Friday, June 17, 2011

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

While we not quite so eagerly await the process of the new Cal-OSHA "barrier protections"/condom mandate regulations as they go through the bureaucratic processes, a resolution was reached legally on yet another attempt on another front by the folks at the AIDS Healthcare Foundation to force condoms down the throats of performers.

If you will remember, Michael Weinstein, the chief honcho of AHF, had been making huge noise about a lawsuit that his organization had filed last year against the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, the ruling authority on health regulations for Porn Valley, stating that they had deliberately violated their duties by not enforcing exsisting regs supposedly forcing condom usage amonst porn performers.

That suit was thrown out by local state judge David P. Yaffe, who ruled that LADPH's rules were not manditory, but rather a simple guidline, and that LADPH was not held to the narrow standard that AHF was attempting to impose.

Well, AHF so did not like that decision, so they appealed to the California Appelate Court to vacate the lower court's decision, citing various laws and regs implying discrection, and asking for direct mandates to force LACDPH to enforce the condom mandate.

Well, as XBiz.com reported today, the appelate court just made its ruling in response to AHF. Essentially, they gave AHF the boot, as in: "Ahhhh....no, we don't think so."

 Some snippage:

L.A. Health Officials Can't Be Forced to Regulate Porn Shoots, Court Rules




LOS ANGELES — Los Angeles County public health officials have the discretion to mandate regulations to control sexually transmitted diseases on porn sets, an appeals court ruled Thursday.

The county had been sued by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which has been a thorn for the adult entertainment industry for years as it attempts to make condoms mandatory for all porn productions.

The AHF sued the county for its inaction over regulating porn shoots.

It lost in a lower court and reached out to the California Appeal Court, which ruled against it, 3-0.

Appellate judges, in the unpublished opinion, said the county's health department has discretion to determine what measures are necessary to prevent the transmission of communicable diseases and could not be forced by the courts to implement the specific means advocated by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation.

[...]

In their appeal, the AHF honed in on alleged violations of Heath and Safety Codes, including Sec. 120575, which requires that a health officer who knows or has reason to believe that any contagious, infectious or communicable diseases exists, or recently existed “shall take measures as may be necessary to prevent the spread of the disease or occurrence of additional cases.”

The appeal also focused on Sec. 120175, which refers to venereal diseases, and provides that it is the duty of the health officer to investigate all cases, to ascertain the sources of infection, and to take “all measures reasonably necessary to prevent the transmission of infection.” 

The AHF contended that the laws impose a mandatory duty to act to control the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, and asked a lower court to issue a writ of mandate directing the Department of Public Health to enforce Secs.120175 and 120575 by requiring adult film producers ensure performers are vaccinated for hepatitis B and use condoms during filming.

The AHF, in the alternative, asked the court to declare the department had abused its discretion under these sections in failing to take action and direct the agency to “cure that abuse of discretion.” 

But Los Angeles Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe entered a judgment of dismissal, setting up a ruling on appeal.

On Thursday, writing for the majority, Judge Richard Aldrich said Secs. 120175 and 120575 do not “impose a ministerial duty, for which mandamus will lie,” but “a mere obligation to perform a discretionary function.”

The county Health Department has “discretion to choose among various measures, ranging from quarantine and isolation to physician referrals and testing in carrying out this duty,” he ruled.

Aldrich concluded the courts “cannot compel another branch of the government to exercise its discretion in a particular manner,” nor “compel the [county Health Department] to implement the [AHF's] agenda.”

Aldrich, who was joined by judges Joan Klein and Patti Kiching in the appeal, pointed the AHF to direct its efforts “at lawmakers to change the laws and workplace regulations.”
 Oh, geez...you mean that they will just have to go through the usual democratic channels to change regulations, and not get preferential treatment from the courts?? Don't these "evil liberal activist judges" (or wingnut activist judges,depending on the ideology du jure) know that they're abetting an epidemic of HIV-infected porn stars??  (All 2 of them since 2005.) Aren't they concerned enough about the pandemic of STI's going on in the porn industry, where chlamydia and gonorrhea is being passed around like candy at a fair?? (Not nearly as much as the general population, mind 'ya, but we all know that only slutty porn starlets get STI's and then infect the population, right??) Don't they have some empathy for all the young impressionable girls who are entrapped into doing such dirty, nasty stuff as facials and blow jobs and creampies and -- special ewwww -- anal sex?? Why do they HATE porn performers???

Actually, they don't....or maybe the appelate panel just happens to see like most of us what a crock it is to attempt to manipulate the court system to your own advantages.

Either way, nice to see that some people still have common sense. Hopefully, the Cal-OSHA board will show some as well.


1 comment:

  1. To address your last point first, Cal-OSHA, like all bureaucracies, is not IN the common sense business, it's in the regulation business.

    As for the instant case, AHF has now announced (with great flourish and the usual inscrutable-yet-greasy brio) its intention to appeal to the California Supreme Court.

    Weinstein and AHF also used the opportunity to regurgitate the now-discredited and debunked LACPH numbers about the "epidemic" of STIs in the adult industry. These charlatans have no shame. Fortunately, in my opinion they also have no chance of prevailing on appeal.

    The notion that one branch of government should be petitioned to COMPEL another branch of government to utilize its DISCRETION in a particular manner set forth by the petitioner is simply repugnant. It's yet another end-run around the rule of law -- as well as the principals of democracy and all decency -- by a mini-authoritarian regime that wears a its "HIV Advocate" halo like an emperor's crown.

    The crime here is the amount of CA taxpayer money that is being spent by LACDPH (and Cal-OSHA) to defend against (and/or pursue) AHF's anti-individual rights, anti-democratic, anti-sexual speech agenda.

    ReplyDelete