Wednesday, March 20, 2013

Why Beetlejuice Could Take Master Classes From Mike Weinstein When It Comes To Spinning: The AHF/ImmoralLive "Condom Letter"

WOW...just when you thought AHF couldn't get any freakier.

Yesterday, Mike Weinstein held yet another of his publicity stunt press conferences in yet another attempt to push his condom mandate law on Los Angeles County Public Health officials and impose his "condom Nazi" regime on porn shoots.

The centerpiece of this farce was a letter that was sent by AHF's legal counsel, Mark McGrath, to LA County DPH Director Jonathan Fielding, in which McGrath decided to level his complaint at one particular porn company, Dan Neal's, for allegedly violating the newly passed condom mandate law by shooting performers unwrapped.

Apparently, AHF was alerted of the alleged violations by "an anonymous letter" that was sent to them, which they then verified through "a review of content at". Why the letter wasn't sent directly to LACDPH for review and investigation rather than shephereded through AHF is an open mystery.

The full letter is a .pdf file that is available here, though I've gone ahead and taken screencaps of it. I've removed the extraneous header info for brevity's sake, and there is some duplication due to the limits of my screen capture software.

Now...the funniest aspect of this is that Weinstein and AHF is supposed to be so distrustful of LACDPH in enforcing their new playtoy condom law that they are attempting to break the City of Los Angeles off from LACDPH and form their own health care jurisdiction (a referendum on the matter is currently being circulated for inclusion in the ballot for later this year). So, I guess we should assume that this is Weinstein's shot at the bow of Fielding, as if to say: "Don't fuck with us; enforce our law or we kick your ass again!!"

But, that's not all, folks...apparently, at Weinstein's presser, the subject of Mr. Marcus, the performer at the center of last year's syphilis scare, came up again....except that this time, it was over an incident that took place last week on an Internet radio show hosted by Jessica Bangkok, and hosted at the same studios where does their shows.

To summarize what went down: Marcus was a guest at Jessica's show in early March, where the producers decided that it would be a really cool idea to have Jessica watch her own scenes...with hopefully the obvious results. It worked all too well, because Marcus then decided that he just couldn't help himself and decided to "relieve the tension" with a unknown young female performer who was at his side....all of this going on live on air in the studio. Problem was, legendary performer Lisa Ann, whom had her own show following Bangkok's, was a witness to the hijinks, and she went apeshit all over Marcus and Bangkok on Twitter later that night, complaining about why Marcus or his sex accomplice hadn't been tested and why the studio would risk losing everything to allow live sex in their shows. Manwin, the porn megacorp who owns the studio and the shows, promptly investigated, and then dropped the unemployment hammer on not only Bangkok, but also Debi Diamond and Nikki Hunter for performing live sex on their shows as well. (The latter two have gotten Internet radio gigs at other venues.)

Of course, since I wasn't there at the presser, I can't say what was said there, but I'm guessing that Weinstein and his allies were probably attempting to use that incident to justify their stance and to have their "anonymous" sources (mostly paid shills) sneak into porn studios to catch performers Fucking While Unwrapped. (Though, since Manwin always had and is now aggressively enforcing their "no sex on the air" policy on their shows, the attempts will probably not be so fruitful.)

In the meantime, the mystery of how a mostly broke county with more than enough real HIV/STD cases in the real world will find the time and resources to meet Mike Weinstein's demand that they play "condom cop", continues unabated. As does the court challenges.

BTW....former starlet Lydia Lee (fka Julie Meadows) has a rather pithy critique of AHF's latest whackadoodle at her fantastic blog....please go there and educate yourself.

Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Euro Porn Ban Update: Cooler, Smarter Heads Prevail; Porn Ban Language Striken Down....For Now

Well, maybe the European Parliament might not be so bad after all.

Here's the breaking story from C|Net:

Today, 625 members of the European Parliament voted 368-159 in favor of passing a report aimed at stamping out gender stereotypes in the region, with 98 abstaining. However, the controversial "porn ban" section of the proposal was rejected.

This vote forms a majority opinion based on Europe's voting politicians, from which the European Commission can form legislation. Such a law would again be voted upon, and become legally binding in the 27 member state bloc of the EU.

Because the opinion of the Parliament has now been made, it will be extraordinarily difficult for the Commission to draw up similar porn-blocking legislation only to pass it back to the Parliament for another vote.
Unfortunately, while the attempt to directly ban porn was defeated, there still remains some controversy over the interpretation of what was passed, and how it could potentially spawn future attempts at censorship of sexual media. Again, quoting C|Net:
These porn-blocking proposals, initially introduced by Dutch Member of the European Parliament (MEP) for the Socialist Party Kartika Tamara Liotard, were buried within a report titled "Eliminating gender stereotypes in the EU," which was first submitted to the Parliament in early December. The report no doubt had positive intentions as a bid to close the gender inequality gap in the region by developing awareness and effective measures to reduce the prevalence of gender stereotypes in education, employment, and the media.

However, controversy quickly stirred because the report included such wide-ranging and ill-defined measures as calling on the European Union to reaffirm its position on an earlier resolution for a "ban on all forms of pornography in the media," as well as giving Internet service providers "policing rights" over their subscribers.

Amendments to the report removed certain explanatory text, but not the references to the previous resolution that was passed by the Parliament, which called for a blanket ban on pornography in the region in 1997.

While the explanation was removed, the effect was not, according to Swedish MEP for the Pirate Party Rick Falkvinge.

He explained that a "split vote" was called on to delete the sentence -- "which called for a ban on all forms of pornography in the media" -- but in spite of this, the 1997 resolution remains referenced, and therefore the call to ban "all forms of pornography in the media" remains intact.

Falkvinge said that striking out this text "has no other effect than deliberately obscuring the purpose of the new report."

But to make matters worse, when a handful of MEPs called on their citizens to e-mail their representatives in protest, the parliament's own IT department began to block these e-mails en masse from arriving in politicians' inboxes.

Pirate Party member Christian Engström, who first brought the news to light, called the move an "absolute disgrace", and said that he would complain to the Parliament's president about this "totally undemocratic practice."
The irony was that the method used to block the opposing emails was to label the phrase "gender stereotypes" as spam....on International Women's Day. In a proposal supposedly geared to attacking "gender stereotypes".

It'll be pretty interesting to see the response from folk like Gail Dines on this one. She's not known to take rejection too kindly.

The rest of Europe, at least for now, can freely exhale a sigh of relief.

Friday, March 8, 2013

Because Nothing Cures Economic Failure Quite Like....Banning Porn?!?!? The European Parliament's Grand Folly

It is usually typical that governments who have failed to serve their people with adequate polices will turn to scapegoat campaigns designed to target some group of people or some speech that the majority of citizens might find objectionable. That particular group of mode of speech might be harmful in some contexts, but totally neutral in most...but, nevertheless, the few and limited harmful effects are greatly exaggerated by the new commisars to push for censorship of the entirity of that speech or expression. All of this, of course, done for the protection of the defenseless "victims" of such speech, who need such "protection" because apparently they are incapable of speaking for themselves and need the full force of the State to enforce their stated will.

Except, of course, that it turns out that the "stated will" doesn't represent the actual beliefs of the public, but rather the expressed drive of an interest group who is more motivated with imposing their vendettas and personal myopias on everyone else...and getting themselves paid and power in the process.

It is not too surprising that adult explicit sexual media (aka "pornography") has been a standard scapegoat for governments and special interest groups alike who want to exploit confusion, shame, and self-loathing about sex to invoke socially reactionary policies. Usually, it's been the traditional forces of the Right -- religious conservatives -- who have been the most vocal and strident in calling for wiping out sexual speech and expression that they see as a threat to God/Allah/Yawheh, Country, Tradition, Family, Property, Capitalism, and all other shibboleths of "family values". They haven't gone away by any means, but now it seems that there is a similar breed of antisex censorship and sexual fascism building...but this time it comes from the putative "Left": from certain elements of the more radical fringes of the feminist movement, which have now apparently infused their ideology onto the dominant Left parties in Europe.

Most people by now know about the proposals now being enacted in Iceland, where a left-of-center majority party is attempting to impose extreme limits, if not outright bans, on the availability of adult explicit sexual media in that country. Most of you have also heard of the collorary group of laws known as the "Nordic Model" or "Swedish Model", which attempts to regulate sex work out of existence by targeting the (mostly male) clients and managers (aka, the "johns" and the "pimps") for punishment. All this comes from the same school of radical feminism that was founded by the likes of Mary Daly, Andrea Dworkin, Kathleen Barry, Shelia Jefferys, and Catherine MacKinnon during the 1980's; and is now being further enhaced by the activism of folk like Chyng Sun, Robert Jensen, and (especially) Gail Dines today.

And this week, they got a fundamental boost, through a proposal put forth to the European Parliament that would basically expand what is now being proposed in Iceland to the entire breadth of Europe.

It would do so under the guise of not only "protecting" women from what they see as the deliberate harms of porn, but also raising the notion that the very existence of porn (especially the "violent" and "degrading" kind) in and of itself is a "violation of the human rights" of women.

The proclamations are part of a much larger proposal which seeks to undermine and eliminate "gender stereotypes" in the workplace and generally increase the number and strength of women in European society. Most of the proposals are simple common sense goals that no progressive person would object to, such as comparable pay, paid sick leave, and increasing the number of women in more powerful economic and political entities. The problem is, though, that through their radicalfeminist ideology, the creators of this proposal decided to stick in some of the most corrosive attacks on free expression via these initatives:

17. Calls on the EU and its Member States to take concrete action on its resolution of 16 September 1997 on discrimination against women in advertising, which called for a ban on all forms of pornography in the media and on the advertising of sex tourism(10);

18. Calls on the EU to conduct research into the links between child pornography and adult pornography and the impacts on girls, women, boys and men, as well as the relationship between pornography and sexual violence;

19. Calls on the Member States to establish independent regulation bodies with the aim of controlling the media and advertising industry and a mandate to impose effective sanctions on companies and individuals promoting the sexualisation of girls;

20. Calls on the Commission to assist Member States in combating the sexualisation of girls not only by compiling the necessary data, promoting good practices and organising information campaigns, but also by providing financial support for measures taken in the Member States, in particular for women’s organisations fighting against sexualisation and violence against women and girls;
In other words, straight out of the Gail Dines/Melissa Farley hymnal. And...straight out of the Old Testament of St. Andrea and Mother Catherine.

You may also notice that this proposal was also propsed back in 1997, but strong opposition from civil liberties groups did manage to dampen support enough to kill it back then.

And, it appears, opposition is mounting to this latest proposal now as well. One such MEP, Christian Engstrom of PiratPartiet (the Pirate Party), today posted at his own blog his reasons for opposing this initiative. He emphasizes that while he supports the concern of gender stereotyping and favors strengthing the power of women, this latest proposal sets a dangerous precedent for civil liberties and for privacy protections, especially regarding the Internet:

Magazines and cable television would presumably be considered to be ”media” by most people, but what about the internet? Without any definition of ”media” in either of the two resolutions, the answer is not obvious from reading just those two articles, at least not to me.

But the resolution we will be voting on next week has other things to say about the internet. Article 14 reads (again with my highlighting):
14. Points out that a policy to eliminate stereotypes in the media will of necessity involve action in the digital field; considers that this requires the launching of initiatives coordinated at EU level with a view to developing a genuine culture of equality on the internet; calls on the Commission to draw up in partnership with the parties concerned a charter to which all internet operators will be invited to adhere;
This is quite clearly yet another attempt to get the internet service providers to start policing what citizens do on the internet, not by legislation, but by ”self-regulation”. This is something we have seen before in a number of different proposals, and which is one of the big threats against information freedom in our society.

The digital rights organisation EDRI has produced a booklet called The slide from ”self-regulation” to corporate censorship, where they point out that:
…now, increasing coercion of internet intermediaries to police and punish their own consumers is being implemented under the flag of “self-regulation” even though it is not regulation – it is policing – and it is not “self-” because it is their consumers and not themselves that are being policed.
In the battle against the ACTA treaty, the fact that ACTA contained similar ”self-regulation” proposals to get internet service providers to start policing their customers was one of the reasons why the European Parliament rejected the treaty in the end.

Many members of the parliament (including me) felt and feel that this kind of ”self-regulation” is nothing more than an attempt to circumvent the article on information freedom in the European Convention on Human rights, which says that everyone has the right to receive and impart information without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers, and that any restrictions to this right have to be prescribed by law and be necessary in a democratic society.

Next week’s resolution is a so-called ”own initiative report” by the parliament. This means that it does not automatically become law even if it is adopted, but is just a way for the European parliament to express its opinion.
But the purpose of these own initiative reports is to serve as the basis for the Commission when it decides to present legislative proposals to the parliament. If this own initiative report is adopted by the parliament, it will strengthen the Commission’s position if and when it wants to propose various ”self-regulation” schemes in the future.

Although I completely agree that eliminating outdated gender stereotypes in the EU is a worthwhile goal, I will be voting against this resolution next week.

 Of course, the proposed censorship regulations now under consideration in Iceland, which the proponents of this initiative would love to impose on all of Europe, hardly reflect the desire of "self regulation"; they exist to use the power of the state to force ISP's to filter out sexual content that would violate extreme radfem principles of 'proper" portrayals of sex involving women. And, those standards could be used just as easily against any kind of sexual speech or expression that some radfem deems to be "degrading" or "promoting violence" or otherwise "enhancing gender stereotypes".

 And when I say "any kind", I mean ANY KIND....even the type of "feminist porn" produced by the likes of Candida Royalle, Ms. Naughty, Tristian Taormino, or Cindy Gallop which actually challenges the traditional genres of male-oriented porn; or even gay male porn (which, in case you don't know, contain NO women to abuse or degrade).

One of the most interesting ironies is that the week that this initiative came to light, there was also news that the principal trade organization for supporting the British adult sexual media industry, AITA (Adult Industry Trade Association), announced that they were shutting their doors for good come March 31 due to lack of financial support. It is possible that a group like the Free Speech Coalition here in the US could ultimately fill in the gap and provide needed support for European porn performers and producers...but until that happens, the situation will remain in total flux.

The best reaction to this madness I could find at this time comes from sex worker activist Amanda Hess, who also blogs for the sex worker collective Bound, Not Gagged, who wrote this editorial for Slate today. Her comments bear special witness, especially given the tedencies of radfems to silence and make invisible the voices of women who actually do porn for a living and don't feel like they need such "protection" from their own desires and actions.

The belief that pornography, as a genre, discriminates specifically against women is one still favored by leading anti-pornography activists like Gail Dines, Shelley Lubben, and Catharine MacKinnon. In an interview for the MAKERS series, MacKinnon reiterated her view that “exposure to [porn] makes life more dangerous to women” and “promotes a range of atrocities and violence” against them. When we find gender disparities in other sectors—from literary journalism to tech—we urge industry leaders to assess the problem and encourage women to lean in. But when it comes to porn, the impulse is to just shut the whole thing down.

That’s unfortunate, because it reinforces the expectation that women can only ever be innocent bystanders to sexual material, never producers or consumers in their own right (banning all porn would mean negating the contributions of proudly feminist pornographers like Tristan Taormino, Nina Hartley, and Cindy Gallop). It glides over the experiences of female porn viewers (who have leveraged the Internet to find and distribute porn that appeals to them, even when it’s not marketed that way). It totally ignores the men who are "sexualized" in porn (if pornography discriminates against women, can we all keep watching gay porn?). And it curtails discussion about the challenges faced by some men in the industry (like Derrick Burts, who contracted HIV in 2010, and Erik Rhodes, who died from a heart attack at 30 after heavy steroid use).
Enforcing a government ban on pornography won’t actually rid the world of smut (and the proposal, which has been raised before, is unlikely to lead to a legitimately enforceable ban). But the effort does make it a lot harder to talk about porn honestly, and to advocate for better representation of women in the industry. In a misguided effort to advocate for women, these activists are negating the sexuality of women, gay men, and all the straight guys who’d like to see more diversity in the porn they’re watching, too.
And you thought that the condom mandate was the worst that could happen.