"Wherever They Go, We Will Follow Them": AHF Takes Condom Mandate Statewide; Then Goes Off On Los Angeles County

Never let it be said that the AIDS Healthcare Foundation rests on their laurels.

You would think that they'd be content with the major victory of passing Measure B in Los Angeles County last November.  But noooooo, getting the glass of water 3/4ths of the way full just isn't enough for Michael Weinstein; he won't rest until he owns the whole well, the glass, and the treatment plant.

Last week, AHF dropped the first boot by announcing that they had found a California Assemblyman -- namely, Isadore Hall III (D- Compton) - to execute the next phase of their plan for world condom domination: a bill (titled Assembly Bill 332) which would extend the mandate for condoms for all porn shoots to cover the entire state, rather than just local jurisdictions such as the City of Los Angeles or Los Angeles County.

Basically, the bill would do its damage by mandating that certain "engineering and work controls" be used by porn performers in the shooting of sex scenes, including mandatory condoms for all anal and vaginal scenes; mandatory Hepatitis B vaccines and other testing paid for directly by producers and performers, and it would require, similar to the 2257 regulations regarding verification of performer age, a detailed "Custodian of Records" certification to be made available to state officials.

Aside from the invasive regulatory impact of the proposed bill, there is also the fact that the proposal is almost a mirror image of the proposed Cal-OSHA regulations on "bloodborne pathogen" protection..which, as you recall, would even require performers to don gloves, goggles, and other forms of "barrier protection" to prevent exposure to internal fluids...the kind of protections usually imposed on medical professionals doing surgery or other types of exposure to blood or other internal fluids. (The proposed Cal-OSHA standard, though, does also require "barrier protection" for oral sex as well..though there was an exception to that that was proposed that would mandate a Hepatitis B vaccination and verification for each incidence of oral sex as a substitute for wrapping up.)

Also fascinating is that this proposed bill would apply equally to gay porn as to the "staight" porn industry..which would mean a major turnaround for Weinstein, whom has mostly focused his crusade on straight porn (even as he has profited from selling bareback porn out of AHF's thrift stores.

Reaction from the porn world, natually, has been swift and furious. Here's Diane Duke of the Free Speech Coalition (full statement here):

“Tragically, this law – if passed – will not only waste taxpayer dollars and compromise the effective performer health protocols already in place, but also compromise funding for critical HIV programs by diverting program funds to create an unnecessary condom-police bureaucracy,” Duke said. “Additionally, this regulation would force an industry vital to the San Fernando Valley and to California’s economy out of the area.”

The proposed bill, which has been tagged as AB-332, follows the passage of the Los Angeles “Safer Sex” Ordinance for Adult Production, which mandates barrier protection for adult productions shot in L.A. County. The new legislation is being sponsored by Assemblyman Isadore Hall III (D – Compton), who held a Valentine’s Day press conference to announce that he will introduce the bill to California lawmakers.

“While other legislators are focused on gun safety, improving our schools and reducing crime, Assembly Member Hall has chosen to use his taxpayer funded salary and staff to focus on adult films,” Duke added. “We look forward to Assembly Member Hall visiting with adult film stars in the coming weeks to learn more about the exhaustive safety precautions already used by the industry.”

See also comments from Mark Kernes from AVN and Dr. Chauntelle Tibbals at PVV.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But even that was only the second most brazen act performed by AHF. The real kicker took place yesterday, when AHF dropped their second boot and decided to get their revenge on the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health for not being vigilante enough to impose the condom mandate.

Their idea: simply break the ciity of Los Angeles away from LACDPH and establish their own health care district, through a new proposed public ordinance.

Seems like the current LACDPH director Jonathan Fielding isn't too hot on implementing Measure B as quickly as Weinstein would like...which was more than obvious when Immoral Productions head "Porno Dan" Neal -- accompanied by his lawyer, Michael "Pornlaw" Fattorosi -- went to purchase one of these newfangled permits. Mark Kernes explores the deets of the ensuing comedy:

"To get the permit, you have to go to their office, which is in Commerce, just off the 5 freeway," Fattorosi said. "The application has to be submitted in person, and it has to be submitted with proof of identity. Once you apply and you fill out the application, it looks from the application that you have six months in which to secure your bloodborne pathogen training as well your bloodborne exposure plan for your company. Now, it gives you a place to list your directors and everyone else that would be covered by this application, so for instance, if you have a company and you have four, five, six, seven directors, they give you two pages to put those names on. When you're shooting, one of those people has to be on the shoot, okay, because they have the training necessary. Now, you can have other people shooting for you as long as one of those people that's listed on the application is present for the shoot."

The Public Health License/Permit Application form, Fattorosi said, "acts as your conditional permit until the regs are promulgated and they really understand what's going on. The idea I got was that even the Department of Health has to figure all this out, and what they're going to do. The reason you fill this out is because this goes to the Treasurer of the City of Los Angeles, who then approves the permit and sends a bill to the actual applicant—the studio, the production company—and then when you pay the bill is when they send you your full permit. They're estimating anywhere between three to six months before that even happens."

But here's where it gets, as the dearly departed Cajun humorist Justin Wilson would say, "reeeeeeeal good" (Bolded emphasis added by me):

However, Fattorosi also reported that the Health Department has not yet hired any additional personnel to enforce the new law.

"They have a staff that's going to do this," he reported. "They haven't hired anybody else at this point. Right now they've got several inspectors on staff who'll cover it and they'll have people that will cover it, but they are starting to make sure that people are getting their conditional health permits, because the way this came up is, FilmLA refused to renew a film permit for Dan Leal, for Immoral, until this was taken care of. Now that he's got his conditional permit, FilmLA will go back and issue him his shooting permit."

What's perhaps most interesting about the inspections, the first of which may be a year or more in the future, is that the investigation managers told Fattorosi that, "They will not be reviewing scenes; they will not be sitting around watching porn. They made it very clear to us, they've made it very clear to their boss that they have no interest in watching porn as part of their job.  They made it clear that they're not going to be watching the sex scenes."

One might then legitimately wonder how the health inspectors will determine whether any particular production is in compliance with the condom/barrier protection mandate, but according to Fattorosi, the health inspectors don't see enforcement as part of their job.

"They really don't have police power," Fattorosi said. "They don't have the ability to come in, arrest people; they can't close your set. All they can do is cite you. Just like if they walk into a restaurant and they found something unhealthy or unsanitary in the restaurant, unless it's an immediate huge public health risk, they don't have police powers so they can't shut down someone's set. One of the two people I talked to indicated they would have to have a conference with County Counsel as well as meeting with the City Attorney's office, County Attorney's office, and decide, and that's when they would issue any fines or anything like that. But she made it abundantly clear that this is a learning process, not only for the industry but also for them, that they're trying to find their way; they're not really sure about how to do any of this, and it's all new ground for them, so they want to work with the producers, the producers that are willing to step up and do this; it's not going to be a matter of, they're going to come in and the first violation, they're going to fine you. They're going to give you chances to correct the thing before they take any kind of remedial action against the studio."

Certainly, that "hands off" scenario, if it is actually Health Department policy, will meet strong opposition from, among others, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which gathered the petitions to put Measure B on the ballot in the first place, and has consistently pushed the lie that adult performers are in imminent danger from many STDs including HIV while having sex. And it's unclear how, if a health inspector visited an adult movie set and saw that the performers weren't using condoms and other barrier protections, the inspector could give the studio "chances to correct the thing," especially if they don't think that watching sex scenes being shot is part of their job. Would they require the company to reshoot the scene with the condoms and rubber gloves and face shields?

"While we were there, we went into the bloodborne pathogen plan, what's required, and what they're looking at is what's required by the language of the law," Fattorosi reported. "They didn't want to get into all of that because they weren't lawyers; they didn't want to have a legal debate about what's required or what is not required. What they were basically looking at was, we were there to go over the application procedure and how to get the ball rolling. As far as how this is all going to play out, they still don't really know.

"Their attitude is, they're not in the business of trying to hunt down and root out people who violate the law," he added. "That's not their goal, that's not their purpose, that's not what they're going to do. The two people I talked to seemed sincere in regards to their willingness to work with producers. They understand or they're beginning to understand the difficulties of porn producers and studios to deal with this particular law, so they're not—at least the two people I talked to, they're not interested in trying to shut people down. They're not trying to shut studios down, they're not trying to shut porn production down; that's not their goal. Only health inspectors will be asking for the health permits. It doesn't appear that the police will have anything to do with the health inspection or the health permits. The police will deal with the FilmLA permits, and the Department of Health will deal with the Department of Health permits."

In other words, there will be NO "Condom Nazis" invading porn shoots and frogwalking performers to jail or to court for not wrapping up....at least, not for now.

And, that's probably what motivated Weinstein to perfect this instant coup against LACDPH...though he does attempt to cloak this act in the name of tackling "bureaucracy" and "streamlining" health care closer to the public.

Or...it may be simply that LACDPH is starting to get hep to AHF's gravytrainning and money laundering schemes. Quoteh Mr. Kernes once again:

One can only wonder how much money, promises of support and/or other perks AHF promised to Assemblyman Isadore Hall III (D-Compton) to convince him to sponsor Assembly Bill (AB) 332, a measure that would require hazmat suits during sex scenes shot anywhere in the state!

Of course, there is another possible reason why AHF wants the city to form its own health department: Back on August 16, 2012, L.A. County Auditor-Controller Wendy L. Wantanabe issued a report to the County Board of Supervisors charging that AHF overbilled the County Health Department's Division of HIV and STD Programs (DHSP) by $1,731,175 for providing services and medications to STD-infected patients who didn't qualify for county funds, and also billed DHSP more than $21,000 for "unallowable earthquake and flood insurance costs" and other "unsupported expenditures," all in violation of its contracts with the county. AHF has filed a lawsuit against the county, claiming that the county falsified its audit findings.

Perhaps it was that investigative work by Wantanabe's office that led Weinstein, in AHF's press release advocating for a city health department, to charge that LACDPH suffered from a "lack of professional leadership and accountability" that "has led to rampant cronyism and a repeated refusal to adhere to standing state and federal laws." (Needless to say, the press release was short on any information that might let the public know just what "rampant cronyism" was allegedly taking place at LACDPH, and which "standing state and federal laws" it was failing to adhere to—but it wouldn't be much of a stretch to suggest that AHF might be talking about the state health code, which already mandates that condoms, rubber gloves, face shields and even hazmat suits be used during sex scenes.)

As one might expect, AHF's alleged overbilling caused the county to retaliate against AHF, according to the press release AHF disseminated regarding its lawsuit against the county—but if the city had its own health department, perhaps staffed by AHF supporters like Dr. Peter Kerndt and Dr. Robert Kim-Farley, Weinstein could easily assume that taxpayer dollars could once again flow into AHF's coffers!

And then there is this:

So with AHF having been involved in so much political activity over the past three-plus years, beginning with its petition to CalOSHA to change the state health code to mandate condom use during sex scenes, to its pro bono (free) representation of Diana "Desi Foxx" Grandmason in her lawsuit against AIM, to its city and county ballot measure petitions, to its advocacy of AB 332, and now to its impending campaign to force the city to form its own incredibly duplicative and expensive health department, one has to wonder how this tax-exempt organization has managed not to have its exemption pulled by the Internal Revenue Service?

See, the federal tax statute in question, 26 U.S.C. §501(c)(3), states in pertinent part that it exempts from taxation "Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes... no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h))." Now, there's no question that AHF has not only carried on propaganda but has clearly attempted to influence legislation. But the question then becomes, has it also violated the terms of subsection (h) by either "mak[ing] lobbying expenditures in excess of the lobbying ceiling amount for such organization for each taxable year," or "mak[ing] grass roots expenditures in excess of the grass roots ceiling amount for such organization for each taxable year"?

We aren't privy to AHF's tax returns, so we have no idea what its annual "lobbying ceiling" or "grassroots ceiling" amounts are, but considering how much time and effort—and money—AHF has put into creating, filing and defending its CalOSHA petition, creating, gathering signatures for, promoting and filing its city and county mandatory barrier protection (so-called "condom") measures, its current and future support of Assemblymember Hall's AB 332 bill, and its creation, impending signature-gathering, promotion and defense of its city health department bill, we have to wonder if it's not the IRS that is suffering from a "lack of professional leadership and accountability"?

Paging Lydia Lee...

These two events make two things obvious:

1) Michael Weinstein doesn't give a tinkers Goddess DAMN about protecting performers from STI's or even about treating AIDS; it's all about getting condom ads on porn for instant strategic placement and $$$$. And, about running porn completely out of California (and even nationwide) if he doesn't get his wish of an all condomized industry.  And, about lining AHF's pockets with government largeese.

2) Sad to say, but Weinstein has been able to use progressive people of color as a foil for his condom campaigns (Isadore Hall is, after all, Black and a Dem represantative), and the ease to which his proposals could pass in the California Assembly (where Dems have a supermajority and Proposition 35, which criminalizes "sex trafficking" to the point of potentially affecting porn performers as well, has passed) does raise the issue of how easy it is for such paternalistic proposals to pass. All I will say on that is that the industry absolutely, even while they fight these laws in the courts, needs to confront the basic fact that they need to win over the majority of Black and Latino voters, rather than merely dismiss them as "stupid" and rely on old tired "libertarian" arguments about "big government" abuse. I still say that that's how Measure B got passed in the first place, and unless some things change really quick, the adult sexual media industry will find itself in a bind that no move to Vegas or South Florida or even Budapest will loosen.

There's a reason I titled this post with Weinstein's blast, people....take heed and react and defend your rights.

The Panic Works: Measure B Passes With 55% Of The Vote. The Requiem, The Legal Challenges, And The Future

Well...in spite of the spirited efforts and passionate campaign, in the end the gold made the rules.

The condom initiative known as Measure B was headed for passage with 55 percent of the vote as of this moment, and barring any last second miracles, Michael Weinstein and the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, along with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health and the California state branch of the Occupational Health and Safety Administration, will get the authority to force condoms and other forms of obtrusive barrier protections onto porn shoots in most of Los Angeles County.

From the reaction of many performers whom have made LA County their home for the past few years, and have depended on the good will of the community for their livelihood, this loss will seem like nothing short of a punch in the crotch, a giant betrayal of a legal tax-paying community of enterpreneurs and workers whose only crime was to make and perform sex videos for their entertainment.

This isn't to say that the issue is settled, of course....I'm betting that the legal battle to overturn Measure B is already being planned, since a similar battle is already in the works to challenge a similar law passed by the City of Los Angeles (which now will be adjusted to mesh with the stronger county ordinance now passed). But, while the industry renders the now painful choice of whether to stay and fight or pick up their stakes and move to newer, less hostile venues, there is still the postgame analysis of how Measure B still passed even with the strong and passionate arguments of opponents, as well as what the diaspora of porn professionals can plan on in the future.

The key element, to say the least, was AHF's money. When you have a budget of well over $100 million, you can afford to buy the loyalty of plenty of people and manipulate the process. The collusion between the LA County Council of Supervisors, CalOSHA, and AHF has been well documented both here and elsewhere, along with the ability to cut TV commercials featuring the two primary protagonists of the last significant HIV scares, Darren James and Derrick Burts, against an opposition that was essentially reduced to Twitter bombs, YouTube videos, and the occasional radio commercial. The latter campaign more than made up in intensity what they lacked in financial resources...and they appeared to have far more effective arguments and facts at their side. The problem was, though, all the facts in the world are useless if the majority of the electorate refuses to listen to them, or are simply overwhelmed by the driving rainstorm of distortions.

The second element was timing. AHF had nearly two to three years to plan and execute their offensive, starting from the vendetta and ultimately successful closing of the Adult Industry Medical Foundation clinic that had been the main STI testing clinic for performers, and then conniving with CalOSHA and LACDPH to promote the "only condoms can save the industry" meme. The industry was either too distracted by their own petty squabbles (Free Speech Coalition vs. certain talent agents; Cutting Edge Testing vs. Talent Testing; Manwin vs. everyone else) or too assuming of their economic weight in Los Angeles County....and by the time the threat was seen and forces assembled, the syphilis scare featuring the misplaced antics of Mr. Marcus siphoned off critical resources and time that could have been used to deflect the attack. (I'm not going to blame Marcus personally, just explaining how that controversy distracted from the main battle.)

But to me, speaking as the outsider here, a significant factor in Measure B's passage was what I see as the main opponents' complete misreading of the base electorate of Los Angeles County, and the assumptions that they would automatically be moved by certain arguments based on libertarian conservative beliefs about "less government" intervention. This is not intended to be an attack on James Lee of the No On Government Waste group or Michael Whiteacre or Sean Tompkins of The Real Porn Wikileaks, whom have been nothing short of supurb and have left everything on the field in the opposition effort. However, I do think that the theme of emphasizing conservative themes of "government intervention" and "attacking legitimate small business" completely missed the nature of appealing to a much more moderate, if not liberal/progressive, electorate, and allowed AHF way too many outs of counter appeals. Not tying the NoOnB effort effectively enough to the larger efforts against the statewide "anti-sex trafficking" initiative Proposition 35 (which also passed last night) was, in my personal opinion, a bad move that would become costly...especially in the wake of the synergy between the slut shaming paternalism of the anti-"sex trafficking" movement and the underlying attitudes of proponents of Measure B.

Both campaigns reflect (for all of Gail Dines' rhetoric against "neoliberalism" as an elitist assault on the majority of women supposedly under attack by the evil Capitalist Male Porn Conspiracy) the actual sexual paternalistic neoliberalism of professional, upwardly mobile celebrities, reinforced with the "expertise" of fly-by-night armchair psychoanalysts cloaked with doctorates and Cosmopolitan atttitudes about the wonderfulness of sexuality..as long as it is conditioned within the proper boundaries of "safety".

For these folk, condoms represent what monogamy used to represent for sexual neoliberals in the 1980's during the HIV pandemic: both a safe zone to experiment sex freely AND a means to impose an only slightly less restrictive sexual ghetto and seperate themselves from the rabble of those evil "promiscuous" out-of-control sluts who "make us look like libertines". It's essentially the same mentality that political neoliberals have had against working class folks whom are outside of their charmed circle, the "dependent" welfare poor, the "shiftless" and "lazy" ghetto Black/Brown male....but set in a more benelovent, paternalistic, loving, lecturing tone than the typical "let them eat shit and die" mentality of the Religious/Tea Party Right.

Bear in mind, of course, that there were supporters of Measure B who were and are genuinely sincere about protecting performers from the scourge of sexually transmitted infections, and whom generally do see the condom mandate as one tool of enhanced protection. I may ultimately disagree with performers like Brittany Andrews and activists like Chi Chi LaRue, two principled activists for mandatory condom usage, but in no way will I disrespect their right to their views and their sincerity in their concerns.

However, the potential impact of this new law (all the legal challenges aside) stands cogent to the fact that there is still a lot of education of the public that needs to be done....and that just because someone isn't a fundamentalist or a radical feminist does NOT mean that they can't be suspectible to the politics and emotions of slut-shaming....even regardless of the general rout of the most virulent forms of misogyny and sex hate last night through the massive political rout delivered for President Barack Obama.

And, just as progressives and the Left now beginning to resurge in power nationally need to be educated by activist sex workers and their consensual clients and fans and consumers on the importance of defending core sexual liberties, so too must porn professionals face the fact that the broader electorate is changing and being transformed to be more diverse and more liberal/progressive, even more radical. Appealing merely to Whites with money and libertarian conservative appeals simply isn't going to cut it much longer with a younger, racially diverse, and politically more astute coalition of fans and consumers; and it's past time that progressive porn performers follow the lead of pioneers like James Deen, Dana deArmond, Stoya, Amber Lynn, Kylie Ireland, and the Greatest Goddess of them all, Nina Hartley, and become more outspoken about defending porn and sexual freedom/liberation on progressive political principles. Not that libertarians like Steven St. Croix shouldn't matter, of course, but it's time to cover the entire spectrum.

But, while that develops, bring on the lawyers. This battle is NOT over, by any means.

The Big Lie Campaign For Measure B Ends With The Grandmama Of All Lies: The "Porn Stars Have More STI's Than Nevada Hookers" Smear

Tomorrow is Election Day, folks...and while most of the country will be busy enough with the spectacle that has been the Presidential campaign, folks in LA County will be putting the fate of the local adult industry literally in their hands with the proposed condom mandate proposal Measure B.

I have to say that whatever doubts I had about James Lee and the Citizens Against Government Waste have been absolutely doused by the yeoman efforts he and his group have done in leading the opposition to this proposal. With not much time and with a fraction of the budget that the AIDS Healthcare Foundation has to pour into the pro-B campaign, and with none of the organized support of the political establishment in LA County (save for the opposition by the local Republican and Libertarian parties), they have done a tremendous job of raising awareness and organizing performers to defend their rights. I tip my hat to you for that, win or lose.

Plus....gotta do a shoutout for Sean Tompkins over at The Real Porn Wikileaks, Michael Whiteacre, Mark Kernes, Dr. Chauntelle Tibalis, Lydia Lee, Steven St. Croix, Kylie Ireland, Kayden Kross, Amber Lynn, Tanya Tate, Rebecca Bordeaux, Maggie Mayhem, and a whole host of other producers, performers, reporters, and other assorted glitterati for their efforts in educating the public on this legislation and how it will basically destroy the industry without any positive impacts on actual STI infections. It's amazing how political ideology tends to melt away when faced with a shared threat from outside.

It is to the measure of the principled opposition to Measure B that the proponents have been forced to engage in nothing less than distortions of facts and outright lies and cooking up of stats in order to sell their vision of a condomized industry "protecting" performers while driving them underground into less safe parameters and venues.

But, nothing beats the desperate final flail that AHF attempted to pull on the public this last weekend.

On last Friday, AHF and their champions at the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health released their contraption of a "study" of infection rates of porn performers during the past 11 months; concluding that the rate of infection for chlamydia and gonnorhea among performers was greater than not only the infection rate amongst LA County citizens as a whole, but also greater than the rate of infection of prostitutes working in Nevada's legalized brothels.

The study was released by an organization calling itself the American Sexually Transmitted Disease Association; and while the complete report is hidden behind a paywall, the abstract of the report pretty much gives away the ideological bias (bolding added for emphasis):

Background: Undiagnosed sexually transmitted infections (STIs) may be common in the adult film industry because performers frequently engage in unprotected oral and anal intercourse, STIs are often asymptomatic, and the industry relies on urine-based testing.

Methods: Between mid-May and mid-September 2010, a consecutive sample of adult film industry performers recruited from a clinic in Los Angeles, California, that provides medical care to performers was offered oropharyngeal, rectal, and urogenital testing for Gonorrhea, and rectal and urogenital testing for Chlamydia.

Results: During the 4-month study period, 168 participants were enrolled: 112 (67%) were female and 56 (33%) were male. Of the 47 (28%) who tested positive for Gonorrhea and/or Chlamydia, 11 (23%) cases had been detected through urogenital testing alone. Gonorrhea was the most common STI (42/168; 25%) and the oropharynx the most common site of infection (37/47; 79%). Thirty-five (95%) oropharyngeal and 21 (91%) rectal infections were asymptomatic. Few participants reported using condoms consistently while performing or with their personal sex partners.

Conclusions: Adult film industry performers had a high burden of STIs. Undiagnosed asymptomatic rectal and oropharyngeal STIs were common and are likely reservoirs for transmission to sexual partners inside and outside the workplace. Performers should be tested at all anatomical sites irrespective of symptoms, and condom use should be enforced to protect workers in this industry.

Keep in mind that this study was taken during four months during 2010, when the main testing agency at that time for the industry, the Adult Industry Medical Foundation (AIM), was under attack by the very forces (namely, AHF and the LA County DPH) now saying that their testing procedures were (and by extension, those of the newly formed APHSS system are) totally inadequate for detecting and treating STI's, and that only mandatory condom usage and other forms of compulsory "barrier protection" would offer the highest form of "protection" for performers.

Even without that caveat, the holes in this argument can be spotted, and are enough to drive a whole fleet of Mack trucks through.

First off, 47 of 168 performers testing positive for chlamydia or gonnorhea still leaves 121 performers (72%) who tested clean of those STI's. In short, in a supposed "high-risk" industry where porn performers are assumed to be mindless sluts who fuck and suck anything that moves, 7 out of every 10 performers still manage to protect themselves and stay disease free without the need for condoms. Wouldn't you think that if testing was as much a failure as this study would assume, the rate of infection would be far greater than that??

Plus, as Michael Whiteacre has noted repeatedly, this "study" gives no background on whether those performers who were infected got infected on set during scenes, or through outside activities...or, whether they actually did perform scenes after their infections were caught. And, it may be that many of those who were tested and found to be infected didn't even perform any scenes until they were adequately treated, or were people just entering the industry engaged in their first test.

There's also the possibility of the same performer being tested multiple times in the same period through repeated follow-up testing, but being counted as seperate and distinct infections for the purpose of deliberate cooking of the stats to beef up the ideological case. Goodness knows, AHF and the Condom Nazis over at LACDPH aren't known for that, now aren't they??

Then, there is the distortion about the method of testing involved. The current testing regimen (and the former one used by AIM) utilizes urine sampling for their testing of chlamydia and gonnorhea (with oral swabbing available upon request of the tested performer); yet the "study" claimed that the system was flawed by not detecting oral or anal infection via swabbing of the throats or anuses of performers. At best, it's a call for broadening such testing to include oral and anal swabbing; but, that's not what AHF and LACDPH paid the producers of that "study" to promote; so, they just use that stat as just another club to slam the industry into compliance with the condom mandate.

Or, as Hymes and Kernes points out succintly in their debunking of the AHF/ASTDA "study":

Perhaps worst of all, the study is utterly disingenuous when it describes how and when performers get tested. Fully cognizant of the fact that performers are not allowed to perform on the overwhelming majority of porn sets without a valid test that is no more than 28 (or 14, depending on the studio) days old, the authors nonetheless included in their study 51 performers—nearly one-third of all performers tested—who had not worked in an adult film for more than 30 days, making the time and place of their exposure impossible to pin down, and very likely not on an adult film set at all.

That percentage is extraordinarily important, considering that of the 168 "adult performers" who took part in this study, only 47 (28 percent) had at least one undiagnosed STD—and that's 2 percent less than the number of performers (30 percent) who hadn't made a movie in at least 30 days, and whose infections, if they had sought film work while still infected, might very well have been caught by the normal industry testing, especially if they had any specific complaints and requested that an (optional) oral swab be taken and tested.

And also keep in mind that many performers even require a clean test as recent as 2-3 days before they accept someone to perform sex scenes with...so if anything, the industry is even more stringent about screening for STI's than even the 14/28 day period that is the "gold standard". In other words, how many of the 48% who were found to be infected were also part of the 33% who had not performed for at least 30 days prior to getting tested? Again, this may support expanding testing to better catch orally and anally based infections, but that's not on the scope of AHF's agenda..so it's simply ignored in favor of pushing Measure B. Nice diversion there, Mike Weinstein.

The main distortion, though, that has gotten the attention of the media, is the comparison of porn performers in LA County with Nevada brothel sex workers, who are claimed to be much, much safer due to the wonders of mandated condoms and government regulation.

Problem is, though, that in Nevada brothels, it is the clients who are required to use condoms, not the sex workers themselves. Also, the prostitutes who work in the brothels are subjected to far greater regulatory scrutiny while they work there; including far-reaching restrictions on whom they can have sex within their workplace, and strong discouragement of sexual activities outside of the brothel. Plus, they are screened for disease even before they are even allowed to work in the brothels to begin with. You simply can't compare them to porn performers, who do happen to have outside personal sex lives and, outside of their occupation, do in fact have intimate and personal sex lives.

Unless, of course, you are under the misimpression and assumption that by fiat ALL porn performers are by definition the embodiment of the caricature of the late and dearly departed John Holmes: namely, mindless promiscuous sluts who can't think of anything more than where their next daily or hourly serving of dick or pussy comes from, until they are either claimed by "the wages of sin" that inevitably comes with defying God (or the Goddess) or find the religion of Shelley Lubben (or Gail Dines) and "save themselves".


Nevertheless, the publicity accomodating the "study" has had some impact on some public opinions...in particular some progressive personalities whom had originally came out against Measure B. One in particular is Ana Kasparian, blogger and YouTube diarist connected with Cenk Uygur's popular progressive network The Young Turks, whom originally came out opposed to Measure B last week in a video..but was convinced to flip to the other side by one of her colleagues, Jayar Jackson, following the release of the AHF/ASTDA "study" via the Huffington Post.

This is in spite of the fact that contrary to the notion of porn being a right-wing libertarian outlet of "rugged individualism", there is actually a genuine diversity of political ideological positions within the community of porn performers and producers. For every Jenna Jameson or John Stagliano, you will find a Nina Hartley or an Amber Lynn; there are quite a few porn performers and producers who are staunch liberals/progressives or even centrists as there are "libertarian conservatives". Of course, personal political ideology should not affect the quality or the merits of the arguments for or against Measure B; but the fact that so few progressives have seen fit to even take a stand for or against this initiative speaks wonders about the broader Left's lack of education or commitment on core issues of sexual freedom, sexual civil liberties, and respect for personal choice. (A strong criticism of the TYT turnaround and of the "study" can be found here.)

The other blowback from this "study" is the newly created propaganda campaign by some of the original propaganda boosters of the condom mandate to distort the claims of the opposition and launch personal adhominen attacks on their opponents. One such propagandist is Tim Tirch, who has been well known for his drive-by slanders against all who oppose the AHF agenda, and whom had actually been exposed as a serial troll who menaced blogs picking fights with particular condom opponents. Over at Cindi Loftus' Luke Is Back blog, a commentor ID'd as "XXXMed" (and whom is suspected to be Tirch) has been posting guest editorial posts maligning opponents of Measure B with, shall we say, very personal attacks. One such editorial went after Nina Hartley and her husband Ernest Greene (whom, as you know, is a frequent contributor to BPPA and one of the principled opponents of the condom mandate) for hypocrisy in their current stances, since they were during the 1990s both advocates of condom usage. (That Nina and Ernest's stance back then was predicated on the lack of a testing and screening system for STI's that does exist today, and that both have consistently defended the voluntary use of condoms as well as the discouragement of more high-risk sexual acts more suspectible to STI's, seems to escape the synapses of this fool.) More recently, "XXXMed" has been involved in an exchange of posts with Mark Kernes in which the former has defended the AHF/ASTDA study as legitimate proof for mandating condoms, implying that Kernes has been "trivializing" the rate of STI's among female porn performers, and that he slandered a rival testing agency to AIM by implying that they were the source of performer tests in the aformentioned study. (One of the authors of that "study" just so happened to be the founder and lead doctor of that testing agency.  See the original Kernes story for background.)

But, the greatest revelation about this latest final propaganda push is how it reveals the shifting goalposts of the condom mandate campaign, and how it conflates different STI's for blatant propaganda purposes.

Remember that the main spokespeople for Measure B just so happen to be the last two performers who happened to contract HIV...namely, Darren James and Derrick Burts. Of course, the fact that there has been NO instance since 2004 of HIV being transmitted on set by a porn shoot in LA County (remember, Burts has admitted he was infected in a Florida gay male set where condoms were actually used; and James has been reported to have been infected on a trip to Brazil just prior to the infamous shoot where 4 other performers were infected with him) really messes up the meme of an HIV pandemic. So, here comes Plan B: expand the STI "panic" to include other infections like chlamydia and gonnorhea, which were tested as part of the former AIM regimen....except that unless you cook the books to invent multiple infections, you can't prove that that exists, either. So, onward to Plan C: simply invent a crisis by implying the lack of testing of other STI's such as Hepatitis C or HPV or herpes, and then scream about how the "pornographers" are putting wimmen's lives AT RISK because they care more about their money or the "selfishness" of the consumers than about public safety. (Because, of course, the lives of gay men who already suffer from STI's in spite of already using condoms is inmaterial to the proponents of Measure B.) And, if all that fails, exploit the recent syphilis scare to seal the deal...never mind that syphilis can be easily spread even with a condom through mouth sores that condoms can't even cover.

Note also the essential fact that unlike HIV (or herpes or HPV) chlamydia and gonnorhea are mostly asymptommatic infections, in which those infected usually don't even notice any known symptoms of the infections (sores, rashes, pain, swelling, etc.) Therefore, you really can't even tell if you even have the infection until it shows up in testing. The fact that most of those in the study who were infected were also found to be asymptommatic raises a real question about the entire logic of the study: How could they know that those 3 out of 10 performers who were infected actually were infected on the job?? Or, do they just ASSUME that they are, in order to justify their premade biases and conclusions?

It simply shows that ultimately, underneath all the flowery cover of "concern" about "protecting performers" and all the firery rhetoric about "the pornographers", it all comes back to the same pile of bullshit that sex workers have had to endure for far too long. The essential argument of Measure B proponents can be reduced to this:Porn performers who don't dance to our tune are simply too stupid or too slutty to be able to fend for themselves as consenting adults, so we saviors of the State just have to act as their virtual parents and save them ourselves through condoms. Oh, and make us a shitload of money through packaging of condom sales and buying off whole government agincies, too...because what sells better than "safer sex"??

Again, people of Los Angeles County, please don't fall for this nonsense.

I'll leave you here with Michael Whiteacre's comment response to another attempt to distort the record.

That’s right – an old misanthrope in Georgia who can’t even spell “y’all” correctly (and who still contends that AIM made a $90 profit on a $110 / 120 test) has all the answers about the L.A. porn industry.

What the hillbilly Phony Libertarian does’t seem to grasp is that we Americans have certain inalienable rights and liberties by default. Those defending their rights against an attack need not convince anyone of anything. The legal BURDEN is on those trying to infringe upon those rights to establish the requisite state interest.

Every issue, every controversy of public consequence, is a balancing act in which the pro’s and con’s must be weighed. Competing interests must be balanced.

However Michael Weinstein is an authoritarian with an absolutely totalitarian worldview. To him there are no competing interests — you can hear it in his rhetoric: this is “simply” a matter of workplace safety, or public health, or whatever. He will not deign to consider any arguments about counterbalancing, and he brooks no dissent.

When it comes to people’s rights, to constitutionally protected liberties – he doesn’t wanna hear about it. The first amendment, and the liberties protected under Lawrence v. Texas, DO NOT MATTER to him — he doesn’t even think they’re part of the calculus. Weinstein is totally single-minded — as all authoritarians and fascist dictators are. He TELLS US what the problem is, and he prescribes the solution by decree.

And stooges like Mike South HAND THE WEINSTEINS OF THE WORLD THE ARGUMENT.

1) In order for the government to act, to restrict people’s CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED AND PROTECTED rights and liberties, the government must demonstrate a state interest.


2) The government ONLY has an interest in things it can PROVE.
It is essential to understand these two points.
AHF is attempting to use workplace safety laws as the means to attack the adult industry, and to infringe upon the rights of performers and producers, but AHF clearly lacks a clear understanding of how these rules work as a matter of law.
If a performer who its a sexually active person has contracted a common STI such chlamydia, gonorrhea, HPV or herpes, there is NO WAY to prove that it was contracted on set. These infections are comparable to the flu. Only rare infections, things such as the HIV virus, can be traced to a patient zero.
In the end, all that this new study shows is that, x number of performers sought testing / treatment over that 4-month period. The data does NOT show what IF ANY number of performers WORKED while infected, or contracted an STI while AT WORK. The authors ask voters to ASSUME that these infections may all be traced to workplace exposures — and the fact that AHF and the authors of this study have made the comparison to STI rates among Nevada brothel workers is also instructive.
Nevada brothel workers often live on the premises and, per the house rules, are prohibited from having sex outside the prostitute/client relationship. In this regard they represent a separate and distinct population from the surrounding general population, much like the incarcerated, or military personnel confined to a base.
Adult performers, by contrast, are not a population separate and distinct from the rest of the population. Performers are a SUBSET of the general population. LA County performers are members of the population of LA County. They interact with the rest of the population, as well as with each other, off set.
Regardless of one’s profession, NO test can demonstrate that a common infection was contracted by a sexually active adult at work. Correlation does not equal causation. If the government cannot prove that work was the cause, it lacks the requisite state interest to ban an entire type of work.

And remember, Clones...this isn't just for porn sets, either; it's for webcammers, homemade porn sites..even married couples making porn vids for their own pleasure. In other words, it's about EVERYONE.

I don't need to say it, but I'll say at anyway, Los Angeles County peeps...Vote NO on Measure B. Don't let these fascist lying bastards win.

The Concise Case Against Measure B In 73 Seconds (From Nina Hartley)

Over at the Performers For Choice website, there are nearly three pages of testimonial videos from performers who have spoken out against Measure B.

You may feel free to go there and view them all, because they are as worthy as the cause of defeating this proposal.

But, if you prefer the short and sweet version of why Measure B should be defeated, I think that this ad (mirrored here) by Nina Hartley should suffice quite well. I present it without further comment, since it pretty much says it all.

You know what to do on Tuesday, people of LA County.

In no way am I diminishing the other performers who have come out against Measure B....I'm simply emphasizing Nina because her testimony is powerful enough on its own.

A Daily Kos Diarist Comes Out Against Measure B: The Beginning Of A Pro-Porn Left Rebellion??

Considering that most of the organized opposition to Measure B has come from the angle of intrusive government intervention into private industry or private behavior, or the costs of the regulations on legal California businesses (aka the LA-based porn industry), it's probably not too surprising that the "No on Measure B" campaign has taken on a tinge of classical conservative political bent.

This is why this latest diary that appeared in the liberal icon online site The Daily Kos probably surprised many people as it surprised the hell out of me.  And I'm pretty much far to the Left of center politically myself.

Soren Sorensen is a regular Daily Kos diarist and a member of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party State committee who is currently running to  become a delegate to the Minnesota brance of the Democratic National Committee. He blogs at DK under the handle "ImpeccableLiberalCredentials", and you wouldn't think that he would be even interested in an local county ordinance some 2,000 miles away.

Yet, somehow, Sorensen has been motivated to post three posts at Daily Kos sounding the clarion call for why Kossack progressives should join in on the opposition to Measure B.  His first post basically grafted the preexisting efforts of Steven St. Croix, Michael Whiteacre, and the work of the organization No On Government Waste in trying to raise the interests of reagular progressive readers.

His second post, on the other hand, managed to raise some eyebrows (especially those of AVN's Mark Kernes, who wrote an extensive analysis post at AVN.com) where he opined that the conservative slant of the No on B opposition would not be enough, in his words, to overcome the money advantage of AHF and the pro-condom mandate opposition, and that more progressive appeals would have to be made to the mostly liberal electorate of Los Angeles County. Quoting ILC:

It has been referred to as the Measure B - Safer Sex In the Adult Film Industry Act, condoms in porn, and government waste. Today a social media blitz by adult entertainers opposed to the measure could help define the measure, and in a pro-government, pro-tax, progressive universe, the campaign against Measure B needs a progressive frame for most voters.

Right now both pro- and anti- campaigns are speaking to Romney/Ryan voters, and the whole reason this cynical ballot measure is on the ballot, most likely, is to turn out social conservatives and change California politics by affecting down ballot races, if not to enable a freak GOP win statewide. Somehow, a well connected GOP press flack - James Lee - has ended up running the principle anti- measure campaign, and only right-wing, anti-government frames are being activated in this contest.

The time is now for sex positive, pro-free speech progressives to make the case for voting NO on Measure B. What can you contribute to today's social media blitz?

ILC has even charged that Lee's conservative entry has an ulterior motive: to keep conservative and right-wing forces in Los Angeles County active enough to vote in the November elections and boost the voting totals for LA County Republicans and conservatives in an otherwise liberal state.

Sorensen's charges that the NOOnB campaign is a bit too stretched towards conservative frames is reflected of concerns that had been raised by another NOOnB activist, AdultBizLaw.com's Michael Fattorosi, whom in an earlier post had beefed about the political history of  James Lee, the director of No On Government Waste and the chief spokesperson for the opposition. Lee had previously been on the staff of various right-wing organizations, and had worked as an aide to South Carolina US Senator Jim deMint.

Of course, the grand irony of all this is that Sorensen uses for much of his supposedly superior "progressive" framing linkage and YouTube videos from the NOOnB campaign, and particularly blog posts from The Real Porn Wikileaks site....whom is maintained by Sean Tompkins, whom is pretty darn conservative politically.

Thankfully, I do think that Lee and NOGW have done a sterling enough job of debunking the pro-Measure B propaganda that I'm willing to gloss over their conservative slant. But, Sorensen does raise some legitimate issues about how progressives have not been nearly as out in front in defending the rights of porn performers or the industry...and especially how much of the Left's discourse on porn is either indifferent, irrelevant, or somewhat dominated by the openly repressive and sex-negative viewpoints...mostly the radical antipornography feminists.

What's also becoming relevant is that there is much more diversity of political ideology in the adult entertainment field than what meets the casual eye. While most of the producers do tend to be more conservative (albeit more of the libertarian bent of conservatism), there are plenty of performers with more liberal or even progressive credentials...and more of them are coming out of their political shell. Of course, their political stances do take a back seat to their performances when the lights go on, but the notion that porn performers are reducible to either apolitical sluts more concerned with who they are banging or sucking at the moment or amoral wingnut perverts is steadily losing ground as social media outlets like Twitter and Facebook break down the barriers between performers and their fans.

We're probably not quite yet at the point where we will be seeing porn stars running for Congress (imagine a political debate between Jenna Jameson and Nina Hartley along the same template as the Presidential debates)....but the success (or failure) of the NOOnMeasureB campaign will certainly open up new avenues of support for performers to express more of their humanity than merely how best to protect themselves from sexually transmitted infections.

More Lying From The "Yes On Measure B" Crowd....And A Bit Of Slut-Shaming, Too (Or, We Are All Pornographers Now)

[This is a continuation of my last post on the scummy tactics of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and other proponents of Measure B, the proposed condoms-in-porn mandate. For background, read my previous post.]

The blog SmartVoter.org just posted at their site the full voter guide to the proposed Measure B ordinance up to vote in Los Angeles County, including all of the arguments and rebuttals by proponents and opponents. I've posted some of the statements previously, but here are, just for recording's sake, the statement in opposition to Measure B, as well as their rebuttal to the pro-B arguments.

First, their original argument (with signatories attached):

Measure B is a ridiculous waste of tax dollars.

It would throw hundreds of thousands of your tax dollars, every year, at an imaginary threat.
It would send government inspectors, at full salary and benefits, to adult film sets to ensure actors are not only wearing condoms but rubber gloves, goggles and lab coats. This is money we need for real public health threats.

Measure B's backers falsely claim a health threat in the adult film industry. Every single actor is tested at least monthly. In 8 years, not one has contracted HIV on a set anywhere in the U.S. In fact, by driving film productions underground where there is no testing and no industry regulations, actors would be less safe, not more. Moreover, the Department of Public Health warns that Measure B would expose the County to expensive lawsuits + wasting money needed for real public health risks.

While we are wasting tax dollars for no reason, we are also driving a vital source of jobs out of state. The adult film industry employs thousands of people out of L.A. County: not just actors, but lighting and sound engineers, caterers, craftspeople, etc. This is exactly what we do NOT need during this recession.

Measure B is a ridiculous waste of tax dollars, kills thousands of jobs, is unnecessary, and does nothing to protect public health.

Vote NO on Measure B.


STUART WALDMAN
President of VICA (Valley Industry and Commerce Assoc.)

DR. PETER MIAO
Infectious Disease Specialist

DIANE DUKE
CEO Free Speech Coalition

PAMELA J. BROWN, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics

RANDALL WEISSBUCH, MD
Physician

Of course, you will recognize Diane Duke of the Free Speech Coalition and Dr. Peter Miao of Cutting Edge Testing as part of the signatories.

And here's their rebuttal to pro-Measure B arguments:

Safe sex practices are a good idea. However, they shouldn't be forced on adult film actors. Our individual rights have been fading fast since the Patriot Act.

Do-gooders such as New York Mayor Bloomberg seek to create a nanny state where our behavior is increasingly regulated for our own good. Bloomberg decreed that people must buy soft drinks in small cups, because they could become obese if they bought larger sizes. Measure B declares that adult film actors would have to wear condoms during filming. This isn't much different than regulating the size of soda a person can buy. Do you like the idea of busybodies forcing people to do what is healthful for them? If not, vote NO.

Measure B would destroy the adult film industry in Los Angeles County, and it's quite a big industry here. Film producers tried using condoms during the HIV scare of the 1990s, and people refused to watch the movies. So will the producers just stop making these films? No. They will likely move to areas where they have the freedom to make the kinds of films they want to make, most likely to other counties or other states.

Measure B also creates an expensive government bureaucracy at the same time as budgets and services are being cut. Do we really want our tax dollars paying for government agents to go to movie sets and look at how sex acts are being performed? And would the film producers who get permits for their shoots now even bother in the future, if they are being faced with all these new regulations?

Whether you agree with the supporters of Measure B or not, it's a bad idea to impose their standards through force of law. They may regulate your business or your sex life the next time around. Vote NO on Measure B.


NANCY C. ZARDENETA
Chair, Libertarian Party of Los Angeles County

PAMELA J. BROWN, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics

RANDALL WEISSBUCH, M.D.
Physician

JOHN URIBE
Civil Liberties Attorney

TED BROWN
Small Business Owner

Note the reference there to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's proposal to ban the sale of large servings of soda pop, on the notion that such sales lead to obesity.  Never mind that all that would do is allow wealthier people to buy their soda in bulk to bypass the law, and that the enforcement would be selectively limited to poorer people, or that such a law would probably not reduce obesity nearly as much as, say, taxing soft drinks higher accross the board or even making healthier products more accessible to poorer folk.

Now, I may not personally agree with the libertarian slant of that argument, and would argue much more about how the proposed mandate would affect the right of the performer to choose for his/herself how to protect themselves.  But, I'm not an LA County citizen, nor am I getting paid for promoting the opposition.

But, that is a mere trivial beef of mine.  The response of the Measure B proponents, on the other hand, just isn't. Exhale and fine tune your BS sensory apparatuses before you go to the next paragraph.

Comparing drinking soda pop to the immediate risk of infection with a sexually transmitted disease on the job trivializes the threat facing porn performers. The current outbreak of syphilis in the porn industry is living proof that having sex in adult films without a condom is a clear and immediate threat to the health of these performers and our community.

It is widely accepted that when you are on the job you are afforded protection that you may or may not choose to exercise in your own home. If you wish to make home repairs without gloves or a hard hat that is your own business. When you get paid to perform a task, workplace health and safety rules apply. Porn is a legal industry. Performers are paid to perform and they are entitled to the same on the job protection that every other person enjoys.

Measure B makes clear that no public dollars will be spent to enforce condoms in porn. All of the costs will be carried by porn producers. Sex acts in your bedroom are a strictly private matter. When filming is done for money it is a public matter. Why should people or even animals that appear in Hollywood movies be protected and the young people who appear in porn be abused?

The fact that many porn producers break the law and film without permits is not a good reason to do nothing to protect any performers or our community from disease.

Vote Yes on B!

JEFFREY R. KLAUSNER, MD. MPH
Professor of Medicine, UCLA

RICHARD G. POLANCO
Senator Richard Polanco (Ret.)

PAULA TAVROW, Ph.D.
Director, UCLA Bixby Program on Population and Reproductive Health

MICHAEL WEINSTEIN
President, AIDS Healthcare Foundation

MARK ROY MCGRATH, MPH
Public Health Analyst, UCLA

Let us break this bit of hyperbolic bullshittery down, shall we??

1)  "Comparing drinking soda pop to the immediate risk of infection with a sexually transmitted disease on the job trivializes the threat facing porn performers."

Wait...you mean that only porn performers transmit sexually transmitted diseases and then spread them to the general population?? Just like only poor people gulping down Coke and Pepsi spread diabetes to the population at large?? Of course, Weinstein has no problem with the pandemic of obesity or diabetes (and the high content of soft drinks with high fructose corn syrup which does tend to lead to more sugar addiction than usual)...but why even go there in the first place??

And also....most studies show that the threat of STI's in porn is actually a bit less than the threat in the general population, mostly because the industry actually does test for most STI's, and because in general performers are actually more conscious of their private behavior and are willing to make proper safety procedures to protect themselves...and to properly treat themselves on the chance they do get infected. There are actually greater threats of STI transmissions from "down low" public street park encounters by closeted fundamentalists than there are from shooting porn...so why isn't the pro-B crowd going for mandating condoms in public parks or even churches??


2) The current outbreak of syphilis in the porn industry is living proof that having sex in adult films without a condom is a clear and immediate threat to the health of these performers and our community.

Actually, it's more like living proof that AHF and the condom mandate proponents are completely full of shit.

The original syphilis outbreak took place in Budapest, Hungary, last June/July, and at its peak claimed approximately 100 performers in Europe; but really didn't kick in so much in the US until Mr. Marcus revealed his story of contracting the infection in May, and attempting to cloak it away and alter his tests until he was revealed in September. Most of the infected performers have undergone the required treatment and are now back performing, and there have been no reports of infection since last month. Also, when it did cross over to the US, the most that could be found was that the LA County Department of Public Health had confirmed that they had 9 cases of performers whom had contracted syphilis and were being treated. Stangely enough, the Free Speech Coalition had confirmed only TWO infected performers (Mr. Marcus included), and they reported that the other confirmed case was from a condom-only gay performer.

There was a sizeable blowup within the industry about whether or not those who were not infected with syphilis would be forced to endure the penicillin antibiotic treatment, which does indeed pose some minor threats, or whether they would have to face a 60-90 day waiting period before testing using the popular RPR test. However, the FSC and their partners APHSS did discover an alternative test that required only a 14-day waiting period, and offered that as an alternative for those not wanting the antibiotic treatment.

But even with all that, surely Weinstein (or whomever penned that sentence out of their ass) probably are smart enough to Google that syphilis can be spread just as likely through sores in the mouth or face, and that condoms alone would not prevent the spread of that infection. In fact, how does he know that many of the infections in Europe weren't in shoots requiring condoms??

Oh. and there is also this inconvenient fact that syphilis has been able to thrive in the larger population of LA County without the need for porn performers...whether wrapped or not. To quote Michael Whiteacre in a comment to a post at AdultBizLaw.com:

Syphilis cases in California rose 18% from 2010 to 2011, according to new data released by the state Department of Public Health — the adult industry is not the cause of this rise, it is a victim of his massive failure of California’s public health institutions.

Of course, mandating condoms for everyone engaging in sex in real life, rather than just those performing in porn, wouldn't quite do the trick, wouldn't it??


3) It is widely accepted that when you are on the job you are afforded protection that you may or may not choose to exercise in your own home. If you wish to make home repairs without gloves or a hard hat that is your own business. When you get paid to perform a task, workplace health and safety rules apply. Porn is a legal industry. Performers are paid to perform and they are entitled to the same on the job protection that every other person enjoys.

That is one of the few unabashed truths in their "rebuttal"...and even that is twisted around beyond recognition. Of course, plumbers and home repair professionals do have strong workplace protections to deal with occupational hazards, and some of them have detailed procedures for especially hazardous work, such as asbestos-tainted material removal or other forms of hazardous waste. But, the regulations are closely related to and adjusted to the particular hazard they face, and they are crafted with the full input of the workers in mind.

Engaging in sex on screen is indeed performing, and while it is similar to the way that people engage in sex in their bedrooms in private, it is plenty different. When you engage in sex in private, you probably don't have a set of hot lights and a camera/film crew all up in your bra and panties, and a director yelling and screaming to change positions every 5 minutes so that they can get "the perfect shot"; or, if you happen to be the male talent, a director up your jock telling you to stay hard and keep your edge until HE says you can cut loose with your "money shot". No one is saying that there shouldn't be some sembulance of standards of safety when shooting a sex scene, or that there is no justification for health and safety standards.

The problem is, though, that porn, like any other form of creative art form, relies on putting out an enhancement fantasy of real sex...and most porn consumers/watchers have spoken loud and clear that they will NOT buy condomized sex. (Notice I said "most", not "all"; there may be a market for "safer sex" out there, but it is generally restricted.) Merely asserting an audience is out there or can be invented through government fiat simply doesn't make it so.

Besides that. Measure B gives no leeway to even homegrown cam sites or even private owners of home websites the option of not using condoms; it simply MANDATES that they be used: and if you want to even tape a sex scene in LA County, you have to buy a permit which requires you to wear "protection", or face invasive raids from the Condom Police, stiff fines, and even jail time. Plus, those permits won't be cheap, because....well, we'll get to that soon.


4) Measure B makes clear that no public dollars will be spent to enforce condoms in porn. All of the costs will be carried by porn producers. Sex acts in your bedroom are a strictly private matter. When filming is done for money it is a public matter. Why should people or even animals that appear in Hollywood movies be protected and the young people who appear in porn be abused?

 No public dollars??  You mean, the money exercised by the County of Los Angeles from forcing producers of porn to pay for permits, insurance, and the salaries of government officials to inspect them for condoms is not "public dollars"???  Riiiiight..and the excise tax on cigarettes and tobacco isn't public, either?? Well...at least Weinstein didn't call porn producers "pornographers" here...or was that just a slip up??

"When filming is done for money, it is a public matter." But if it is done for free and no condom is used -- or if a condom is used and summarily breaks -- and HIV or some other STI is spread, it's none of our business, right?? Only the "pornographers" and the porn performers should be coerced to become guniea pigs for "safer sex" as a means of "role modeling" the rest of the impressionable public, I guess.

And..."young people who appear in porn be abused.."?? Yeah, because we all know all dem stoopid sluts can't be trusted to think and decide to enter porn for themselves...they must be "sex trafficked" in by those cigar-chomping, trenchcoat-wearing dirty old men with the 70's mustaches who trick them with candy and dreams of Hollywood success if only they'd just lie on that casting couch!!

Paging Shelley Lubben, me thinks??

5) The fact that many porn producers break the law and film without permits is not a good reason to do nothing to protect any performers or our community from disease.

Remember that before the City of Los Angeles passed their version of the condom mandate earlier this year, the only requirement for a permit was that you pay a fee to FilmLA, the board that supervises movie filming in the city. There actually was no requirement for condoms or any other form of protection....until AHF invented them for both the LA city law and Measure B. Also, the LA city law is still subject to legal challenges, pending the outcome of the county ordinance.

And, as for Weinstein and the pro-Measure B's concern for "our community"??  Well that is shown quite starkly in their current billboard campaign, as you can plainly see:

Yep. 

Never mind that they have used and exploited the experiences of "pornographers" like Darren James, Derrick Burts, and Shelley Lubben to promote their ordinance.

Never mind that they actually have gained some support from actual "pornographers" such as Brittany Andrews and Katja Kassin, as well as luminaries in the porn world who have been outspoken critics of both AIM and the FSC (such as Mike South and Gene Ross).

(And oh, by the way...you probably don't want someone like Monica Foster on your side, either.)

And...never mind that everyone from Republicans and Libertarians to even staunch Democrats and liberals have spoken out against this proposal, and that medical experts of all -- and no -- political persuasion(s) have seen the hypocrisy and counterproductiveness of Measure B.

Nope..in their mind, either you are with them, or you're with "the pornographers".

I'll simply let Dr. Chauntelle Tibalis of Porn Valley Vantage get the final word on this, because she says it so well:

Really? The “pornographers” say? That’s the game you’re gonna play, AHF? Reeeeally?

Thank you, AIDS Healthcare Foundation for shaming “pornographers” in this way.

Thank you, AIDS Healthcare Foundation for using donor funds – monies that I’m sure were given to your “own self-created social enterprises” under the auspices of working to “rid the world of AIDS” (quotes from AHF mission statement here) –  to shame “pornographers” in this way.

Because I know that’s what you’re doing!! I know what you’re really saying with this ad is “Eww look at these evil nasty people who say ‘No on B’ – pornographers!! Ewwwwwww!! They’re too gross and awful to know anything about what they know, and you don’t want to be associated with Them, do you?”

How dare you?

How dare you, an organization that claims to want to help so many oft-shamed-throughout-history and continuously marginalized communities, how dare you behave in this manner?

How dare you rely on stereotype, myth, and urban-legend horrors born from decades of speculation and misinformation about “pornographers”? How dare you engage those cultural fictions in such a manipulative manner? How dare you pass judgement on working, tax-paying members of LA County (and the human community as a whole)? How dare you dole out shame-by-proxy to everyone even obliquely associated with porn? How dare you?!!

You know what they say: you can talk shit when you’re perfect (or something like that)… and I’m far from perfect… so guess what I’m doing right now, AHF? Shaming you!! But I’m not gonna pull out stereotypes and slurs to do it. I’m just gonna call attention to the fact that I know what you’re up to.

Shame on you.

In.  FUCKING.  Deed.

Please, citizens of LA County....don't fall for this bullshit.  VOTE NO ON MEASURE B.

Porn Testing Wars 2012: Manwin Clarifies Their Stance Against Talent Testing Services; Reinforces Performer Testing Program Pool

Well...the ongoing war of porn performer testing is continuing to get freakier by the day.

Remember that it was reported that a compromise was reached between the porn conglomerate Manwin, the Free Speech Coalition, and independent performer testing comp Talent Testing Services, where TTS results would be allowed into the database being set up by the FSC's Adult Performer Health and Safety Services (APHSS) to monitor test results?

It seems as though the compromise hasn't eased the strife between the two camps, because earlier this week, Manwin announced that it was reneging on its promise to incorporate TTS results....for now, at least.

Apparently, TTS supporters at their latest meeting weren't too satisfied with the terms of what was proposed, and wanted to keep their independence far, far away from Manwin and the FSC, whom offers their own testing through Cutting Edge Testing. Plus, renegade agents such as ATMLA's Shy Love were still pushing the same beliefs that Manwin was simply attempting a shakedown of peformers for FSC, and that allowing CET to be the exclusive agency for testing was simply an attempt to monopolize performer testing at TTS' expense.

So, yesterday, Manwin decided that they couldn't wait much longer, and gave TTS the boot.

Here's their statement, as reposted to XBiz.com:

Further to an announcement made on July 10, 2012, and after much consideration, Manwin has changed its stance with regards to Talent Testing Services. As previously announced, and as of July 1st, Manwin abides by new health standards and procedures. 

The requirements oblige adult entertainers, performing in scenes commissioned for Manwin brands, to provide health tests that are no older than 15 days.

The health tests must be FDA approved for HIV testing, namely the HIV-1 Aptima RNA Qualitive Assay, and its results must appear in the APHSS database. 

Manwin agrees with the APHSS standards and protocols, because they suit industry needs. In addition, Manwin is comfortable working with approved testing services, with procedures and protocols Manwin has reviewed and supported, as is the case with APHSS approved testing facilities.

Furthermore, Manwin requires the testing services to provide the assistance of a full-time doctor on staff, so that the patients who request it can get their tests analyzed and administered, while also getting the care they need in case of a positive test. 

Due to the reasons stated above, at this time, Manwin will not accept STI test results originating from TTS. However, Manwin hopes to continue discussions with TTS, to come to an agreement that will allow them to work together. 

Though TTS is not part of the APHSS program, APHSS and TTS agreed on terms which allowed TTS to provide performer test results to the APHSS information bank, without joining the program. Manwin feels that this is a great step forward.

For now, and until an agreement can be reached, performers will not be able to submit test results from TTS in order to shoot for a Manwin owned brand. 

With regards to the Performer Subsidy Fund, performers may still be reimbursed for partial costs of tests done at TTS, if TTS continues to submit test results to the APHSS program. 

The PSF was conceived by Manwin, and administered by the Free Speech Coalition. Through the Fund, performers may receive a monthly subsidy to help with STI testing costs.

Notice the not quite so subtle hardball being played here: Manwin is saying that if TTS doesn't get their act together and cede to the protocols of the APHSS, then not only will their tests not get sanctioned by any Manwin product, but their performers won't get compensated for their tests, either.

However, it should also be noted, as APHSS stated in a followup article, that performers whom are already members of APHSS who use Talent Testing for their tests will have their tests accepted in their database as long as TTS continues to submit them, and thusly will still have their tests accepted by Manwin...at least, under the compromise agreement thus signed. Here's APHSS's statement:

In a statement, APHSS said: "Manwin has stated that it is their policy to subsidize performers that test at TTS, as long as those performers are signed up for the APHSS program and TTS has submitted data on those performers. APHSS intends to administer the subsidies as planned under this policy."

The Performer Subsidy Fund will be funded by Manwin through the rest of the calendar year.

APHSS officials further emphasized that the compromise with TTS that allows its data to be automatically entered into the APHSS database is "important to ensuring the APHSS database is a complete and comprehensive resource of information for the content production industry."

"As long as TTS continues to submit data to the APHSS database, the data will be updated in our system. That said, for producers that will continue to accept TTS test results, they should be able to verify performer work availability through APHSS."

It's going to interesting to see what TTS's next move will be in this..especially with the pressure from agents like Shy Love who want to maintain their independence from FSC.

The other interesting discussion is in what is motivating Manwin in all of this. Some say that this is merely part of their global plan to take over porn in the wake of the recession; others say that it's a cover for the FSC to maintain their monopoly over performer testing (and thusly for Diane Duke to get paid).

A far less underhanded conspiracy theory comes from lawyer Michael Fattorosi, whom has now revived his long standing adult legal blog, Adult Biz View, in the wake of the recent events. Fattorosi, who blogs and tweets as well under the handle @Pornlaw, thinks that what is really motivating Manwin is the thinly veiled threat of possible legal and criminal action over whether forcing performer testing at the latter's expense violates state labor laws.

Many people within the industry pointed out that this was a very generous, albeit suspicious offer from Manwin. There is a general opinion within the industry that Manwin, through their tubesites, was a direct contributor to the economic downfall of porn production. Why now would they voluntarily come forward and support performers to reimburse testing costs ? Some people even opined that they believed this was Manwin’s attempt to take over medical testing procedures in the industry.

However I think the answer can be found in California Labor Code section 222.5 which reads in relevant part;

“No person shall withhold or deduct from the compensation of any employee, or require any prospective employee or applicant for employment to pay, any fee for, or cost of, any pre-employment medical or physical examination taken as a condition of employment, nor shall any person withhold or deduct from the compensation of any employee, or require any employee to pay any fee for, or costs of, medical or physical examinations required by any law or regulation of federal, state or local governments or agencies thereof.”

In short, employees in California cannot be made to pay for pre-employment medical testing, which is exactly what the STD testing is within the adult content production business – a pre-employment test. Without a clean test no production company will or should hire a performer to perform in an adult production.

But hold up, aren't porn performers considered more like "independent contractors" rather than employees?? And thusly, they are immune from such regulations??  Not so fast, sayeth Michael:

I realize that many performers in adult do not and refuse to consider themselves employees. Rather they wish, for whatever reason, to be called independent contractors. I can assure anyone reading this article that performers, for purposes of worker safety laws, are indeed employees and not independent contractors. Perhaps for tax purposes they may be independent contractors. It is possible to be an employee for worker safety laws but yet be an independent contractor for tax purposes.

Further, on January 1, 2012 additional laws when into effect in California making the “willfull misclassification” of employees as independent contractors even more dangerous for employers. Labor Code Section 226.8 imposes significant penalties ranging from a minimum of $5,000 to $25,000 for “each violation.” The civil penalties for one misclassified individual could be tens of thousands of dollars depending on the interpretation of “each violation” and the penalty imposed. Obviously, if Manwin does not take remedial steps to comply with California law in regards to the classification of employees they may face significant penalties as well as potential lawsuits under California’s Private Attorney General Act, which allows individuals to file lawsuits to enforce California law.

And keep in mind, too, that the reclassification of porn performers as "employees" of the production companies they shoot for is the fundamental foundation of the proposed Cal-OSHA "barrier protection" regs, too.  Small wonder that Mike Weinstein of AHF was so aggressive in upgrading the punishments here, too.

And, as Michael points out, this may only be the beginning for porn companies in complying with workplace protection laws:

It is this author’s opinion that Manwin is starting to realize that the performers are indeed employees and are taking steps to comply with California law. Obviously, they are trying to set a precedent with the reimbursement of testing costs, however they still fall short of actual compliance with Labor Code section 222.5. Since the “Performer Subsidy Fund” requires a performer to sign up for the program instead of Manwin paying for the pre-employment testing outright.

None-the-less, Manwin is taking a step in the right direction when it comes to the treatment of performers, however, it is only a half step. At some point all production companies will have to address not only peformers’ testing costs but also the issue of workers’ compensation for on-set injuries.

Of course, the issue of whether or not performers can be compelled to be reclassified as "employers" or "independent contractors" (or both) will probably be hashed out in front of judges as the condom mandate laws and the proposed Cal-OSHA regs face their legal challenges.

Porn Panic 2012, The Series Rolls On: Shy Love Proves She Has Some Nukes, Too: Dissolves ATMLA, Rejoins LATATA, Who Then Gives APHSS The Boot

It just got real.  Again.

Yesterday, Shoe #1 dropped when Shy Love announced that she was dissolving her porn talent agency group, Adult Talent Management-Los Angeles (ATM), and rejoining the larger collective of talent agencies, The Licensed Adult Talent Agents Trade Association (LATATA), which comprises the majority of adult trade agencies.

I had initially wondered what that was all about, since Love was the leader of the sternest critics of the moves of the Free Speech Coalition and Manwin, the conglomerate of porn production companies, to consolidate performer testing through their Adult Performer Health and Safety Services (APHSS), and in particular Cutting Edge Testing (CET), the company which was formed by former associates of Adult Industry Medical (AIM) Foundation after the latter was driven out of business by attacks by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) in pursuit of their goal of imposing mandatory condom usage by porn performers.

Love and her agency had previously favored a rival testing org, Talent Testing Services (TTS), which had became the go-to agency for testing in the breach between the closing of AIM and the founding of CET.

Problem was, CET had not only the backing of FSC/APHSS, but then got some serious reinforcement when Manwin announced their plans to strengthen and redefine testing protocols across the board...and promptly threw their weight behind CET not only by instituting the APHSS protocols, but endorsing CET as the exclusive source of testing for their shoots.

This is because the APHSS protocols do not currently allow TTS as an APHSS-certified agency, due to some disputes over testing procedures between FSC and TTS...and some other past .

Mostly, over the "outbreak" of last year, in which a performer was originally first tested positive for HIV, then later cleared when the original test turned out to be a false positive due to supplemental testing done by FSC/APHSS. It turned out that the initial testing was done by another agency, but TTS was involved in the follow up that resulted in some confusion over the exact status of the performer...and it wasn't until APHSS intervened with their own tests that the matter was cleared up.

In the minds of FSC/APHSS, this proved that only consolidation of testing to one company with stringent standards across the board would prevent future clusterfucks..and that probably explains why they supported the development of Cutting Edge as the gold standard of testing.

Problem is on that, though?? Many performers and agents were quite happy with Talent Testing, and they feared that FSC/APHSS was attempting to reestablish an monopoly on testing and limit competition and testing..and the actions of Manwin only deepened their fears.

And apparently, Shy's won the rest of the agents over to her view, too...because cue The Other Shoe Dropping...or maybe it should be, The Other Boot Kicking (via AdultFYI):

LATATA Withdraws Support from APHSS Over TTS Issue

Los Angeles, CA– The Licensed Adult Talent Agents Trade Association (LATATA) announces its formal withdrawal of support from APHSS, the subsidiary organization set up by the FSC - (Free Speech Coalition).

APHSS was initiated after the closure of AIM, as a mechanism through which to administrate testing for performers in the adult industry. LATATA believes APHSS position in refusing to allow Talent Testing Service (TTS) to become a member of APHSS to be a grievously wrong one.

LATATA's position is that TTS has provided the industry with reliable and good service for many years and LATATA's hope is that may continue. Many in the industry will recall that during the time that AIM Health Care was providing testing services to the industry, Talent Testing Service was providing this service concurrently alongside them. Performers enjoyed their ability to choose which facility they wished to have provide them the industries required medical testing.

At the time of AIM’s forced closure, after pressure and interference from AIDS Health Care Foundation (AHF), TTS was, for a period of time, the only available testing facility to the adult industry, and the industry was immensely grateful to have TTS available as an alternate for AIM at that time. Without them, one can only wonder where performers would have turned for their testing requirements.

LATATA firmly believes that it is imperative that the industry never again, allow itself to be in such a position where its testing needs are serviced and provided by only one testing facility, and therefore, inclusion of both testing facilities that currently service the industry - Talent Testing Service (TTS) and Cutting Edge Testing (CET) - are necessary in any program that purports to provide assistance and or a framework for performers’ testing needs and related matters.

Despite formidable effort from members of LATATA to bridge the gaps and mediate differences between APHSS and TTS, such efforts have not been successful. Absent APHSS admitting TTS to the organization, it is LATATA’s position that it can no longer support APHSS itself, and announces its withdrawal of support and participation in APHSS. LATATA continues to support TTS’ continued service to the industry and the performers within it.

LATATA also wishes to make clear that withdrawing its support for and participation in, the APHSS program, in no way alters or changes its continued support and gratitude for The Free Speech Coalition itself and the work that it does to benefit all within the adult entertainment industry.

As of June 2012, LATATA members are comprised of the following agencies: LA Direct Models, Spiegler Girls, Foxxx Modeling, Type 9 Models and ATMLA.

There have been two reasons given by APHSS as to why TTS wasn't originally allowed into the APHSS orbit: 1) The lack of an accredited doctor at their testing facilities to verify the validity and accuracy of their tests; and 2) the fear that TTS would report any initial "reactive" or "positive" HIV test to the LA County Department of Public Health, which is required by law, before actually verifying the test with followup testing....which would, in FSC/APHSS's mind, cause not only a protracted shutdown of production, but would also give more fuel to AHF and their condom mandate campaign. AHF already has passed a mandate law in the city of Los Angeles (not being enforced currently pending the LA City Council approving guidelines on enforcement, as well as inevitable lawsuits); and an initiative for instituting the mandate across Los Angeles County is now on the ballot for September.  That fear was reinforced due to the 2009 "panic" involving a positive HIV test of a performer that turned out not to have been infected while shooting; because AIM had been summoned by LACDPH to release to them private records of performers as part of the latter's investigation. A local judge ultimately squashed that effort, citing the federal HIPPA act protecting medical records privacy.

TTS's response has been that the requirement for a doctor can be fulfilled through the performer's private doctor or other authority verifying the test, and that they are bound by California state law to reveal positive/"reactive" tests anyway. They have also questioned the security of the database that is used by APHSS, fearing that someone could breach it and reveal performer's private information, just as was done to Desi Foxx during the bad old days of the original Porn Wikileaks. Mostly, though, they see the alliance of Manwin and FSC/APHSS/CET as not-so-thinly-veiled pressure to crowd out TTS and reimpose a one-company monopoly on testing..and they also fear Manwin's history of buying every porn outlet in sight and also promoting free filesharing -- what others see as a perilous permissiveness towards "piracy" that is draining legitimate performers dry.

You could say that this announcement by the now reunited LATATA is their way of saying to Manwin/FSC/APHSS: "Not. So. Fucking. FAST. Buddies. You may have the bank, but we have some tricks ourselves...let's resolve this, and in a hurry."

There is going to be a grand meeting of agents, performers, and other bigwigs coming up this weekend rehashing the entire brohaha over performer testing. After today, it just got just a bit more interesting. As in...a lot.

UPDATE:..XBiz.com now has a story up at their site on the bustout of LATATA from APHSS, and also adds this initial statement of reaction from FSC:

"The Free Speech Coalition welcomes the opportunity to have Talent Testing Services (TTS) as part of our APHSS program. FSC and TTS have come together on some issues but differ on the necessity of initial physician involvement in ordering the test and the provision of results. In the unfortunate case that a performer may test positive for Chlamydia or Gonorrhea, FSC believes that it is important for a performer to be able to get immediate treatment when he or she receives his or her test results. And if a performer tests positive for HIV, FSC believes it is crucial to get that information from a physician.

"FSC supports having a broad range of providers. To date, APHSS participants include 1 clinic (St James) in San Francisco, 2 clinics (Vegas STD Testing) in Las Vegas, 1 clinic (Cutting Edge Testing) in Sherman Oaks, Calif., and Advanced Medical Testing Center (AMTC) with physicians in every state and 4,000 locations nationwide.

"We encourage a continued dialogue with TTS and believe that ultimately, the health and well-being of our performers is everyone’s priority."

Initial attempts at getting TTS into the system were rebuffed by TTS over those very issues. Let's see if this latest sortie of bombs clears heads enough to settle this.

i[Now crossposted over at The Real Porn Wikileaks]