Never having been one who sticks his finger in the air to see what the prevailing winds are before I voice an opinion ...
In my experience, there is nothing at all unusual about a trade association soliciting donations above and beyond the normal dues for specific lobbying efforts and legal fights. Off the top of my head, I've seen it done in the railroad, banking, and medical supply industries.
Unless you have reason to question the bonafides of the organization doing the funding - in which case you ought to say so - it's pretty pathetic for people who are supposed to be marketers not to recognize marketing when they see it. The idea that use of a slogan like "freedom isn't free" is some form of unreasonable fearmongering is - well - bullshit. That they are fundraising is obvious. Sometimes even trade associations have to market to their members.
Gonzo - do you think they are fundraising with plans to waste (or doing something worse with) the money?
Quote:
"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. "
. . .
"...[i]f 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."
|
I am not a lawyer. I have never played one on television. Anyone who makes any decisions based on my opinion is dumber than a box of rocks. However, I did spend five years working for them, and I have been on both sides of an injunction (drafting them and complying with them). My experience is not all encompassing, but something about the above makes NO sense. If relief is granted, I'm pretty sure it would apply to everyone, not just the members of an organization. If injunctive relief is granted, DOJ won't be knocking on any doors, so I have no idea WTF the last paragraph means.