AVN Features Editor (and Free Speech board member) Mark Kernes writes: "Gene: Just saw Mike South's screed about Mike Ross' failure of election to the Free Speech board on another site. South claims he wrote there because of more readership, but it's clear he wrote there and not to you because there, his statements wouldn't be recognized for the horseshit they are.
"South claims that Ross is "a born reformer, he is a man of imagination, coviction [sic], energy and vast ambition." Well, at least he got that last part right. Ross would indeed have tried to remake the board in his own image, making vast promises to everyone, keeping some of them, but most of all, I strongly suspect he would have used his position on the board mainly to promote Mike Ross, something which Ross has more-or-less successfully done ever since I've known him.
"If South thinks the Free Speech Board is 'rampant' with 'financial unaccountability,' perhaps he'd care to give some examples? Obviously, he can't, because not being on the board and not having access to its financial information, he just pulls such phrases out of his ass. As to the charge of 'sloth,' it's true that 1999 has been a year of flux for the organization, with a major backer withdrawing his monetary support, leaving us with an acting (rather than full-time) Executive Director, and the search for a new one having proceeded more slowly than I would have liked. But everyone on the board is a volunteer except its administrator, and with meeting just once a month for a few hours, it sometimes can be hard to get things accomplished.
"But now, the Executive Director (full-time) is in place: a blooded businessman whose history is getting things done, and who doesn't appear ready to take crap from anyone - which swiftly would have put him at odds with Ross if Ross had been elected.
"South also writes, 'The FSC has lost sight of any noble purposes it may have once had and it has turned its back on the peole [sic] it needs the most, namely the performers.'
"Apparently, in speaking of 'noble purposes,' South has the Free Speech Coalition confused with the Erotic Entertainers Guild, an organization which none of us has heard much (if anything) from over the past year or so. The Free Speech Coalition is the trade organization of the adult entertainment industry, with members including video manufacturers, dance club owners, Internet content providers, retailers and, yes, talent. In fact, P.A.W. board members Bill Margold and Phil Berman are on the FSC board, and are vocal advocates for their position regarding talent. But as I've said before - and this is my personal opinion; I know others on the board would disagree with me - as much as I like and respect many of the performers in this industry, every single one of them is replaceable. South knows that; he's spent his career seeking out new performers and if recollection serves, he doesn't shoot any of the veterans for his series.
"What aren't easily replaceable are the manufacturers who pay for the shoots (either before or after the fact), duplicate the product, box it and either sell it to retailers by themselves or through the equally irreplaceable distributors (or both) - and who are on the front lines whenever any governmental agency takes it into its head to cause trouble, legal or otherwise, for the industry. South also knows that; if recollection again serves, he hasn't been very successful previously in selling his own product without the aid of at least one of the larger distributors or production companies.
"South says, 'we have had eight years of a relatively apathetic government and the Free Speech Coalition has not accomplished a single thing that I am aware of.'
"Well, I'm not surprised that Mike isn't aware of Free Speech's contributions since he lives - what? - 2500 miles from LA, so perhaps he hasn't heard of the Coalition co-sponsoring the International Conference on Pornography (many thanks to member Will Jarvis for that one), or the legislative bills it's managed to get defeated, sidetracked or made benign in Sacramento, even in the days when Ross was its lobbyist. But if Free Speech did nothing other than to be a voice of pro-sexual reason and fact in the midst of religious fundamentalists and politicians crying for our (the industry's) blood, First Amendment be damned!, it would have served a useful purpose. Members also receive lobbyist Kat Sunlove's weekly news update, which tracks legislation and busts around the country - something retailers should be aware of, since whatever new administration gets in the White House next year, there are going to be more of them.
"Which brings up a point about the 'apathy' to which South alludes. This industry has had the easiest time of its entire existence during the Clinton administration. There have been no federal sting operations, no federal busts and no proclamations from the Oval Office (or, perhaps more importantly, the Justice Department) about the 'scourge of godless pornography."'As of 2001, that's going to change, and retailers had better know it and figure out how they're going to make their stand when whichever self-proclaimed 'born-again Christian' gets elected and comes to the realization that, as a rule, pornographers (unlike serial killers, terrorists and organized crimelords) don't shoot back, and hence are an easy bust. They should have spent the past eight years socking away a defense fund of some sort, or sending their money to Free Speech, which would have done it for them, but the simple fact is, come sometime early in 2001, between federal legal action and Internet sales of porn, they're going to be fucked every which way from Sunday. And it's a little late (but possibly not too late) for them to do something about it now.
"South asks, 'Why haven't we lobbyed [sic] for laws that would help us even in the event of a fundamentalist turn in our nations capital? Why haven't we taken any steps to organize and police ourselves in a meaningful way?'
"Apparently, South knows as little about politics as he does about the FSC. Legislation needs sponsorship by some legislator, and I can count on the fingers of no hands just how many politicians would run forward to sponsor ANY bill that even remotely appeared to make life easier for, let alone provide for equal treatment under the Constitution for, the XXX industry. And as for 'policing ourselves in a meaningful way,' what would he like? 'Sorry, Max, you can't dress adult actresses up like little girls anymore; it doesn't play well with Pat Robertson'? 'Sorry, Jim, letting one guy give a gal a facial is okay, but when 90 do it at once, we're not sure the First Amendment covers that'? Or could South possibly be talking about trying to require that all shoots be condom-only? Seems I recollect he was against that concept not so long ago...
"And finally, South also writes, 'I strongly urge Mike Ross to maintain his focus and go ahead and take measures to destroy and bury this worthless cabal.'
"Not to worry, Mike; Ross has already tried to do that and failed. It wouldn't surprise me if he tried to do it again. And he has just enough ears among the manufacturers and other segments of the industry (including, apparently, yourself) that he can take a good run at it. And that makes me sorry that more people don't know the Mike Ross that I've known: the guy who, for instance, spent a half-hour the other day berating a couple of the women in AVN's advertising department about why didn't AVN give his organization a free ad when it gave freebies to Free Speech and AIM? Finally, Jennifer said, 'Well, did you ever ask for one?' Guess what?
"You can get the full story from Jennifer at the CES - and she'll probably try to sell you an ad at the same time. Because, to paraphrase Calvin Coolidge, 'The business of XXX is business.' "
