AHF's Latest Diversionary Bedazzle of BS: Attack Kink.com Oral/Toy Shoot In Nevada For....What Now???

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

AVN's Mark Kernes Chases The #AB1576 "Crapnado"; Survives To Tell The Story

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

"Curses....BAHLOCKED AGAIN!!!" AB 1576 (AHF/Isadore Hall Sponsored Condom Mandate Bill) Placed "In Suspense" By California Senate Committee (BREAKING STORY)

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

AB 1576 Clears California Assembly: Time To Hit The Panic Button Now??

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

Lorelei Lee Makes The Case Against AB 1576 (aka "Izzy's Last Condom Stand")

There are so many well documented reasons why AB 1576, Isadore Hall's condom mandate/personal protection bill needs to be defeated....but who better to explain the most cogent reasons than a porn performer herself.

Thankfully, the folks over at Kink.com teamed up with perfomer Lorelei Lee to produce a video for YouTube, which basically explains why most performers are lining up against this bill.

I'll just shut up now and let Lorelei take it away.

  

(Originally posted at The Real Porn Wikileaks)

Izzy Hall's Last Stand: SB 1576, The Condom Mandate...errrrrrr, Personal Protective Equipment Bill (Now With 50% More 2257 Kick!!) Gets Its Day In California Assembly

If at first you don't suceed..

Last year, California Assemblyman Isadore Hall made two efforts to exploit the numerous STI controversies ongoing in the Los Angeles-based porn industry in order to pass his bills to force mandatory condoms and other "barrier protection" onto porn shoots. Both times, his bills didn't even make it to the full Assembly for a vote, due to them getting killed in committee due to costs and Constitutional questions.

This week, though, Assemblyman Hall and his backers at the AIDS Healthcare Foundation are hoping that, to use another trite catch phrase, the third time would be the charm.

The newest effort, SB 1576, attempts to take a different approach from the previous attempts last year.

If you will remember, Hall's original attempts at the condom mandate utilized the existing CalOSHA regulations regarding treatment of "employees" and protection from "bloodborne pathogens" in order to require porn producers to force condoms on performers against their wishes. It also basically ignored if not sought to eliminate and replace entirely the existing screening and testing regime that has been used by the industry to screen out potential infections.

This year, though, Hall and his commisars at AHF seem to be more aware that their case isn't quite as airshut as they originally thought....so, they've tweaked and tinkled with their bill constantly to get to the point of finally unleashing it to an Assembly committee on tomorrow. The fact that the Free Speech Coalition is holding their annual "Free Speech Lobbying Days" sessions with the Assembly next week might also have something to do with their sudden desparation push.

Whatever the motivation may be, the final product of Hall still has as many questions as answers.

One main departure from last year is that the bill does give a left-handed nod to the testing regime by requiring that all adult performers not only be induced to wear "personal protective equipment" (that would include not only condoms, but also dental dams, gloves, goggles, and other forms of barrier protection), but would also have to prove that they were tested for HIV and most other STI's within 14 days of their performing anal or vaginal sex acts on screen.

Apparently, this is Hall's/AHF's way of splitting the difference with the industry through acknowledging the success of the FSC-PASS testing regime, while still favoring mandatory "barrier protection" (read, condoms) as supposedly a backup reinforcement.

Strangely enough, the proposed bill would not directly mandate "barrier protection" for oral sex acts, even though the original legislation would have bound porn producers to the provisions of California Code Section 5193, which is in the process of being revised by CalOSHA to cover porn shoots. Those proposed revisions would have not only mandated condoms/barrier protections for all anal and vaginal sex acts on screen, but would also have sanctioned any proximity of bodily fluids (including sperm or vaginal secretions) from areas where STI transmission could take place. That would mean no creampies, no facials, no external pop shots below the breasts or above the knees, and no pop shots on the buttocks. SB1576, unlike last year's efforts, slides away from such requirements, concentrating only on "barrier protection" for anal and vaginal sex.

That would be bad enough for performers who want their own choice of protection...but in the process of attempting to make his bill acceptable for passage, Assemblyman Hall added some language that may potentially undue his efforts. 

Here's the pertinent section on how Hall plans to enforce his bill, through what appears to be a record-keeping nightmare for porn producers.

(i) (1) An adult film employer’s injury prevention program shall include a log of information for all scenes produced or purchased, including, but not limited to, documentation that:

(A) Each time an employee performing in an adult film engaged in vaginal or anal intercourse,
a condom or other protective barrier personal protective equipment was used to protect the employee from exposure to bloodborne pathogens. This paragraph shall not be construed to require that the
condom or other protective barrier personal protective equipment be visible to the consumer in the finished film.

(B) Each employee performing in an adult film was tested for sexually transmitted infections,
including, but not limited to, HIV, according to the recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the State Department of Public Health current at the time the testing takes place, not
less more than 14 days prior to filming any scene in which the employee engaged in vaginal or anal intercourse and that the employer paid for the test.

(2) For the purposes of this subdivision, “adult film” means any commercial film, video, multimedia, or other recorded representation during the production of which performers actually engage in sexual intercourse, including oral, vaginal, or anal penetration.

The main point here is that the "employers" would be required to keep detailed records of every scene they produced or published, in which not only the performers' names and licenses would be made accessible to health authorities upon request, but also test results, the detailed sex acts, and the type of "personal protection" used in each scene. Yes, folks, I said medical records. And, those records would have to be maintained and logged by the production companies for as long as the law allowed, if not forever.

Now, isn't there a law called the Health Information and Personal Privacy Act (aka HIPPA) which protects people's medical records from just such a public intervention?? And, wasn't it AHF who used the same motive of "medical privacy" to sue the old AIM when Desi Foxx's medical info turned up online thanks to the work of the original Porn Wikileaks?

If this sounds so hauntingly familiar, it's the same exact degree of death by information logging that the age verification 2257/2257A federal regulations were created to enforce. And like 2257, this new regime of medical bookeeping would allow so much abuse due to anyone getting access to the medical records of performers and using them for exploitive blackmail or doxxing...or worse.

Whether or not all this is enough go get through the Assembly firewall will be seen by all tomorrow, when the Assembly's Committee on Labor and Enforcement take up the bill. It would have to pass there, then go to another committee and pass that before it goes to the full Assembly..and then it would have to go through and pass the California State Senate before going to Governor Jerry Brown for his signature.

Most folk say that this won't even pass the smell test and will be tabled like the last two efforts. We'll just watch and see.

Condom Mandate Update: CalOSHA "Landmark" Ruling In Treasure Island Media Case Seals The Debate On Condoms In Porn...Or, Doesn't.

Interesting event happened on Friday that might have some major bearing on the entire Condom Mandate battle in Los Angeles County....and beyond, even nationwide.

In 2009, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation filed a grievance with CalOSHA against a San Francisco-based gay porn production studio, Treasure Island Media, in which they claimed that by not using condoms as part of their scenes, TIM was in violation of the "bloodborne pathogen" standard requiring the use of "barrier protection" in all scenes as a means of STI protection. Never mind that no one in any one of those scenes were found to be HIV- or STI-positive, or to have been infected with HIV or any other STI as a result of those scenes; the point was, according to AHF, to establish CalOSHA's power to impose the condom mandate at will against any porn production company statewide. CalOSHA had sanctioned TIM in Feburary of last year with two violations of the standard, to which TIM appealed to CalOSHA's built-in judicial appeal process.

Well...last Friday, CalOSHA Administrative Law Judge Mary Dryovage made her ruling on the case; siding with CalOSHA and upholding the sanctions against Treasure Island Media. In her ruling, she essentially rehashed the standard AHF propaganda points that condoms were the only true means of preventing disasterous outbreaks of STI's, and that porn performers absolutely must be regulated as "employees" for their own "protection", and have condoms forced on them for their own "good".

Naturally, AHF is crowing loud about this "landmark" decision, saying that it effectively ends the debate on condoms in porn by establishing CalOSHA's inevitable right to regulate bareback porn out of business. Here's AHF's spokesperson Ged Kenslea, riffing on, via proven AHF sycophant...errrrrrrrrr, LA Weekly regular columnist Dennis Romero:

AHF spokesman Ged Kenslea told us that one of the most important aspects of the ruling ...
 ... is its affirmation that performers are indeed employees due protection under under workplace safety rules. The group has long argued that federal law prohibiting exposure to bloodborne pathogens such as sperm at the workplace applies to California's adult performers.
The industry has said that porn stars are very part-time workers who paid per "scene" as independent contractors.
The ruling by Judge Mary Droyovage wrote that, without condoms, there is "substantial probability that employees would suffer serious exposure resulting in serious physical harm or death if violation occurred."
Kenslea said AHF's stance is that the ruling applies only to condom use and that it does not mandate dental dams, surgical masks, eye protection, gloves and other gear feared by the industry.
The case involved a "bareback" sex tape by Bay Area studio Treasure Island Media. The video featured multiple partners on film, none apparently using condoms. Treasure Island appealed Cal/OSHA's sanctions, leading to the ruling.
The AHF was "a catalyst for" the ruling, Kenslea said, because the case included a complaint from the organization. He said he was surprised the studio appealed.

The decision was also praised by yet another even more pro-AHF sycophant, former producer Mike South, who breathlessly repeated the same old AHF talking points that this all but clinched the condom debate....not to mention that not only could Cal-OSHA could set the rules regarding the condom mandate, but because their rules could be expanded nationwide by the federal OSHA, they could be enforced everywhere in the US. In other words, to rephrase AHF President Michael Weinstein's well quoted saying: "Whereever they go, we will follow them."

Case closed, then?? Ahhhhh....not quite.

There is another side of the story, of course, and The Real Porn Wikileaks just so happened to get Treasure Island Media's response to the ruling and subsequent barrage of BS from AHF.

For starters, they noted that while Judge Dryovage did sustain the original CalOSHA sanctions, she did significantly reduce the fines involved: totally eliminating the fine for one count (from $9,000 to $0); and reducing the fine for the other count from $9K to $6,300.

And secondly, they loudly announced that the principle of defending sexual freedom demanded that they further appeal the decision to an even higher court. Here's attorney Karen Tynan, who represents TIM, speaking via TRPWL:

[...] “Having the fines lowered by a total of nearly two-thirds is a very significant win for us,” said Karen Tynan, Treasure Island Media’s attorney.


Tynan went onto say, “We will be appealing the decision with a Petition for Reconsideration on the grounds that the decision was unsupported by the facts.” Among the issues regarding the sufficiency of evidence: Cal/OSHA’s star witness was a disgruntled former employee who had been terminated in 2010 and their medical expert was an osteopath (a branch of medical practice that emphasizes the treatment of medical disorders through the manipulation and massage of the bones, joints, and muscles.) who last treated communicable diseases almost twenty years ago.

Apparently, AHF went to the tried-and-true tactics of antiporn crusaders of yesteryear: the old "OMG...OMGOMGOMGOMG...the SHOCK AND HORROR of such disgusting, nasty, filthy buttsexin' goin on!!!" card.

At issue was The 1000 Load Fuck, directed by Morris. The 2009 video pushes the envelope, taking porn into taboo regions of the forbidden and depraved. In a bold and unprecedented experiment, one young man voluntarily takes a gallon of semen up his ass.

“We watched the video over and over and over. Then we watched it in slow motion, reverse, and paused it on almost every frame,” said TIM General Manager Matt Mason, who testified for almost a day and a half and withstood hours of cross examination by Cal/OSHA attorney Kathryn Woods. “The state prosecutors took special interest in the turkey baster and the liquid fun in that scene.”

In effect, AHF used this movie the way antiporn prosecutors used Ira Issacs' alleged scat videos, or Gail Dines used "gonzo" porn: as a means of shocking and scaring and shaming "aberrant" sexual practices to illicit the usual response of anger and disgust and "There outta be a law against that!!!" meme. Or, in this case, "They better cover that up with a condom!!!"

It remains to be seen how the appeal process will resolve this case...or if this "landmark" decision really is the end of the line for bareback porn....although, I'm sure Isadore Hall and Michael Weinstein are already writing the speeches that Hall will use to integrate this ruling into their next legislative attempt to force Measure B statewide, or to aid CalOSHA to craft the ever evolving "bloodborne pathogen barrier protection" regs as a wedge to be imposed nationwide.

And, I'm just as sure that those who perform and enjoy bareback porn -- whether gay or straight or bi or whatever combination thereof -- will equally battle to defend their freedom and right to do so.

Either way, this isn't over, by any means. Stay tuned.

Why We Shouldn't Shoot All Of The Lawyers: VIVID's Counterbrief Response To AHF's Defense Of Measure B

To set this up right: VIVID, along with co-plantiffs Derrick Pierce and Kayden Kross, is attempting to appeal the preliminary ruling in the still ongoing Measure B appeal, in which Judge Dean Pregerson set aside certain portions of the law while upholding the main parts requiring condoms for porn shoots. They are also attempting to disqualify the AIDS Healthcare Foundation as a "putative intervenor" on behalf of the law. AHF had earlier filed their own brief defending the law; linkage to that brief can be found here. (Mark Kernes' excellent breakdown of AHF's brief is here.) This brief is the plantiffs' response to AHF's brief....and as you will see, it stands on its own for its full fledged takedown of AHF's arguments and of Measure B in general.

MeasureBLawsuit_VIVIDResponseBriefToAHF.pdf

The Rebuttal Too Smart For CounterPunch To Publish: Whereas I Rebuke Gail Dines' Bullshittery

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

"Adult Performers Are Adults. Lets Try Treating Them That Way." Just Another Ernest Greene Essay

[Note by Anthony: BPPA Contributor Ernest Greene asked me to post this new essay here as a followup to his original post critiquing Tristan Taormino's change in condom policy; and also addressing the recent announcements of produer Nica Noelle (who annouced that she will require condoms for her future films, in effect adopting Taormino's new policy), and producer Axel Braun (who announced this week that he would raise minimum age of eligibility for performer in his films/videos to 21 from 18). As always, the views expressed are his alone, but you are totally free to support or oppose them on their merits as you wish. I have added embedded links for background reference and research support, but the words are as Ernest typed them.]

Adult Performers Are Adults. Let’s Try Treating Them That Way.

As expected, since I raised my objections to Tristan Taormino’s declaration via CNN that she would henceforward require performers to use condoms in all scenes she directed, I’ve been getting the usual barrage of incoming bullshit that follows any attempt to take a reason-based stand on this issue. I’ve been called all sorts of things by all sorts of people who seem united only in their rancor toward me. The ranting of Rob Black and the newly retired (how could they tell?) Gene Ross, who even AHF won’t touch with a barbecue fork, is no surprise. I’m a bit more amused by Gail Dines chiming in on CounterPunch to offer her concurrence with my view that Tristan’s new stance is politically motivated (after making sure her readers knew me as a “maker of violent pornography”). Thanks for the recognition, Gail, and since you’re so fond of primitive Anglo-Saxonisms to demonstrate that you’re not a pearl-clutching prude, I’m sure you’ll know what I mean when I suggest you take your sarcastic glee in setting one pornographer against another and stick it right up your bum. I’m not going to be drawn into rebutting your lies and nonsense any more than I would be the verbal pollution of Ross and Black, with whom you share a common contempt for the truth and an adolescent need to shock.

Now, as to those who actually think that any position I’ve taken ever in my 30 years in this industry opposes the use of condoms, get real. I was among the very first directors to speak up for condom use back in 1993, when most of this business thought of latex as an ingredient in house paint. At that time I declared that I would never work for any company or on any production that would not allow performers who wanted the right to use condoms to do so. I have never wavered a millimeter from that position and I never will. One reason I endured a decade of bureaucratic bullshit from Adam&Eve is their condom-friendly policy. I am absolutely not against performers using condoms whenever, wherever and with whomever THEY choose. I’ve got miles of footage to prove it. And BTW, I’ve recently been confronted with earlier statements in which I rejected the contention that condom porn is unsellable when, in fact, I’ve sold literally millions of dollars worth of it and still believe, as I did when I said as much to the odious Luke Ford, that condoms are nothing more than a creative challenge for good directors and not a menace to the bottom line outside of certain particularly hardcore genres.  But they are a menace to some performers, particularly female performers, as Nina has explained in her own widely quoted explanation of why she, like me, favors a condom-optional policy depending on who does what to whom and how they feel most safe doing it.

Let’s be serious here. In order for that position to be ethical, it’s necessary for performers to have such a choice unconditionally. In the same way I’m opposed to AHF, Cal-OSHA and any members of the porn community attempting to make condom use mandatory under threat of either legal sanction or economic hardship, I’m unalterably opposed to any producer or director refusing to allow performers to use condoms or doing so only after a lot of whining and then scratching the condom performer from the list of potential future hires. The choice to use condoms must be meaningful for all performers. If there is to be an industry-wide position on condom use, and eventually I suspect one will emerge, it must be one of complete acceptance of performer choice regardless of all other considerations. The choice to use or not use them must not subject the performer to economic discrimination on future productions. Nothing less can be justified if we care to preserve the credibility of our oft-repeated insistence that performers do what they do with full consent. Full consent means consent to every act they’re asked to perform and to the use of barrier protections in addition to continued universal STD testing if they so desire. 

In 1993, I favored mandatory condom use for all because we did not have effective, quick-response testing of the type we have now and understood that those performers who wanted to use condoms would be kicked out of the business unless condom use were made a universal standard. It’s not 1993 now. We do have amazingly accurate testing available to all and have proven over a dozen years, during which the het side of this industry has still seen exactly two documented instances of on-set HIV transmission in the shooting of tens of thousands of bareback sex scenes, that screening and partner tracing have reduced the danger of the most serious STD transmissions in the workplace to a vanishingly rare phenomenon. At this point I’m perfectly comfortable shooting tested performers with or without condoms, but I’m not the one in front of the camera and I’m not the one who should be making that call for those whose bodies are on the line. No one else should either. I don’t care who seeks to do this or toward what end. It’s an invasive, infantilizing affront to the intelligence and judgment of consenting adults, and consenting adults are who work in front of the cameras in porn, full stop. I do not presume to know better than they do what they need, but I can tell you with absolute certainty what they don’t need, which is anyone else telling them how to do their jobs safely under threat of whatever consequences said somebody can impose.

This industry needs to accept condom use and get over it. Those both inside and outside the industry must accept that condom use is the performer’s business only and get over it also.

I hope this dispels any misunderstanding of where I stand on this question and though I know it won’t silence all the lies and distortions surrounding that stand, I am nonetheless clearly on the record as having taken it, acted on it and pledged to continue to do so regardless of what anyone else says or thinks about it. Clear enough for the various low-information individuals who have attempted to misrepresent it in every way possible? I hope so but I’m not optimistic. Neither am I optimistic that the majority of production companies, who have sought to defend themselves against the threat of intrusive governmental regulation by insisting that they support performer choice as an alternative, will actually follow through on making their claim credible by their actions on the set. Nevertheless, they should and if they don’t they’ll eventually end up regretting it.

It is a medical fact that STDs exist in the population as a whole. It is a medical fact that porn performers, however thoroughly tested and closely monitored, possess no special immunity to these diseases. There have been instances of STD contagion, usually of the more minor sort, in porn production and there will be more in the future no matter what measures are taken. No protection is foolproof. Testing is not foolproof. Condoms are not foolproof. Even combining the two is not foolproof, as not all STDs are transmitted in the same way. Unless this industry cares to be subjected to the kinds of irresponsible, politically driven attacks that occur every time someone catches a cold on a set that have become commonplace, the nudge-nudge-wink-wink approach to the condom option must be replaced by meaningful performer choice, or the idea of performer choice is, in fact, just exactly the meaningless dodge porn’s critics allege. The FSC’s insistence on performer choice is only defensible where performer choice exists.

Now, that’s my position and I’m sticking to it, so those who insist that it’s something else are hereby cordially invited to sit down and STFU.  I do not believe that condoms are necessary for safe porn production thanks to the testing system and I don’t believe the majority of performers want to use them for all the reasons they’ve stated. However, those who do want to use them should be able to without losing work or taking crap over it from anyone. Likewise those who choose not to should suffer no repercussions from members of any opposing camps.

And while I’m defending real performer choice, I want to make it clear that I am not backing away from my objections to directors appointing themselves in loco parentis to make decisions of the most personal nature for consenting adult sex workers. I note that director Nica Noelle has fallen in line behind Tristan Taormino in insisting that her performers use condoms whether they want to or not, also in the full knowledge that these same performers will be working bareback on some other set the next day so they are really made no safer overall by such unilateral decrees in such limited circumstances. I find these heartfelt declarations no less self-serving and hypocritical regardless of the source and still find them mendacious and cynical given that such limited policies are unlikely to protect anyone to any significant extent.

Likewise I find Axel Braun’s declaration that he will use no performers under the age of 21 in his productions to be risible. Again, seemingly operating under the assumption that performers can’t be trusted with their own futures, he declares that 18-year-olds are not in a position to weigh the long-term consequences of performing in porn, an ability they will magically acquire in the following three years. This is utter nonsense. At eighteen, anyone is free to enlist in the any branch of the U.S. military, the long-term consequences of which can include maiming and death. At eighteen anyone can work in any of the ten most dangerous trades listed by The Bureau of Labor Statistics, which remain the following:

 1. Fishing

2. Logging

3. Aircraft piloting

4. Refuse and recyclable material collection

5. Roofing

6. Structural iron and steel work

7. Construction

8. Farming

9. Truck driving

10. Mining

Workers under twenty-one have been injured or killed in every one of these occupations but no one seriously suggests that they be barred from entering them until they (presumably) have their wits about them at age 21. In porn, like it or not, economic advantages accrue to early adopters. For many performers their best earning years will 18-24. Why should they be deprived of the opportunity to make the most they can out of their time here by artificially handicapping them from pursuing their ambitions starting at the same age as someone enlisting for military service or shipping out on a fishing boat? This kind of thing may make it easier for directors to don the laurels of nobility, but it accomplishes nothing of value for performers whatsoever.

 Young performers would be better served by full disclosure of the possible repercussions of their decisions going in. I doubt that Marine recruiters take 18-year-old prospects on tours of V.A. hospitals, but perhaps they should. I doubt most agents, producers and directors take new talent to a sit-down with Gauge, who retired from porn early, educated herself for three different trades and found herself excluded from those trades when her past porn activities became known.  Perhaps they should. But realistically, the most serious long-term hazard porn performers face is the lasting stigma attached to them by people who regard porn as vile and that hazard can only be mitigated by broad social change.  I see that change as no more likely than a reduction of the far greater dangers of military service by a universal rejection of war as an instrument of policy.

Young people facing hard choices in a time of declining economic mobility will not be able to avoid those choices no matter who presumes to “protect” them by interfering with their ability to make a living. That is a reality with which performers, producers, directors and politically-motivated outsiders must learn to cope. I wish the world were a gentler place that provided safe, well-compensated employment to all, but it never has been and will never be.

This does not acquit anyone of the decent responsibility to insist on reasonable standards of protection and realistic minimum ages for participation in fields having the potential to make life difficult later. But in the end, if there is to be this thing we call individual freedom, individuals must be free to make decisions they may later regret. The best thing we can do is provide them with the most complete knowledge at our disposal of what future costs they may incur as a result of making their own decisions and then getting the fuck out of the way and letting them make those decisions. They’re the ones who will have to live with them and the hard choices rightfully belong only to them.