Mark Kernes has now posted at AVN.com his recounting of yesterday's meeting of the LA City Council committee involved in enforcing the condom mandate law, and it confirms two disturbing developments that I first mentioned on my update to my original post.
First off...there is this exchange that is documented between Immoral Productions chief "Porno Dan" Leal and FilmLA VP Todd Lindren regarding the scope of the new law regarding personal webcamming. Remember that Leal's company was paid a surprise visit by LAPD Vice the night before, and cited for not having a valid permit under the new law.
The first speaker was Immoral Productions owner Dan "Porno Dan" Leal, who informed the Group that one of his independent contractors had been given a citation by one of the eight members of LAPD's Vice Division who arrived at the location, for shooting a live webcam show without a permit. Leal explained that since the citation has been issued because the show, which was not yet under way when the police arrived, was being done for commercial profit or gain, he surmised that every webcam performer in the city would not be required to get a permit from FilmLA, and asked the FilmLA representatives if that was correct?In other words, it isn't just about intimidating the big studios into wrapping up anymore; it's about forcing condoms on everyone who does any form of adult sexual media for profit.
"It has been consistent that any commercial production, including webcasts, needs a permit," responded FilmLA's Lindgren.
"So any webcam show shot by anyone in the city of Los Angeles will now need a permit, is that correct?" Leal asked.
"Has always needed a permit, right," Lindgren corrected him.
"Ergo, any married couple shooting in their house, who's shooting a webcam show for profit or gain, which by definition would be every single person that shoots webcam, would now need a permit, is that correct?" Leal pressed.
"Under the city ordinance, if it's for commercial purpose, it needs a permit," Lindgren stated.
"And therefore, they would need condoms under the new regulation, is that correct, that logic?" Leal continued.
"We're in the process of developing that specific—and I can't answer that question," Lindgren responded.
At that point, Santana cut Leal off, stating that the comment period wasn't supposed to include a question-and-answer dialog with Group members, leaving Leal to finish by stating, "We will be happy to comply with whatever the city decides to do."
Indeed, it isn't even about condoms, come to think of it...since the new law now extends the requirement of a permit to include even homemade adult webcamming -- and remember, the new Cal-OSHA regs could potentially require "barrier protection" (read, dental dams and gloves) for girl-girl and even solo scenes) as a means of "protection" -- that means that ANYONE who does an adult webcam in the city of LA is now liable to be required to apply for a permit, or face stiff fines and even jail time.
Now, whether or not the city has the means or the will to enforce this equally on all is a legitimate issue, but the fact remains that the city now has that hammer with which they can stomp anyone not meeting Mike Weinstein's or Cal-OSHA's rigid standards of "protection".
And then, there is the real issue with the collection of such information in the filing and handling of permits. What about the risk of a potential permitter having their information exposed and used as blackmail against them, or exploited by antiporn groups wanting to banish them "for the sake of the children"?? And, what about the very real threat of public exposure of private cammers as a means of shaming them, or outing them to their families?
Anyone who doesn't see the potential mass violation of basic privacy and sexual liberties inherent in this law is either dense or blind. But, hey, they're all just ignorant sluts, and this is for their own good and protection, so who cares??
Of course, the folks who put forth this law in the first place will always complain that even that is not enough, and will volunteer their services to drop the hammer down that much stronger. Witness the testimony of the only AHF representative at this meeting, Mark McGrath, as documented by Kernes:
AIDS Healthcare Foundation's (AHF) Mark Roy McGrath spoke next, and began by claiming that during the investigation of the 2010 Derrick Burts HIV infection, the LA County Department of Public Health had no problem identifying "all the production companies, all the secondary producers... in quick, short order," charging that those companies "continue to violate California law, they continue to act as outlaw entities, and we feel that... it's time that this industry act with legal responsibility and show a modicum of corporate citizenship."First off...I thought that the 2010 outbreak featuring Derrick Burts took place in Florida, right?? And that there was really no investigation by either FilmLA or Cal-OSHA, but from the LA County Department of Public Health, which AHF had already dismissed as "stonewalling" to begin with?? (And, dare I mention that even Burts admitted that he was infected in a shoot where condoms were already used??)
McGrath claimed that the law "does not distinguish between content, but on acts," adding that, "they can create any content they want that's simulated. This law is specifically looking at infectious disease transmission and exposure." (Of course, most adult content fans won't buy simulated sex, but that's not something that worries McGrath.)
While noting that neither he nor AHF is "happy with the draft language," he asked, "How is it going to be logged? How are we going to conduct these investigations? If the fire department and police camn't do it, where are we going to do a Request for Proposal?"
Of course, several prominent adult industry members have suspected all along that part of the reason AHF got the new ordinance put on the books was to eventually offer its services to the city as the only official "condom inspectors," so it will be interesting to see which entities respond to McGrath's suggested RFP.
And of course, McGrath would say that it's only about acts and that if producers wanted to show authenticity, then they could always rely on simulated sex. Yeah, right...like everyone's going to move over to late night Showtime or Cinemax to get their fix of losing bareback sex.
But, it's the last sentence that is the most important: since AHF obviously doesn't trust the LA Vice squad to enforce their condom mandate the way they want, they wouldn't mind getting paid by the city to do the enforcement themselves.
WOW...outsourcing the enforcement of a public law to a private for-profit entity....that'll go well, and won't be abused. Like bloody hell, it won't. Ask the victims of the original Porn Wikileaks.
To put it simply, this is the Swedish Model for sex work applied to porn, shifted a tad, and then jacked up to heights unknown. Julie Bindel and Gail Dines would proudly support this...and I'm sure that Gail will give her blessings next chance she gets to post a CounterPunch essay. Only thing missing is the "Real Men Don't Buy Bareback Porn" ads and celeb endorsements.
Neoliberal antisex censorship. Just like right-wing fundamentalist antisex censorship....but neoliberal.
Seriously, we have GOT to fight this. To the fucking WALL.
Now crossposted over at The Real Porn Wikileaks:
ReplyDeleteThe AHF Is Looking For Work (The REAL Porn Wikileaks)
Anthony
Can anyone possibly be surprised by these developments? Have I not been saying for months that the whole purpose of this exercise in political chicanery had one core intention, which was to set AHF up as the deputized condom cops to be paid at the expense of producers? Did I not say from the outset that this whole thing was yet another money-making scam for these greedy hucksters?
ReplyDeleteYes, I told the industry so, but did they listen? Did any company spend one dime to fight this thing? Did FSC do anything more than wring its hands over it and then try to set up some kind of AIM-lite after allowing AIM to be dismantled via nuisance litigation by Weinstein's jackbooters?
Nope. Everyone sat on their butts while this whole deal unfolded around them. No litigation was filed for an injunction to prevent this asinine ordinance from going into effect. Not attempt was made to compel the LA Times to cover our side of the story with any degree of objectivity instead of simply acting as a megaphone for AHF's lies?
Was any effort directed toward a unified, structured and carefully thought-our counter-publicity campaign emphasizing performer autonomy and performer opposition to this nonsense?
No, nothing was done and as a result the whole industry is likely to find itself under the direct supervision of Weinstein's minions and forced to pay for the privilege, as the families of executed prisoners in China are forced to pay for the firing-squad's bullets. And as for performer autonomy, the attack on individual streaming video is a clear warning that it isn't just companies whose rights will be stripped by this horrific monstrosity of a law, but those of performers actually doing the one thing they control themselves and from which they derive direct revenues off the entertainment then create.
Yes, I blame the weak and cynical officials who caved to Weinstein the way Pfizer's executives did previously. I blame local media coverage so yellow the reporters should be tested for hepatitis. I blame AHF for being a charity fraud, existing to make as much money for its top officials as possible and illegally engaging in electoral politics while committing massive tax fraud by representing themselves as a non-profit organization.
But most of all I blame this business for having its head buried so far up its ass it couldn't see all this coming despite numerous attempts by those who could to get their attention for a moment while they were otherwise occupied at figuring new ways to squeeze a few more bucks out of the miserable souls still working for them in an economy that has given cover to producers to cut pay for everyone from performers to production assistants. Now this is going to end up costing a fortune in legal fees to push back, and I'm sure the rest of us will be somehow end up footing the bill while the few remaining company owners are out shopping for new Bentleys.
The stench of this whole affair is worse than the miasmal fumes rising from the LA riverbed on a hot July day, and to all those responsible I can only say there are no epithets in the English language adequate to convey the depth of my contempt for them.
As usual, it will be the performers who will suffer the worst, be exposed to the greatest medical and legal risks and be provided with the least support of anyone touched by this whole sorry affair, and that's the real outcome of all the professed "concern" by the various parties to this atrocity for their welfare.
I hope hell has room for all the new tenants who have earned themselves a berth there in the course of events so far and will do so subsequently in the disgraceful attack on individual liberty that will inevitably unfold at this point.
Ulike previous occasions when this business has gotten itself in deep shit over issues of this kind, no one need bother approaching me after the fact for any advice or assistance. I wouldn't piss on any of them if their asses were on fire.
@Ernest:
ReplyDeleteYou told us so...and you weren't the only one.
Problem was, the industry was still caught up in the bells and whistles of the Porn Wikileaks saga, the "how do we imitate the Big Boys of the MPAA and sue users to get our lost profits off cut-and-paste copycat BS" memes, the "how to create the next Jenna at the lowest possible price" nonsense, and the "Don't worry, because Obama got our backs" myopia to see this assault from the likes of Weinstein and Lubben coming...until it busted them flat yesterday.
And anyone who thinks that moving to Vegas or Pheonix or Miami or New Hampshire will escape the ultimate fight, I'll only remind them of the haunting words of Michael Weinstein after the LA condom ordinance was passed: "Whereever they go, we will follow." First LA, then LA County, then Miami, then nationwide.....there is no escape.
The choice is simple, friends and neighbors. Stand together and fight for your rights as performers, producers and fans, or perish together as adult entertainment is reduced back to the realm of bad Skinemax flicks. United we stand, divided we fall...and there is no safe space unless we make one, and defend it to the death.
And, also as I predicted, when the arrests start, who stands to be arrested? Performers, those the cynical, vicious, lying, corrupt, greedy scum who created this monstrosity of a law claim to want to protect. In the long, ugly history of the repression of sex workers, the usual strategy for protecting them has been to throw them in jail, and once again, we see them deprived of their choices as consenting adults and being put behind bars "for their own good."
ReplyDeleteThis same treatment was once quite common for Mr. Weinstein's larger constituency, with many of the same detestable rationalizations for brutal bigotry advanced, and they didn't like it much. They fought it for years and eventually that battle was one.
But in this case, sex workers are a seemingly soft target with little money and few influential friends, so it's not surprising that the craven, gutless administration of Mayor Villaraigosa would loose its vice bulls on those least capable of mounting a potent court challenge to this patently unconstitutional attempt to regulate sexual behavior between consenting adults. After all, what can a few performers do if the bigger players in the industry roll over like so many overfed dogs in the face of this vile threat? If we scare performers into not working, problem solved, right?
Not necessarily. I can think of performers who will take up the fight if they get arrested for having consensual sex on camera without condoms. I can see jury trials that go on and on and civil suits that go on and on after that. I can see some pretty serious blowback toward the mouthy punks who backed the city into this corner in the first place.
Never, ever get in a public brawl with a sex worker unless your idea of fun is having your picture appear in the paper next to that person's picture every single day of a long, ludicrous attempt at prosecution by a totally unenthusiastic city attorney's office ending in a humiliating dismissal.
That's another little preview of the future, and so far my record has been pretty good on those.
Let's see who else cares to ignore a timely warning.