Originally posted by Quentin on GFY in response to Mike South:
In responding to the points you have raised, let me start by making clear that I am not a representative of the FSC, or for that matter, member of the FSC, personally (although 'Nichebucks' is).
That said, I believe there are errors of fact in your posts, which I will try to address below.
Points from your post:
1) "The Free Speech Coalition has led everyone to believe that if you are an FSC member you are exempted from 2257 prosecutions untill the lawsuit has been settled."
I don't think this is an accurate assessment of the FSC's stated position. When the FSC struck an agreement with the DOJ last summer, that agreement covered FSC members, and boiled down to an agreement that the DOJ would not conduct inspections of FSC members until the judge in the case ruled on the FSC's motion for preliminary injunction in the case.
When the judge did issue a ruling, the FSC issued a press release, which is still available on their website, explaining their interpretation of the judge's ruling, and its impact on FSC members.
From that release, dated 1/3/06:
"The FSC legal staff has made a few preliminary determinations regarding the ruling:
The Dec. 28, 2005 ruling by Judge Miller has resulted in a de facto “status quo” situation for all Free Speech Coalition members and other plaintiffs in the case.
The ruling does not define FSC membership according to join date. All up-to-date FSC members are covered under this ruling, whether they joined a year ago, today, tomorrow, or anytime up until a final ruling in FSC v. Gonzales.
The U.S. Department of Justice is enjoined from enforcing 18 USC 2257 against “Producers” under 28 CFR Part 75, unless they engage in activity that involves the “hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the participating of the depicted performer.” In other words, FSC members and other plaintiffs who are “Secondary Producers” are protected under the ruling from 2257 inspection or enforcement until a final ruling in this case.
As always, FSC strongly encourage all members of FSC and the industry to comply with 2257 as much as possible until there is a final adjudication of FSC v. Gonzales. Please visit
www.freespeechcoalition.com/2257.htm for more information."
That statement does not imply, to my reading anyway, that "if you are an FSC member you are exempted from 2257 prosecutions untill the lawsuit has been settled."
Snip #2 from your post:
2) "Why isn't the FSC challenging 2257 on grounds that would protect all of us from Congress..... Why isn't the FSC challenging the law at this level?"
As a matter of fact, the FSC lawsuit does make the very argument that you suggest.
This is from the text of the FSC's lawsuit, as filed last June:
"Plaintiffs also contend that 18 U.S.C. § 2257 and 28 C.F.R. Part 75 violate their First Amendment rights by eliminating the presumption that expression by adult performers is lawful under the United States Constitution, and by conditioning the exercise of Plaintiffs’ rights to create and disseminate nonobscene adult oriented material to other adults on compliance with an onerous recordkeeping system that requires producers to maintain not only detailed personal information dossiers that jeopardize the privacy and safety of adult actors and actresses, but also obligates producers to collect and archive copies of millions of regulated images of adults engaged in sexually explicit conduct with other adults."
and finally, a 3rd snip from your post:
3) "Bottom line is if the FSC wants respect they should be on the side of the entire industry, not just those who pay them, further they should do a better job, a first year law student could make the case that 2257 is way off base from a constitutional standpoint. This SUCKS..."
While I can understand your frustration, I think it is misplaced.
A "first year law student" might also point out than when filing a civil action challenging government regulations, one cannot simply walk in and say "I'm filing this litigation on behalf the 'adult industry' at large."
The FSC is subject to criticism, just like anyone else. It seems only fair to me, though, that such criticism be based on factual information, rather than misinformed conjecture.
No offense whatsoever intended, but I think you didn't do your homework on this one before blasting away.
- Q.
__________________
Q. Boyer
For a fair and balanced discussion.....