Porn Panic 2011 Update: Why Some People Are Gluttons For Punishment: AHF Takes Condom Mandate/Barrier Protection Appeal To Cali Supreme Court

Sorry that I couldn't update this story further, had to resolve some issues with my computer.

Well....it seems that either AHF has either plenty of deep pockets and too much time on their hands, or they take defeat not too kindly. After being blocked by the California Appelate Court from their attempt to force the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (LACDPH) to issue directives forcing porn shoots to impose mandatory condoms and barrier protections on LA porn performers and producers, Michael Weinstein's group has now decided to appeal directly to the California Supreme Court to force the issue once and for all.

Michael Whiteacre posted a comment to my previous post regarding the appelate court ruling, which stated that the courts could not induce LACDPH to any one method of intervention or prevention because the regulations were more like guidelines allowing for a wide latitude of options and not forcing any one option on regulations.

Needless to say, AHF begs to differ...and in their official press release announcing their decision to appeal the three judge panel ruling, they mince no words about how they feel.

Some quotes from their press statement:

LOS ANGELES--(BUSINESS WIRE)--In response to the dismissal late last week by California’s Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, of an appeal (Case No. #B222979) by AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) of an AHF legal action which sought a writ of mandate compelling Los Angeles County to take reasonable steps to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS, in the adult film industry, AIDS Healthcare Foundation announced that it will file a petition for review with the Supreme Court of California.

“The agency’s inaction continues to needlessly place thousands of people at risk of disease.”

The AHF legal action was first filed in July 2009 in Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Case No. BS121665). Through it, AHF sought a writ of mandate, “…compelling the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health to discharge its ministerial and non-discretionary statutory duty to combat an acknowledged epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases stemming from production of hardcore pornography in Los Angeles County.”

AHF filed the initial lawsuit after exhausting all other methods to compel the County to fulfill its obligation to protect the public’s health in the wake of a June 2009 revelation that an actress working in the adult film business had tested positive for HIV. At that time, AHF had urged the County to better monitor HIV and STD prevention in the region’s adult film industry—and require condom use, as required under state statute—or to shut down porn sets.

 Of course, the supposed "outbreaks" of 2009 and 2010 resulted in only two performers (and a possible third) actually getting infected with HIV ("Patient Zeta" in 2009, who more than likely skipped testing herself; and Derrick Burts, who still claims he got infected through a crossover gay male shoot in which condoms were actually involved)...so other than the usual hyperbole of exploiting a moral panic for personal advantage, it does beg the question why Weinstein is so gung ho on forcing LADPH to impose his personal dictates.

And as for the supposed "epidemic" of STI's in adult (as if the civilian sector in Cali isn't drowning in STI's on its own)...well, we have The Mayer Report to undercut that nonsense.

Even better than they hyperbolic rhetoric, though, is that AHF simply resets the same tired propaganda points that have been well disproven and debunked. Ergo:

Since the June 2009 reporting of that particular HIV outbreak in the adult industry—and subsequent reports by the LA Times that as many as 22 porn performers may have tested positive in the previous five years—no action has been taken by the County to halt the spread of STDs on LA porn sets or to conduct the proper and legally required public health follow-up with those thought to be infected.

“We will vigorously pursue this legal avenue with the California Supreme Court in order to try to compel LA County Health officials to safeguard the health and wellbeing of those working in the adult film industry in California,” said Michael Weinstein, President of AIDS Healthcare Foundation. “As an HIV and STD medical provider, it is our obligation to continue to pursue action on this issue, which goes beyond the recent HIV outbreaks and includes an epidemic of thousands of STD cases in the porn industry annually—an epidemic virtually ignored by the County Department of Public Health. County officials and porn producers should know we will not stop our efforts to protect the public health and will continue to fight the STD epidemic in the adult film industry.”

Riiight...never mind that the "22 HIV porn infections in 5 years" meme has already been debunked readily (16 were from gay male performers having nothing to do with the straight LA porn market, 4 were non-perforer private citizens using the testing of now defunct AIM, and the other 2 were the two cases in 2009 and 2010 cited..and even that number didn't include the 4 performers infected in the Darren James/Lara Roxx et. al. outbreak of 2004). And, not to mention that the aformentioned Mayer Report revealed the hogwash methodology and cooked-up science that deliberately inflated infections in porn performers as compared to the general population. Why let the truth get in the way of a good antiporn sex panic??

And, WHOA....what a bitchslap Weinstein levels at LACDPH..as if they have done absolutely nothing to support or even collude in AHF's efforts to take over performer testing and treatment and profit off condom sales....errrrrrr, protect the performers from themselves?Whatever happened to the love for Robert Kim-Farley and Peter Kerndt, who offered much of the bad information that Weinstein uses for his crusade??  Is he that much of a meglomaniac that he can't trust performers to protect themselves..or is this just one more means for him to shake down the industry for his own profits, or simply get them booted out of Cali for good?

The Free Speech Coalition blog has posted a solid rejoinder to Weinstein's announcement, and it packs a punch in debunking all of the arguments for appeal. Some snippage:

Of course, AHF’s agenda is enforcing mandatory condoms and other barrier protection in the adult industry – because apparently there are not enough legitimate issues facing those affected with HIV/AIDS or populations at risk for HIV infection. Apparently, all of AHF’s attention can now be focused on policing the adult performer population numbering, perhaps, 1,500 people.

Never mind that the adult production industry has successfully self-regulated the safety of its performers with monthly STI testing since 1998. The testing protocol instated by the now-defunct Adult Industry Medical Healthcare (AIM) clinic efficiently prevented HIV-positive individuals from entering the business, and also effectively limited the spread of infection when active performers tested positive in 2004, 2009 and 2010. AIM also served the sexual health needs of other high-risk populations not involved in adult production.

Never mind that another lawsuit, and numerous complaints filed by AHF were instrumental in contributing to the “financial hardships” that finally destroyed AIM.

Never mind that statistical information on STI rates for adult performers, presented by public health officials, has been described as inaccurate and “without basis in science” in a report commissioned by FSC, written by prominent epidemiologist and biostatistician Dr. Lawrence Mayer. That report was entered into record at the June 7 Cal/OSHA meeting, attended by scores of adult performers that wanted their voices heard in a regulatory process that will impact them the most. And never mind that AHF - not performers – has filed workplace safety violation complaints against adult production companies and agents, forcing Cal/OSHA into action.

Never mind that AHF keeps on quoting what they now must know to be inaccurate information; as in its press release, that “as many as 22 porn performers have tested positive in the last five years,” when in fact, the LA Times published that health officials retracted their findings concerning the number of performers that tested positive for HIV. And according to Dr. Mayer’s report, the stats that AHF quotes (as analyzed by LA County Public Health) on Chlamydia and gonorrhea in the performer population ALSO are wildly inaccurate.

And while AHF is busy playing nanny to adult industry performers and the public at large, did you know that a recent study shows that the highest rate of increase in HIV infection in the nation is affecting Asians and Pacific Islanders? When was the last time that we saw an Asian on an AHF billboard, or AHF launching media outreach to that community?

Did you know that HIV rates for gay and bisexual men in California may have been dropping steadily since the mid-2000s, and this may be due to improved treatments for HIV? AHF provides valuable resources for those living with HIV and should continue to do so – at the same time, taking responsibility for the education of at-risk populations about safe sex.  But adult performers – who test 12 times a year or more – are making an informed choice about their health and the work they do; how many average citizens are tested for STIs, even just once?

I'm betting that this gets laughed out of the California Supreme Court on sight.

Porn Panic 2011 Update: Cali Appelate Court Drops the BAH-LOCK And A Stern Smackdown On AHF Attempt To Force LACDPH Impose Condom Mandate

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

The Official (And Very Belated) Review Of The Cal-OSHA Hearings (And How This "Weinstein-Gold-Lubben Model" Could Become Nationwide Very Soon)

I apologize for not being able to put this up earlier, due to work and time constraints.

Well, the first round of hearings over Cal-OSHA's proposed condom mandate/barrier protections has come and gone, and if the reaction by adult performers is of any indication, these regs are the most basic threat to porn performers' livelihoods since the LAPD busts of the 1980s.

Problem is, though...if the reaction of the Cal-OSHA officials heading the meeting are clear, performers' opposition simply won't matter, since the fix is already basically in.

And worse yet, these regulations could very well be extended nationwide without much of any feedback or protest.

I'll get to the worst case scenario later on..but first, a look at the proposed regs themselves as presented by the panel at the June 7th meeting.

Essentially, the regs would follow this template:

1) Adult performers and producers would be declared to be "employees" under Cali workplace laws in order to place them under the jurisdiction of Cal-OSHA's workplace protection regulations. Before then, adult performers were assumed to be "independent contractors", which are exempt from such protections under Cali state law.

2) Then, using the "employee" declaration, Cal-OSHA would envelop all porn performers into their new "barrier protection" scheme of STI prevention, mandating full barrier protection (read that to mean condoms, dental dams, and other means of "barriers") in place for performing any live sex acts during porn shoots. Essentially, that would totally ban all bareback intercourse involving P/V and/or anal sex, and, in the original proposal, oral sex as well (more on that anon). This would also ban external ejaculations (the dreaded facials or shots to other body parts), as well as internal ejaculations without barriers (such as "creampies" or swallowing sperm). "Manual sex" (involving masturbation or handjobs/self-stimulation) is not covered at all in the regs; but its status is not well known, and none of the Cal-OSHA staffers at the meeting could clarify their status.

3) The requirement of testing for STI's would be waived entirely, since under Cali antidiscrimination law you cannot test "employees" or ask about their STI status without their approval. Apparently, Cal-OSHA feels that the barrier protections would suffice such in preventing STI transmission that testing would be a moot point. Most active performers would probably disagree...and those  who packed the meeting did so quite directly and forcefully.

4) There is a caveat, though, Cal-OSHA did propose an amendment to the regs which would have exempted oral sex (fellatio and culliningus) from the "barrier protection" requirements, but with the provision that the performers wanting such without "protection" would have to (1) endure the entire passage of Hepatitis B vaccine shots; and (2) be certified to be "fit" for performing by a licenced physician via medical tests...and verification would have to take place within 2 weeks of performing that particular scene. For EACH oral act.

The bottom line on this would be that performers would have to not only wrap up (or dam up) in all porn scenes, but they would lose the system of preemptive testing that has mostly worked to keep STI+ (and especially HIV+) performers from performing to begin with. Basically, the current standard for gay male performers, which assumes that most performers are indeed infected and uses mostly condoms to contain the spread of STI's, would be imposed on the hetero porn industry, with no respect whatsoever for performer preferences or even the concern for performer health.

And, of course, this flies directly in the face of consumer preference, and actual sexual behavior, which tends not to buy into condoms or dental dams as a means of both "destroying the fantasy" and depicting actual sex in real life. (All those who use dental dams during sex, raise your hand. OK...all you married couples who have actually used a condom for oral sex...raise YOUR hand. Right.)

Since folks like Mark Kernes and Danny Wylde, commentators like Dr. Chauntelle Tibbals, and performers like Ela Darling, Shy Love, and Nina Hartley (all of whom attended the meeting and gave testimony) have already posted their thoughts on both the regulations and their impacts on performers, I will simply cede to their excellent reviews of the hearings, which I have linked. (Plus, I'm pretty damn sure that our contributor here Ernest Greene has more than a word or two or 1,000 to say on this matter, since he also dueled with the Cal-OSHA commisars there as well.)

For now, I'll just give my very own non-expert, pro-porn activist brain droppings on these regulations. The short two word response: They SUCK. (And not in the good way.)

OK...you want more than two words?? Here I go:

Deborah Gold and her staff may THINK that these regs are designed to protect performers, but the actual reality of shooting porn basically resolves to the opposite conclusion: that these regs are designed deliberately to destroy and annihilate porn produiction in California by imposing impossible conditions for shooting effective and profitable porn content. Do they really think that in the heat of passion, performers will simply stop themselves in the middle of a scene and put on goggles or wrap a condom around or break out the dental dam?? Don't they understand that the real point of porn is barely controlled lust and sexual desire, and that imposing artificial barriers to that desire will tend to break the lust bond between performer and consumer/viewer that gives porn its appeal??

These restrictions would simply reduce sexual portrayals to the level of bad softcore, where actors who barely touch themselves and are not even encouraged to even have erections would simply fake passion for the camera. Not to say that there aren't some beautiful softcore performers out there who can act out sexual passion pretty well, but most people who watch porn would rather see real hard penises and real vaginas and real people engaging in real, sweaty, lusty, and even dirty passionate sex. It's all about vicariously feeling the passion they see on screen....and only bare skin-on-skin contact (and the allure of the "money shot" and the actual orgasm can convey to the viewer that realism of sex. No bit of "safe sex" education or attempt at "role modeling" people to use condoms will change that fact. (And, it's not as if condoms aren't already readily available to the public as a prophalytic or a pregnancy prevention method.)

The attitude of the more "liberal" advocates of these regs appears to be "If we can force porn performers to be coerced guniea pigs for "safe sex" education, then we can get more people to use condoms and dental dams and other forms of "protection"...and STI's will be a distant memory. Yeah, right...and if we simply take away everyone's cars and only provided rail-based transit and bicycles as the sole means of
transportation, then all our energy needs would be licked, global warming would cease, and the world would be a much happier place. Of course, the risk of performers not knowing whether or not their partners are indeed STI free, or the risks of condoms tearing or breaking during a scene, or the minor threat of condomized sex causing microabrasions of a woman's vagina making her even more vunerable to injury or infection...all that is inmaterial to the broader goal of "protection". And of course. it's all done "for your own good"..as if performers are merely children or out-of-control sluts incapable of any means of self-protection or self-autonomy over their own choice of protection.

Then there is the protection of crossover gay male talent like Cameron Reid/Derrick Burts from any means of preventative testing, the ability of shysters like Mike Weinstein of AHF to monopolize the "testing" regime by converting porn studios into cash cows for his condom-only regimen; the complicity of a few "sex-positive" producers like Tony Comstock to sweep in with his special brand of "married couple' porn and pick off the charred bones of the industry...the hidden agendas could build a book of their own.

For the more "conservative" proponents of these regs (read, Ministeress Lubben and her Pink Cross Foundation groupies), the motivation is much darker; they simply want to drive porn out of California, if not out of America totally; and these regs would certainly be a step in that direction. More than likely, though, performers denied their rights to shoot scenes in California would simply either go to more porn friendly confines (such as Las Vegas or Phoenix or South Beach in Florida or maybe even San Francisco) in order to make their living. Or, they could simply downgrade themselves to making private Internet-based porn content out of their homes. Or...they can simply go underground and continue to make bareback sex scenes under the radar and attempt to stay one step ahead of the Cal-OSHA posse or the LAPD "obscenity" squad...but without any means of protection from not only STI's but even abusive and/or ripoff producers.

All in all, this "Weinstein-Gold-Lubben Model" of porn regulation is just about as effective in regulating out of business porn performers as the "Swedish Model" of punishing men for even thinking about patronizing sex workers is for prostitution and other forms of sex work.  The only difference between the two is that at least the Cal-OSHA regs are only set to take place in California.

At least, for now...but because these regs have to get the approval of the federal branch of OSHA before they could take effect, that has their proponents dreaming of even bigger fish to fry...as in making these regulations take effect nationwide via the federal OSHA code. That certainly would undercut the argument of the industry leaving California for other places....but I wonder how porn performers currently working in South Florida would feel if they had federal officials raiding their homes due to regulations they had no say over. Especially, in the wake or the dominant anti-regulation fervor of the TeaPublican era??

Folks, this isn't just Cali's war on porn...it's national. And it won't just be pornsters in Cali affected...but all of us. Time to step it up and fight like hell before we lose it all.


Note: A report on the Cal-OSHA hearing from Shaya Tayefe Monajer of the Associated Press can be found here (via BakersfieldNow.com). Also, see the perspective of adult film lawyer Michael Fattorosi.(who happens to also be the husband of Black performer Vanessa Blue) via his Twitter stream here. A rundown of tweets concerning the hearings can be found here; and also note reaction articles from both The Free Speech Coalition and XBiz.com.  Finally, for now, there is th LA Weekly blog article, which is here.

The Official Call To Arms For Adult Porn Performers In California (from Michael Whiteacre): Cal-OSHA Hearings Tomorrow!!!

Well, D-Day takes place in right around 24 hours from now....and if you are a performer and still not convinced of the importance of attending the upcoming hearing of Cal-OSHA in Los Angeles tomorow, then Michael Whiteacre would like to have a few words with you.

This was posted to the Luke Is Back blog this afternoon as an Op-Ed.

Mandatory Condoms, Cal-OSHA, Lubben, Whiteacre, Weinstein… Performers- Just GO TO THE MEETING!

OP/ED By Michael Whiteacre

As most of you know, tomorrow, in downtown Los Angeles, a Cal-OSHA Advisory Subcommittee is scheduled to address the issue of condom and other "health and safety" regulations on adult production sets.  I am writing to strongly encourage ALL members of the adult production industry to attend, but especially adult performers.

The pool of active adult performers has not been heard from by Cal-OSHA since the early meetings.
Instead, in testimony, the talent pool has been routinely insulted, demonized, degraded and mocked by Shelley Lubben of Pink Cross Foundation.  If there is any one reason why you should show up and make your presence felt, and your voices heard, it might be to forcefully rebut the outrageous, disgusting claims made by this sick woman.

At the last OSHA hearing, in March, Lubben described many current performers as victims, "young, dumb females who couldn’t read a contract," and who "can’t even understand words like ‘litigation’ or ‘arbitration.’"  She waived a copy of the standard industry model release as an example!  She also characterized adult performers (as a group) as "trained seals", claiming the reason performers don’t show up to these hearings to tell "the truth" is "because they’re frightened."

"Why is it for the past year when we’ve been having these meetings, only maybe a few female adult performers or even non-performers come?" she asked.  "They’re afraid for their lives, they’re afraid they’ll lose their jobs. Right here in Van Nuys, I’ve personally invited the porn industry to come face this meeting, and where’s the female porn actresses to speak on their behalf? They’re not here because they know that they’re going to be threatened, and they’re going to be blacklisted for telling the truth about what’s really going on…."

Dear performers, if that is how you see yourselves, and your industry; if that is how you wish to be perceived by the world; and if preserving your job and your rights and your freedom is unimportant to you, then by all means, brush this meeting off.

But if you are offended by these charges; if you consider yourself a competent consenting adult with the right to do with your body as you see fit; if you think that the government has NO RIGHT to force the entertainment industry to produce safer sex ads instead of escapist entertainment, and if you support your right to chose condoms or not THEN YOU NEED TO ATTEND THIS MEETING, for it just might be your last chance.

But this is about more than stereotypes, hurt feelings, and the public’s impression of adult performers.  This is about your livelihood.

Whether or not you support condom use, you should come to this meeting, for this process is not about condoms, as the OSHA proposal makes perfectly clear.  This is about killing adult movie production in California.  Period.

There has been NO attempt to actually promulgate reasonable, industry-appropriate regulations.  As Lily Cade wrote today, in the wake of a thorough and frank discussion of the OSHA proposal last night, "It doesn’t make us safer on the job to regulate our jobs out of existence. We’re not just talking about condoms here, but about barriers to prevent ALL contact with body fluids. ‘Condoms, gloves and eye protection are specifically mentioned.  That’s right, it’s time for the facial, break out your face shield."  This is not a joke, and it is not fantasy.  This is the Brave New World that the megalomaniacal sexophobe Michael Weinstein would wreak.

This entire crusade for "safety" has represented an attempt to railroad the adult industry by Michael Weinstein’s AIDS Healthcare Foundation and its willing accomplices at UCLA, LA County Dept of Public Health, and last, and certainly least, Pink Cross. This is a cabal of self-interested parties who are out to generate as much money, power and publicity off of the porn industry as they can.  They are opportunistic hypocrites, excoriating porn while they profit off it. They think you are all children and poor little victims, incapable of knowing what is in your own best interest.

Do not wait until your opportunity has passed.  For like this opportunity, your jobs, your personal freedoms and your way of life may soon be like the snows of yesteryear — gone, never to return.

I know that many in this industry have little faith in the industry trade organization, Free Speech Coalition.  Performers rarely join, and may feel that the organization is out of touch with their interests.

The reality is complicated — but I’d ask you to consider this: it is only Free Speech Coalition that has ACTUALLY STEPPED UP to address the crises in the adult industry. It is a very small organization, dwarfed by AHF, yet it is fighting this fight daily, and assembling plans to keep the industry going, and to keep performers safe in the wake of AIM Healthcare being run out of business by lawsuits and aggressive governmental action (most of it instigated by AHF).  Before you throw stones at FSC ask yourself, what have I done to help protect my industry, my job, my livelihood?  Now is the time for your voice to be heard.  It’s the bottom of the ninth, and this industry has to make it count.

Danny Wylde notes, "I’m going to assume you’ve become a performer to make money — and to make the most money possible … Even if some of the production companies stick it out and try this condom-mandated means of production, how many companies have to leave before you;re losing out on one, two, three, four, or five thousand dollars a month? … We all take a risk going to work every day. In my opinion, it’s a managed risk. And it’s something I choose to participate in so that I can get a paycheck at the end of my day.  So when I feel that someone else who doesn’t really understand our industry is coming in to take away that paycheck, I get kind of pissed about it. And I’d like to have a say in the matter."

Do you want a say in the matter?

Life’s great question is "Where do you stand?" Lily Cade writes, "Porn performers, the ‘workers’ that Cal/OSHA says it’s trying to protect, do not want these regulations. We want to be able to work."

If that is where YOU stand, then you need to attend this meeting tomorrow morning.  If not for your industry, then for your self and for those who may count on you for financial support.

The meeting will he held tomorrow, June 7, 2011 at 10 am

CalTrans Building
100 S. Main Street
Los Angeles, CA  90012

I say the adult industry should pack that motherfucker and makes its voice heard.  Where do you stand?

Incidently,  Lily Cage's essay can be found here (warning, contains NSFW images).

Porn Panic 2011 Update: New Report Debunks AHF/LACDPH/Cal-OSHA Cooked -Up Stats On Performer STI Transmission Rates..But Will Even THAT Be Enough? (Updated)

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

The Return (???) Of Sex Hate: Kimberly Kupps Arrested in Polk County, Florida For...Videotaping Sex With Her Husband?!?!?

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.