The story from XBIZ.com:
L.A. Judge Rejects Mandatory Condoms on Porn Sets
LOS ANGELES — A Los Angeles Superior Court judge on Tuesday rejected the AIDS Healthcare Foundation’s request calling for mandatory use of condoms on porn sets.
In his decision, Judge David Yaffe said the county has broad discretion in how it oversees public health and dismissed a petition seeking a court order to compel health officials to require condom use on porn sets or take other reasonable steps to stem the spread of disease.
AHF filed suit in July, just weeks after a performer known as Patient Zero tested positive for HIV and county health officials released data that showed 18 HIV cases and more than 3,700 cases of chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis had been reported since 2004 by the AIM Healthcare Foundation.
Last week, AHF delivered a petition to the state Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board, asking for a change in regulations over bloodborne pathogens. The petition seeks to require condom use on the porn set.
But in a "preemptive move," the adult film industry's Free Speech Coalition published a draft of its own bloodborne pathogen plan. The FSC’s plan covers worker safety and addresses numerous practices over everything from controlling waste to housekeeping to the cleaning of sex toys. It also addresses training, as well as pre- and post-scene evaluation, and makes examination recommendations for new-to-the-industry performers.
Brian Chase, the AHF’s attorney, told XBIZ while the organization is disappointed with Yaffe’s ruling, the group plans on appealing his decision.
“At the end of the day, this is a new issue for the courts,” Chase said. “The court in the ruling said that Public Health has the discretion to do something about the possible spread of bloodborne pathogens or they could do nothing at all.
“Our contention is that Public Health does have an obligation and that they can’t just sit on their hand for 10 years and do nothing about it.”
Chase noted that AHF will file its appeal 60 days after the final ruling is handed down by Yaffe.
Now, this isn't going to deter Weinstein one bit, since in addition to the appeal, AHF is also appealing to Cal-OSHA to attempt to strong-arm the condom-only rules through through the regulatory process...but with these court rulings, I'm guessing that that will probably come up short, too.
But...how about the FSC actually getting aggressive and proactive for a change and promoting their own policies for protecting performers?? Better late than never, I suppose..but welcome.
Good catch on this item. Once again, someone actually familiar with the law kicks those attempting to use it as cudgel againt their pet hate-objects gives them the boot.
ReplyDeleteAs to the matter of the FSC coming up with it's own plan, funny you should mention that:
http://business.avn.com/articles/37005.html
I've looked at a prelim version of the plan, and I think it's not bad, and it will make it easier for legislators to dismiss strident calls to intervene in a matter for which they have no qualifying expertise, no funding available, no existing legislation to go on, no hope of drafting any that would stand up for two minutes against a court challenge and, frankly, no appetite for addressing.
However red-faced the bloviating advocates for a legislative porn-control act that would, in effect, amount to the prohibition of porn creation as we know it may get, the political bottom line is that such a bill would garner virtually no support in the current economic and electoral climate. It's D.O.A. in Sacramento, and that's nothing but a relief, not only for the industry, but for the judicial system that would have to try and sort through the mess such legislation would certainly be, contradicting as it inevitably would a vast body of existing federal and state statutes and precedents.
However - and this is where the F.S.C. and I have recently parted company, I feel there has been a total failure to push back against lies and slanders being spewed in our direction by Mr. Weinstein, Ms. Lubben, The L.A. Times et al. You will note in The Times' coverage the repetition yet again of statistics already repudiated by County Health and grudgingly retracted by the paper itself as if there remained some reasonable argument over their credibility. This is the kind of nonsense that should meet with vociferous opposition, but the F.S.C. much prefers to do its work in a whisper.
I think we need to call out these charlatans and hacks and pound them with legal countterattacks and an industry-funded P.R. campaign that gives voice the real opinions of the vast majority of performers, who turned out in droves at Belladonna's recent fundraiser to put up their own money toward keeping AIM in business. They're this industry's best weapon against the tiny group of marginal professional liars AHF and friends field at every one of their staged media events.
Though governmental inertia will probably eventually put an end to the reign of terror these fanatics have managed to mount in their attempts to aggradandize themselves as crusaders for the "reform" of the industry, the falsehoods they've spread will continue to color the public's view of the matters in question until our side finds its voice. It needs to quit apologizing and explaining and put the other side on the defensive.
As yet another judge has found, they have no case and we do.
Ernest:
ReplyDeleteI was actually giving FSC credit for coming up with their own plan...I just forgot to provide the proper linkage.
Here's the draft plan for those who want to view it (note: PDF file, reguires Adobe Reader or equivalent):
:http://freespeechcoalition.com/images/pdf/FSC_Draft_BBP_Plan.pdf
And yeah, a more aggressive response to the haters would be nice.
Merry Christmas/Happy Hannakah/and all that.
Anthony
As far as trying to legislate Condom-Use in Porn, what do you all think about the spread of Aids in South Africa and the link to bootleg LA-AssPorn (in that BBC Doc)? Also, I still do not understand why Video Media of Sex Acts is protected under the First Amendment. It just isn't a Speech or Press Issue!
ReplyDeleteAhhhh, JoeD...nice try, but that dog, as the saying goes, isn't hunting.
ReplyDeleteThe HIV/AIDS pandemic in Africa has a lot more to do with the lack of principled policies by the mostly fundamentalist-based governments there, as well as the lack of effective promotion of condom usage in the broader society, than it ever did with the debate on mandatory condom usage in porn shops the Los Angeles area. Still...if you want to believe the rhetoric and misguided claims of Gail Dines, well, that's your opinion.
And as for your "Video Media of Sexual Acts are not protected by the First Amendment" nonsense: hate to break this to you, Pallie, but if consenting sex acts amongst adults are protected by our Bill of Rights as free expression (laws against obscenity and the Miller standard nonwithstanding), then it would follow that the depiction of such acts onto video or print or Internet would also be considered protected speech (as long as there is mutual consent and other restrictions apply).
And finally, for that BBC documentary you attempt to pimp...well, been there, covered that:
http://bppa.blogspot.com/2009/08/now-brits-get-in-act.html
Anthony
Apparently, JoeD never heard of President Mbeki of South Africa, who championed the nonsensical about HIV having nothing to do with AIDS.
ReplyDeleteMbeki appointed people who acted on that dangerous nonsense, and that is why AIDS has been cutting a swath of misery there.
Fortunately, Mbeki has been succeeded by Jacob Zuma, who respects science and is working to reverse the damage inflicted by his predecessor.
Actually, the story in question concerned Ghana rather than South Africa, though it seemed to blame the entire African HIV epidemic on porn. This assertion was nothing short of ridiculous on several levels, ignoring a number of social factors that have had the unfortunate effect of fostering the spread of HIV in Africa for many decades now. What really revealed just how misplaced the agenda of the documentary in question is, was when Tim Samuels pointed to an *abstinence-only* sex educator in the same village and stated that local viewership of porn was supposedly undoing this fellow's good work. Never mind that this kind of US-funded right-wing NGO "sex education" is *directly* responsible for the lack of safer sex information in that part of the world.
ReplyDeleteAlso not to mention the fact that the HIV epidemic has been ravaging Africa for thirty years, much of it in rural areas far removed from any significant access to Western popular culture, including porn, but what is to be expected from someone who sees no free speech issue in the repression of pornography? Such a person is blinded by ideology and buried head-down in ignorance.
ReplyDeleteThis blog is entirely too vulnerable to this sort of trolling and in my opinion, a stop should be put to it.
As I recollect, this was originally created as an advocacy platform for those who support constitutional protections for sexually explicit speech and not as a shooting gallery for any porn-hostile plug-ugly who wanderes by to take his or her pot-shots at those who adhere to its underlying principles.
Time and again I've seen important discussions derailed here by a single interloper with a hostile agenda, and I for one am over it.
Those who disagree with with what this blog is supposed to be all about have plenty of other places to go to spew their bile. This is the only locaation on the Internet specifically dedicated to the protection of free expression for pornography on political grounds. As such, it's in need of protection from those who want all such discussion squelched and who don't hesitate a blink to keep their own neighborhoods free of the kind of anonymous, abusive trolling that plagues us here.
I don't give a rat's ass if someone thinks they're being silenced or censored or that we're being hypocrites or any other such nonsense. I think we should moderate these jokers out of here on a rail and I'd be glad to do so. In fact, it would satisfy me no end to hand out a bit of the medicine they're so quick to dispense in their own venues to those who come here with disruptive behavior on their minds.
As it is, all we're doing is providing them with a convenient means of interfereing in dialogue among people who have serious matters to discuss regarding pornography by deploying the usual tired lies and vile slanders.
If activism in defense of free speech rights for sexually explicit material is the real purpose, it's way past time for that activism to manifest itself at home.
What's needed is pre-posting approval, and if that opinion isn't popular with some, well, I'm not very worried about my popularity these days. I have more urgent concerns, and I want those addressed without having to fend off ignorant dolts in the process.
Responding to Ernest:
ReplyDeleteAs I recollect, this was originally created as an advocacy platform for those who support constitutional protections for sexually explicit speech and not as a shooting gallery for any porn-hostile plug-ugly who wanderes by to take his or her pot-shots at those who adhere to its underlying principles.
Indeed it is, and should be...but part of the significance of this blog should also be the ability to engage in, engage with, and debunk antiporn lunacy. I'm not so sure that simply banishing inquiries from the other side will help our cause; indeed, it will more than likely make this blog merely the symmetrical opposite of the GenderBorg RadFems in their direct censorship policies.
Now, spammers and smartasses like JoeD who bring in leading and loaded questions?? I'd rather unload on them and THEN drop them rather than merely leave them in the mod queue. But, that's been my philosophy for many years.
But...I do think that some degree of moderation is worthwhile, if only to protect from drive-by trolls.
I don't give a rat's ass if someone thinks they're being silenced or censored or that we're being hypocrites or any other such nonsense. I think we should moderate these jokers out of here on a rail and I'd be glad to do so. In fact, it would satisfy me no end to hand out a bit of the medicine they're so quick to dispense in their own venues to those who come here with disruptive behavior on their minds.
As it is, all we're doing is providing them with a convenient means of interfereing in dialogue among people who have serious matters to discuss regarding pornography by deploying the usual tired lies and vile slanders.
If activism in defense of free speech rights for sexually explicit material is the real purpose, it's way past time for that activism to manifest itself at home.
What's needed is pre-posting approval, and if that opinion isn't popular with some, well, I'm not very worried about my popularity these days. I have more urgent concerns, and I want those addressed without having to fend off ignorant dolts in the process.
The main issue here is that only Renegade Evolution (who founded this blog to begin with, remember) has the authority or even ability at this point to moderate posts; other contributors such as moi, you, IACB, et. al., can post articles, but cannot moderate posts, since we are not at that level of moderator.
I will contact Ren via email to see if she can open up the mod powers here to others such as you or me of IACB, so that they will be able to . I've been wanting to do so anyway, due to al the spamming that has taken place of late.
Anthony
Just to clarify matters, I don't want to see real debate banished from here or create an echo chamber. I think there is something to be gained from answering questions and addressing issues raised in good faith by those with whom we disagree.
ReplyDeleteBut that's not what we're getting here. We're getting spammers and trolls and drive-bys and deliberate disruptive tactics aimed at preventing exactly the kind of open discussion of real issues we'd like to foster.
In a sense, it's the teabagger dilmemma. Open town hall meetings are a great exercise in direct democracy when those present play along. When a handful of sabateurs insist on shouting down anyone who tries to speak to the issues with lies and epithets, they suppress speech as effectively as if they locked everybody else out.
This blog doesn't have a huge number of readers, but I believe the majority of them would like to follow conversations appropriate to the title and not have to watch one thread after another degenerate into back-and-forth pissing matches resulting from deliberate efforts by a tiny minority to keep those conversations from happening.
It's hardly an affront to freedom of speech to suggest that such individuals go use any of their many soapboxes for their bullshit and leave us to the only one we happen to have.
Every blog has its own standards of what is permissible, just like every newspaper.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with JoeD was that his tone was mocking, whereas Cervantes seemed genuinenly interested in engaging our arguments.
Sheldon,
ReplyDeleteThough no reasonable person would disagree with your first proposition, the latter is more subjective subjective.
Someone has to make decisions about what is and what is not consistent with the standards and practices at a newspaper or on a blog. Whether that person is an editor or a moderator, the judgment will always be to some extent subjective.
And yet the need for that judgment is vital in order for discourse to occur in an atmosphere of reason.
That is the atmosphere that needs to prevail here as it should prevail overall.
Going forward, I have reason to believe it will. Please staty tuned.
Um ... make that "stay tuned."
ReplyDeleteGoing to have to get my editorial chops up to speed here.
Basically, I'm with Anthony on keeping this basically an open forum. I think part of the weakness of the radfem blogosphere is their inability to seriously engage with anybody who fails to come to lockstep agreement with them in three responses or less. As for JoeD, whatever might be said about his tone, he threw out a challenge that was easy enough to respond to, and I'm happy to answer such questions in the interest of dispelling misinformation. Perhaps JoeD might not be interested in what we might have to say, but there may be other "on the fence" readers who might be.
ReplyDeleteSheldon writes:
"The problem with JoeD was that his tone was mocking, whereas Cervantes seemed genuinenly interested in engaging our arguments."
Rachel Cervantes – eh, not so sure, based on previous run-ins with her. Her M.O. seems to be to claim to want open conversation, but then *very* quickly turn nasty over the slightest disagreement, inevitably claiming she was slighted or disrespected in some way. Usually, this is in the context of conversations with men, which is where I think her real animus lies. To people like this, I respond as best I can to the legitimate debate points they throw out there, but the more general issue of what bee has gotten into their bonnet, that's their problem, not mine.
Again, I am not suggesting limiting legitmate discussion of any kind, including that with those who may to some extent disagree with the basic tenets of this blog. I want an open forum as well, but genuinely so and not a target range for anyone who has a beef with porn and wants to disrupt conversation among those with wishing to engage in real dialogue.
ReplyDeleteIt's not as easy to turn back those who come here with that intent as it might seem. Again, some very promising discussions concering topics of significant interest to those who do believe in preserving freedom of expression concerning sexuality have been beaten into the ground here more than once by a determined zealot from the other side who has managed to make the thread all about him or her and his or her gripes with porn. I'm all for them having places to go where they face no such premeditated interference from us and feel we are entitled to the same.
As for the fence sitters, on this subject I'm not so sure there are that many left, and if they're truly motivated, they can just check out the blogroll here and get a wide variety of opinions from a wide variety of sources. If they happen to show up here and have questions to ask, I would never wish to prevent them from doing so.
But as happened during the long posts I did on TPoP, I don't think we're obligated to take time out from dealing with an issue we consider important to fend off some Anonymous who shows up here in the middle of the night to loose a barrage of leading questions clearly aimed at dragging the rest of us OT. It's not hard to recognize these individuals in action, as they have a very limited playbook of strategic approaches, and I see no benefit in allowing them to jack this blog to their own ends.
The moderation I favor wouldn't eliminate a single participant with anything constructive to add to the conversation, including difficult but reasonable questions and honest points of disagreement.
But I don't think we're obligated to make ourselves defenseless in the face of premeditated sabotage. I am not a pacifist anywhere and I believe that defending the rights this blog wishes to protect requires that we defend those rights on our own doorstep by not allowing anyone who comes along to plant a "Palin in 2012" sign or any other thing there that is inimical to our more important objectives.
Recent events have made it very clear, once again, that there are those with whom we can converse productively and those who have nothing useful to offer. I simply don't think the former should be drowned out by the honking of the latter.
Again, I would apply the maxim of moderation in all things, including moderation.
piracy affects porn but it's still winner during the crunch
ReplyDelete