Tom Hymes from the Free Speech Coalition Saying Hello

[Hymes]

Good afternoon, GFY! I'm postingf or the first time, so....

There were a few long threads late last week about the Free Speech Coalition and 2257, to which I would have posted if I hadn?t been in very long meetings and then at home with the cable down, a holiday gift from Adelphia. My loss, but Connor Young more than held his own, and I doubt I could have improved upon his comments.

However? let me add a few thoughts of my own before I officially start tomorrow.

First, I am very excited to be jumping into the much-needed position of Communications Director, working for a great new Executive Director and a dedicated and talented Board, which also with some new members. I have so much to do it?s almost overwhelming, but I am optimistic about what we can achieve, and look forward to getting started.

My first official request is to implore those of you are so inclined to hit me up and let me know what you think the FSC can and should do to ensure the survival of this industry, and how you would like to help. While I begin work with a full slate of immediate and long-term goals, I think it?s important that anyone, especially on the Internet side, who has something constructive to add, take the time to communicate with its most effective and organized trade organization, and why not through me?

If you don?t have my numbers, please hit me up at [email protected] or [email protected], or call the offices at 818-348-9373. Office Manager Neva Chevalier ([email protected]) handles official volunteer coordination, but I am very interested in hearing what you have to say, and will respond with ICQ, AIM and cell numbers galore to everyone except unhelpful flamers. (I especially request KB to get in touch with me, as I envision him helping in great ways.)

Second, as a brief but important aside, I hope it?s clear that the FSC is not the enemy; the creators of these new regulations, and certainly the regs themselves, are. It is they, not we, that have brought us to a point where armed agents of Homeland Security, wielding the 2257 regs in one hand and a copy of the Patriot Act in the other, could very likely be making some extremely intimidating visits to adult companies within a month. So the question is, do you feel lucky, punk, or do you want to do something about it?

No matter what other legal challenges are undertaken, I obviously think it?s important for everyone to support the Free Speech Coalition, in the long term and short term, by especially by supporting what will be a significant and multi-pronged legal challenge by experienced lawyers who have won before, and I expect that over time everyone will step up and do just that.

It?s important, because:

- A full-frontal assault like these regs, so arrogant in their unconstitutional hostility to our fundamental rights, and so impossible to comply with, demands your attention!

- The selfless members of Board of the FSC, who receive no compensation for the significant time they spend working on your behalf, deserve your support!

- The brilliant attorneys who are already hard at work preparing challenges to these regulations - for a fraction of what they could make in private practice - absolutely warrant everyone?s gratitude and support!

As a last matter, no one from the FSC has said or meant to suggest that someone should become a member of the FSC in order to be protected under an injunction that does not even exist. While it is a fact that under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure only parties to litigation are covered by an injunction, it has also been amply explained by now that while technical limitations apply, the practical result of some injunctions is that no one is prosecuted while the injunction is in effect, as has happened with COPA.

At any rate, the FSC press release of May 25, 2005 makes clear that ?being a member of the Free Speech Coalition does not mean that compliance is unnecessary. Every producer of actually sexually explicit conduct is covered by the existing regulations and the new regulations (which take effect June 23, 2005).?

In short, there are a hundred great reasons to become a member of FSC, but impermanent and impossible to define protections that may never materialize is not one of them.

Peace, and see you on the battle lines,

Tom Hymes
Communications Director
Free Speech Coalition
[email protected]

[XPays]

calling you now

edit - left you a message - call me 415-331-2496

[xxxjay]

Great post Tom. Great to see you on GFY.

[Topbuxom Lea]

Welcome aboard Tom and best of luck in your position.

[SetTheWorldonFire]

Welcome to gfy

[Tim]

Was great to meet you at AOE last year - always good to hear what you have to say

[NETbilling]

Welcome aboard Tom!

Mitch

[SteveLightspeed]

FSC has always had Lightspeed's support, now with Tom and Connor on board, even more than ever. Count us in, we love a good fight!

Steve Lightspeed

[Aly]

GREAT stuff, Tom.

The shift in the FSC's approach to Online Business over the past year is very notable. SO GLAD to see you in this position, Tom!

BRAVO

[pornguy]

Welcome to the board. I think that most all of us support this, and will help in any way that we can.

[GotGauge]

Nice post!
When you get a chance please contact me as well.

22264474
[email protected]
316.516.0784

[guschi2k]

Welcome to GFY Tom and I hope you'll have a great start as Communications Director

[KMR Stitch]

Welcome good deal =)

[Holly Lez!]

Congrats to you Tom! So good to see you on the board!

[Connor]

Thanks for that Steve. And Tom, great post!

[Terry]

Welome to GFY Tom.. and good luck with the position.

[xxxice]

Hello !

[xxxjay]

Originally Posted by Connor

Thanks for that Steve. And Tom, great post!

Yeah, I know Steve plans on giving them hell. He knows just how much this shit violates his model's privacy and I respect him for that. These girls already get stalked enough - we don't need to be handing our roadmaps to their house now.

[mikeyddddd]

What does this say?

Originally Posted by Hymes

First, I am very excited to be jumping into the much-needed position of Communications Director, working for a great new Executive Director and a dedicated and talented Board, which also with some new members.

I am neither an English major nor a Communications Director, but that does not appear to be grammatically correct.

[Hymes]

Jay, you hit the worst nail on the head. What these regs do to performers should be a crime just by itself. But don't be surprised if you see a class action lawsuit filed in the near future against the federal government that alleges, probably among other claims, violation of privacy against these hardworking American citizens.

I did say hardworking, right? ;-)

[Hymes]

Originally Posted by mikeyddddd

What does this say?



I am neither an English major nor a Communications Director, but that does not appear to be grammatically correct.

No, that's a typo that occurs when you rewrite too much.

[laura]

welcome Tom!

[xxxjay]

Originally Posted by Hymes

No, that's a typo that occurs when you rewrite too much.

Yeah, when you rewrite things too many times you can't see you own mistakes. When I write for Consuption Junction I always have someone edit it after I am finished...there are always mistakes that you miss.

[Bugbee]

Tom you are the man welcome to GFY and I will talk to you soon!!!!

[Shooting_Manic]

Please hit me up when you can. I have lots of models identities to protect. Sure dont want info falling into the wrong hands. You can count on our finanical support.

[2HousePlague]

Congrats and welcome to GFY, Tom -- your intelligence, perspective over the industry and idealogical chutzpah are well received here --


j-

[mikeyddddd]

Originally Posted by Hymes

No, that's a typo that occurs when you rewrite too much.

Sorry. Proofreading is a bad habit that I picked up from a former boss. Sometimes I just can't help myself.

[Cory W]

Nice post Tom.

[JFK]

Nice to hear from you Tom, All the best to you in the new position!!

[dcortez]

Thanks for your introduction and for the important work FSC is doing!

Aside from the obvious issues implicated by this 'new improved 2257', I would like to see some initiatives related to 'Best Practices' and 'Peer Review' for the adult industry.

I've raised this issue in the past and it has been shot down by the majority because of fears that Peer Review is a form of censorship. I think if we want credibility as an industry we will have to accept and respond to internal scrutiny like most lobby groups and associations.

The deliberate concatenation of 'pornography' and 'cp' in most statements made by the right should be actionable through litigation. If we were to make parallel statements (eg. implying that recording media producers were pirates), we would be sued instantly.

It would be great to see the adult industry able to defend its character as a legal industry and to hold wreckless commentors accountable.

-Dino

[Snake Doctor]

Wow a communications director is exactly what you guys needed.

Here's a question for you. Are you planning on revisiting the membership options and $$ requirements to join?
I'm having a hard time figuring out where most webmasters fit into your criteria.
Should I.....

Oh shit never mind....you already changed the pages....I just went to look at them to get the right info for my question and you already have "webmaster - $300"

Looks good.

[the Shemp]

welcome to GFY, Tom
and congrats on the new job

[Snake Doctor]

Originally Posted by Lenny2

Wow a communications director is exactly what you guys needed.

Here's a question for you. Are you planning on revisiting the membership options and $$ requirements to join?
I'm having a hard time figuring out where most webmasters fit into your criteria.
Should I.....

Oh shit never mind....you already changed the pages....I just went to look at them to get the right info for my question and you already have "webmaster - $300"

Looks good.

Oh I wanted to add....under corporate membership there is still an option for webistes but it says $300 (per website)

Alot of us are webmasters but have incorporated for tax purposes...which membership do we need? $300 per year per site is kind of ridiculous when you consider lots of us have several hundred sites floating around out there.

[Sly]

Originally Posted by Lenny2

Oh I wanted to add....under corporate membership there is still an option for webistes but it says $300 (per website)

Alot of us are webmasters but have incorporated for tax purposes...which membership do we need? $300 per year per site is kind of ridiculous when you consider lots of us have several hundred sites floating around out there.

I joined today and the lady I spoke with said my membership was $300, and yes, I am incorparated.

[Michaelious]

thanks for the info mate.

[TheGoldenChild]

Tom,

Good seeing you out and about-
I am here for you whatever you need-

CHECK YOUR EMAIL AS WELL

[Sarah_Jayne]

it is great to see you here! Now....have you all fixed your donation and membership forms yet to allowed non-USA addresses?

[Hymes]

Very intersting suggestion. We are certainly going to be developing Best Practices, and speaking for myself, I think Peer Review is a sensitive subject, and has to be implemented carefully, but if there ever was an industry that could use a dose of it, this is it. That isn't an official statement saying we will do it, because the board I think will have to agree to something like that, but there are many ways to skin a cat.

I am so champing at the bit to start getting out there into the heartland of America and not just defend thisn industry, but really begin defining these issues correctly once and for all, that I'm about to blow a gasket. Thanks for the suggstions!

[Hymes]

Originally Posted by dcortez

Thanks for your introduction and for the important work FSC is doing!

Aside from the obvious issues implicated by this 'new improved 2257', I would like to see some initiatives related to 'Best Practices' and 'Peer Review' for the adult industry.

I've raised this issue in the past and it has been shot down by the majority because of fears that Peer Review is a form of censorship. I think if we want credibility as an industry we will have to accept and respond to internal scrutiny like most lobby groups and associations.

The deliberate concatenation of 'pornography' and 'cp' in most statements made by the right should be actionable through litigation. If we were to make parallel statements (eg. implying that recording media producers were pirates), we would be sued instantly.

It would be great to see the adult industry able to defend its character as a legal industry and to hold wreckless commentors accountable.

-Dino

Very interesting suggestion. We are certainly going to be developing Best Practices, and speaking for myself, I think Peer Review is a sensitive subject, and has to be implemented carefully, but if there ever was an industry that could use a dose of it, this is it. That isn't an official statement saying we will do it, because the board I think will have to agree to something like that, but there are many ways to skin a cat.

I am so champing at the bit to start getting out there into the heartland of America and not just defend thisn industry, but really begin defining these issues correctly once and for all, that I'm about to blow a gasket. Thanks for the suggstions!

[Hymes]

Originally Posted by sarah_webinc

it is great to see you here! Now....have you all fixed your donation and membership forms yet to allowed non-USA addresses?

My understanding is that we're switching processors, and it may take a few days to get that accomplished, but the page to submit credit card donations electronically should be working, and if it isn't, it will be shortly.

It's high on our list of priorities to perfect once and for all the donation and membership forms. I mean, hello. There is no FSC without them!

[Hymes]

Originally Posted by kBizzle

Tom,

Good seeing you out and about-
I am here for you whatever you need-

CHECK YOUR EMAIL AS WELL

GREAT to see you! I'll check my email.

I knew I could count on you, and could care less what the universe says, I know your heart is in the right place. ;-)

[Sarah_Jayne]

cool..there is/was a way around it on the old/current form but you had to figure it out (it wouldn't accept non-USA zip codes) and I am sure a lot of people just didn't bother to try twice.

[J$tyle$]

Good post, Tom!

Nice to see you here!



Check your email!

[OY]

Originally Posted by Hymes

Good afternoon, GFY! I'm postingf or the first time, so....

There were a few long threads late last week about the Free Speech Coalition and 2257, to which I would have posted if I hadn?t been in very long meetings and then at home with the cable down, a holiday gift from Adelphia. My loss, but Connor Young more than held his own, and I doubt I could have improved upon his comments.

However? let me add a few thoughts of my own before I officially start tomorrow.

First, I am very excited to be jumping into the much-needed position of Communications Director, working for a great new Executive Director and a dedicated and talented Board, which also with some new members. I have so much to do it?s almost overwhelming, but I am optimistic about what we can achieve, and look forward to getting started.

My first official request is to implore those of you are so inclined to hit me up and let me know what you think the FSC can and should do to ensure the survival of this industry, and how you would like to help. While I begin work with a full slate of immediate and long-term goals, I think it?s important that anyone, especially on the Internet side, who has something constructive to add, take the time to communicate with its most effective and organized trade organization, and why not through me?

If you don?t have my numbers, please hit me up at [email protected] or [email protected], or call the offices at 818-348-9373. Office Manager Neva Chevalier ([email protected]) handles official volunteer coordination, but I am very interested in hearing what you have to say, and will respond with ICQ, AIM and cell numbers galore to everyone except unhelpful flamers. (I especially request KB to get in touch with me, as I envision him helping in great ways.)

Second, as a brief but important aside, I hope it?s clear that the FSC is not the enemy; the creators of these new regulations, and certainly the regs themselves, are. It is they, not we, that have brought us to a point where armed agents of Homeland Security, wielding the 2257 regs in one hand and a copy of the Patriot Act in the other, could very likely be making some extremely intimidating visits to adult companies within a month. So the question is, do you feel lucky, punk, or do you want to do something about it?

No matter what other legal challenges are undertaken, I obviously think it?s important for everyone to support the Free Speech Coalition, in the long term and short term, by especially by supporting what will be a significant and multi-pronged legal challenge by experienced lawyers who have won before, and I expect that over time everyone will step up and do just that.

It?s important, because:

- A full-frontal assault like these regs, so arrogant in their unconstitutional hostility to our fundamental rights, and so impossible to comply with, demands your attention!

- The selfless members of Board of the FSC, who receive no compensation for the significant time they spend working on your behalf, deserve your support!

- The brilliant attorneys who are already hard at work preparing challenges to these regulations - for a fraction of what they could make in private practice - absolutely warrant everyone?s gratitude and support!

As a last matter, no one from the FSC has said or meant to suggest that someone should become a member of the FSC in order to be protected under an injunction that does not even exist. While it is a fact that under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure only parties to litigation are covered by an injunction, it has also been amply explained by now that while technical limitations apply, the practical result of some injunctions is that no one is prosecuted while the injunction is in effect, as has happened with COPA.

At any rate, the FSC press release of May 25, 2005 makes clear that ?being a member of the Free Speech Coalition does not mean that compliance is unnecessary. Every producer of actually sexually explicit conduct is covered by the existing regulations and the new regulations (which take effect June 23, 2005).?

In short, there are a hundred great reasons to become a member of FSC, but impermanent and impossible to define protections that may never materialize is not one of them.

Peace, and see you on the battle lines,

Tom Hymes
Communications Director
Free Speech Coalition
[email protected]

Tom, good to see you in this position. It is clearly where you belong!

I know you will serve us all very well.

[TheGoldenChild]

Originally Posted by Hymes

GREAT to see you! I'll check my email.

I knew I could count on you, and could care less what the universe says, I know your heart is in the right place. ;-)

Well, you know me better than most.
:-))

[Doctor Dre]

Congrats on your new position !

[dcortez]

Originally Posted by Hymes

Very interesting suggestion. We are certainly going to be developing Best Practices, and speaking for myself, I think Peer Review is a sensitive subject, and has to be implemented carefully, but if there ever was an industry that could use a dose of it, this is it. That isn't an official statement saying we will do it, because the board I think will have to agree to something like that, but there are many ways to skin a cat.

I am so champing at the bit to start getting out there into the heartland of America and not just defend thisn industry, but really begin defining these issues correctly once and for all, that I'm about to blow a gasket. Thanks for the suggstions!

That's great to hear!

I do appreciate that Peer Review is a Pandora's Box, but I don't think there is a better industry than ours to address the challenge of distilling/defining a model which balances 'Freedom of Expression' with 'Accountability for Expression' (visa vi economic harm to the industry, lost opportunities/access to markets, undermining accomplishments in cultural acceptance, etc.).

The scope of what I was proposing may (understandably) step outside of the core mandate of FSC. The difficulty in achieving a tolerant (at the very least) mainstream perception of the adult industry is compounded when the extreme niche producers get 'mixed in' with the less mysogonistic producers and the public sees us as the worst and most extreme examples available.

This is definitely a pardox. I don't want to limit anyone's ability to produce any creative works they choose (aside from the obvious exploitive stuff), but I also don't want my efforts and investments in my own 'textures' of erotica and adult entertainment to be materially undermined by those (albiet legal) working at the other end of the scale. How do we acheive this?

I suppose separate professional associations could contain the guidelines and standards to establish and maintain their own repective positions in culture and the marketplace (eg. Soft Erotic Entertainment Association, Extreme Free For All Group, etc) without infringing on any freedoms of expression.

I believe the accounting world has several classes of accounting professionals - maybe adult could be handled the same way, so those who want to penetrate the mainstream world more effectively won't be hampered by those who scare mainstreamers.

Or, do you think that an ideal success for FSC would be for mainstreamers to not be scared of anything?

-Dino

[Rand]

That may deserve some kind of award for "Best First Post".

Great seeing you on the boards Tom. Congratulations on your new position which is clearly a great fit for you and the FSC.

Looking forward to seeing how things progress and hearing about it from someone so trusted in the industry.

All the best to you and I look forward to seeing you soon.

[reynold]

See you around buddy!

[$pikes]

Thanks for the post Tom!