move the public body to the cause more effectively. The virtual world is one way you can do that. You put your info "out there" don't expect them to come to you and if they do give them something to READ besides PR, like links to the history of censorship, scholarly papers, research, notable quotes, etc.

Finally, I know that you are involved in a lot of things not just 2257 and come to the aid of many on the state and local levels too. You guys (and girls) are busy and committed and stretched and harried and overwhelmed and I appreciate the efforts you’re a making. Open the doors and we'll come in? Though I'm not sure what I could do and I already work 14-16 hours a day, I would be willing to put something aside to help... PM me if you have any suggestions or I'll drop you a line. There have to be tasks besides board member or stamp licker that can be done in the virtual world. Thanks and good luck, you've got my vote! Come back soon.

PS: How 'bout scanning the legal brief and putting them online? Not the preliminary motions, just the main brief?

PSS: .xxx is an inevitability IF ONLY because the rest of the world (they have executed pornographers in China) who has no where near the respect for concepts of free speech, etc. et al that the west does will demand it. Big change can always represent big opportunity!