Porn Panic 2011 -- The Series Continues: AHF Ratches Up The BS Propaganda Machine To Full Blast, Calls For Federal Investigation of Brazzers And Dings FSC/APHSS For "Stonewalling"

Oh, but Mike Weinstein's through fooling around now...he's getting real serious.

Get a load of this press release AHF just posted to Business Wire.com this afternoon. If only President Obama could be this aggessive.

HIV Porn Case: AHF to File Complaints with Federal & FL Health Officials against Producers

LOS ANGELES, Aug 31, 2011 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- --AHF officials will submit a health and safety complaint under Florida 'Sanitary Nuisance' statutes against Brazzers, the production company involved in the latest HIV case in the adult film industry; industry sources say male performer involved had worked directly with as many as a dozen female performers

--Group also will call on the Free Speech Coalition to "stop obstructing the investigation in Los Angeles County and provide necessary information to health authorities" and will call on Los Angeles City officials to suspend all new film permits for adult films

Never mind that there hasn't even been a verification of even ONE performer testing positive for HIV, or the fact that the producer involved with the alleged "Patient Zero" has formally and publically denied that he had allowed that performer to do the shoot off a positive-confirmed test (the director said that in fact, the test was negative), and that no confirmation of any other performer being infected has been found or even any first- or second-generation confirmation tests done. When there's propaganda to be done, the truth is a natural distraction.

Actually, for AHF, the truth is more like a roll of Charmin tissue. To wit:

In response to the latest reported HIV case in the adult film industry--thought to be the 23rd industry-related HIV case since 2004--AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) will host a press teleconference today, Wednesday, August 31st at 2:00 PM Pacific Time to announce the filing of a 'sanitary nuisance' health complaint with the Florida Department of Health and a similar letter of complaint with federal OSHA officials against Brazzers, the Florida-based adult film production company widely reported as the company where the infected performer was employed. Industry sources say the male performer involved had worked directly--and without condoms--with as many as a dozen female performers.

Ahh...let's count the lies, shall we??

First, you have the old and tired "23 performers contracting HIV in porn since 2004" meme....which seems quite drastic. Seems, that is....until you go "inside the numbers" and find out that only 4 of those cases involved :straight" heterosexual porn performers, and NONE of them were infected directly on set. (And the only questionable one, Derrick Burts of last year, even publically stated that he was infected in a gay scene...which included a condom.) 4 were private citizens using the services of then AIM for their own purposes, and  the remainders were gay male porn performers...where a fundamentally different system of less testing (and CONDOMS, TOO!!!!) was being used. Even the LA Times, who is mostly sympathetic to the condom mandate cause, was smart enough to retract that stat...but Weinstein never let such things get in his way before, now hasn't he??

And then there is the "male performer working without condoms" libel...as if it's Brazzers' fault that the performer, if he did in fact get infected, was able to continue to shoot scenes with women. Remember that the performer was working off a negative test, albeit one that wasn't from a testing facility that had gotten under the umbrella of the Free Speech Coalition's APHSS program because the latter has only gotten started this past month.

Of course, the reason why APHSS was needed in the first place was because the older regimen that had been put in place by the earlier group AIM was shattered when AIM was put out of business...largely thanks to the hard work of AHF and  Cal/OSHA's nuisance suits against them. Gee..ya think that would turn out well, Mike??

"When will it end? This is yet another suspected case of HIV infection in the adult film industry. Given the wide reports, and given that Brazzers affirmatively states they do not use condoms--a violation of both state and federal health statutes--it makes sense to investigate them in the hopes of putting an end to further infections," said Michael Weinstein, president of AIDS Healthcare Foundation. "We are filing these complaints with Florida health officials and federal OSHA officials to prompt industry compliance with employee health and safety regulations and to spur proper and thorough public health investigations of this reported incident. In addition, we are calling on the Free Speech Coalition, the adult industry-sponsored advocacy group, to stop obstructing the investigation of this incident in Los Angeles County and provide all of the necessary information to public health authorities. FSC is an advocacy group, they are not authorized to do these health investigations, and they are not qualified. The pattern of non-cooperation that has characterized the industry and led to the current situation is continuing. It is the responsibility of Los Angeles County, which has not issued any statement to this point, to demand cooperation from the adult industry. Even though the initial exposure took place in Florida, the shutdown in LA constitutes a major public health event under the law. We are also reaffirming our call on the City of Los Angeles to stop issuing new permits."

Excuse me a moment while I go through this laughing spasm.

Wait..there are FEDERAL health statutes out there that require all porn performers to use condoms??  Really, Mike?? So, what about all those damn bareback gay videos that you were selling in your Florida thrift stores recently?? Are you going to be filing federal and state complaints against those companies, too??

And this attempt at intimidating the FSC?? WOW. For an organization who has the full colluding support of the LA County health officials and Cal/OSHA, and who was able to bribe...errrrrrrrrrrrr, persuade four LA city councilmen to attempt to browbeat the LA City Attorney to force the LA film board to cancel all porn film permits until they go condom only, AND when stoned by the Attorney himself,  go over his head to the California Supreme Court to get their way, to attempt to smack down FSC for "stonewalling", is chutzpah to the extreme. But to call FSC an "advocacy group" and "not qualified", and to turn the voluntary step of suspending production until all the testing is done as a "major public health event" and call for the total abolishment?? These jackals are making the words "hypocrisy"  and "projection" into the understatements of the millenium...and we haven't even gotten through the second decade yet!!!

Oh, and unless Weinstein is pulling laws out of his ass as usual, I want anyone reading this to look deep into the Florida legal code and cite for me any sort of regulations where sites like Brazzers (or other home grown adult websites based in Florida) are mandated to use condoms for all of their scenes.

And also...someone please remind Mikey that organizations in California cannot be held resposible for acts of unrelated companies in Florida??

It should also be noted that none of the female performers who would potentially be affected have shot any content in California, and that the moratorium for all porn production is a voluntary preventative measure designed to protect everyone from accidental exposure while the whole situation is sorted out.  Of course, the reason Weinstein wants to make it permanent is to totally break the industry so that AHF and Cal/OSHA can take over and impose his favored condom mandate plus pre-1994 testing regime...the very regime that led to umpteempt outbreaks in the past, when performers could buy and rig tests like derivatives.

One last thing, Mikey: THERE IS NO LOS ANGELES COUNTY INVESTIGATION ONGOING, BECAUSE THIS IS STRICTLY A FLORIDA SITUATION. You might want to recheck your sources on that one.

The Free Speech Coalition (FSC)--which has fiercely opposed condom use in adult films--reported over the weekend that yet another adult film performer has tested HIV positive, and as a result, the industry group itself called for a moratorium on all adult film production, "...until possible first and second-generation exposures have been identified." Sources within the adult industry also said the performer is thought to be a male and had worked directly with as many as a dozen female performers, who in turn worked with scores of other performers.

The most direct response to this particular Big Dam Lie is in two words: BULL. SHIT.

The more stacid response, though, is to simply point out that nowhere does FSC or APHSS ever call for an end to condom usage, nor do they even come close to advocating that performers who choose to use or wish their shooting partners to use condoms should be in any way discriminated against or or ostracized. They simply oppose having condom usage imposed by government fiat.

And notice the trend towards quoting unnamed "industry sources" to support Weinstein's whopping mischaracterization of both the alleged performer and his partners...as if all of them are nothing more than stupid promiscuous sluts who are incapable of protecting themselves. Until the test results come in, he knows exactly what the rest of us know: not a Goddess-damn thing.

Weinstein then goes on to pimp the LA condom mandate ordinance, which has already been debunked here before, so I won't bore you with that.

But after that, it actually gets interesting. Here's what AHF has in store for Brazzers locally:

'Sanitary Nuisance' Complaints in Florida

Unlike California or the federal government, the State of Florida does not have a specifically designated occupational safety and health division. However, there is a "sanitary nuisance" law in the Florida Statutes. AHF believes that unprotected sex in a commercial setting should, arguably, fall under the definition of a "sanitary nuisance," since Florida law defines it as "any act" that may cause disease.

386.01 Sanitary nuisance.--A sanitary nuisance is the commission of any act, by an individual, municipality, organization, or corporation, or the keeping, maintaining, propagation, existence, or permission of anything, by an individual, municipality, organization, or corporation, by which the health or life of an individual, or the health or lives of individuals, may be threatened or impaired, or by which or through which, directly or indirectly, disease may be caused.

386.02 Duty of Department of Health.--The Department of Health, upon request of the proper authorities, or of any three responsible resident citizens, or whenever it may seem necessary to the department, shall investigate the sanitary condition of any city, town, or place in the state; and if, upon examination, the department shall ascertain the existence of any sanitary nuisance as herein defined, it shall serve notice upon the proper party or parties to remove or abate the said nuisance or, if necessary, proceed to remove or abate the said nuisance in the manner provided in s. 823.01.

As such, three "responsible resident citizens" will file complaints with the Florida Department of Health asking them to investigate a sanitary nuisance--unprotected sex taking place on adult film productions in the state.

There is also a Miami-Dade County "sanitary nuisance" law as well (Miami-Dade County Municipal Ordinances Chapter 26A). It uses a similar definition of "sanitary nuisance" as the state law, and it provides for the Director of the Dade County Department of Public Health to investigate nuisances.

So, in effect, Michael Weinstein is going to pay off three "responsible resident citizens" of Miami/South Beach to file a complaint with the state and local departments of health asking them to investigate and potentially shut down Brazzers as a "sanitary nusiance" for....allowing for sex acts without the use of a condom???

Now...such "sanitary nuisance" regs are nomally used against those whom explicitly handle food (such as restaurants or diners) hazardous chemicals or forms of hazardous waste, or whom get close to any form of bodily fluids or internal human organs (such as medical professionals, morticians, and the like). I'm pretty damn sure that it has never been used against porn sites...but there's a first for anything.

But here's the really ironic point: for someone who says that he cares deeply about the well being and safety of porn performers so much, he's sure giving those who don't share his concern and who would much prefer the industry to be drop-kicked into either jail cells or simple nonexistence a really big hammer to sling against any and all adult sites. Imagine the Christian Right getting three like-minded citizens to file local nuisance charges against any woman running a porn site out of her home, for example. Hell, imagine Polk County Sheriff and antiporn zealout Grant Judd using that same hammer to shut down even anyone with a computer LOOKING at porn. Be careful of what you ask for, Michael, because you just might get it.

But then again, I'm guessing that since Governor Rick Scott has so shredded Florida state government as to render it unable to fulfill Weinstein's requests, and that the Miami-Dade officials have far more struggles and concerns on their hand than wet-nursing a false porn panic, he will simply do as he has done so well in Cali: exploit this to the fullest extent to shake people down for lots and lots of money for his coffers, to be shared with both the condom manufacturers who finance AHF and the crossover gay male performers -- some of whom may even be HIV+ -- that he is protecting and covering for.

Which means..this won't be the last propaganda presser we'll get from him.

I just wonder how long it will be for Florida to read him properly and give him the boot.

BREAKING: Once Again, Into The Breach We Go: ANOTHER HIV Porn Scare???

[Updated below....scroll to bottom.]

This is what you call really, really bad timing.

FSC Asks for Porn Moratorium After Possible HIV Exposure

CANOGA PARK, Calif. — Adult industry trade group Free Speech Coalition has asked for an industry-wide moratorium on porn production after reports indicate that an active performer may have tested positive for HIV.


The FSC, as well as its performer testing unit, Adult Production Health & Safety Services Program (APHSS.org), said that a moratorium be "instituted immediately and continued for a time period until the primary reports are confirmed."


The moratorium would continue until possible first and second-generation exposures have been identified. A quarantine could be extended after that point, if necessary.


The FSC said it was made aware of a "purported incident" on Saturday by a "reliable" industry source.


"According to the information that is available, the performer in question may have tested positive for HIV at a testing facility that does not appear to have protocols or procedures in place for medical follow-up (including generational testing) ," the FSC said in a statement.


The FSC said that it wanted to  make clear that these reports were not involving APHSS.org testing facilities and that it can't deny nor confirm specific facts about the incident.


"Our first priority is to protect performers with reliable health services and assist producers with protocols that minimize liability, while remaining compliant with state and federal regulations regarding medical privacy," the FSC said.

In short, it appears that in the transition between the closure of AIM-ORG (the old testing center) and the establishment of APHSS,  fly-by-night organizations have been going around offering testing without the kind of follow-up for treatment or verification that AIM had in place, and what APHSS now does have.

This couldn't have come at a worse time, too, since I'm sure that the usual suspects (Shelley Lubben, Mike Weinstein, et. al.) are already preparing the press conferences to say that this proves once and for all that the testing system is a failure and only condoms are the true answer. Not to mention, this gives them pretty much the ammo they need to fuel their proposed ordinace to force the condom mandate.

But, that's a worry for later. The main thing right now is to offer comfort and protection to the infected performer, investigate and contain this outbreak (if it is confirmed), let the procedures run their course, and hope that nobody else is affected.

And, it's a damn good reason for performers to join APHSS and know and follow their protocols for testing. At least they reacted decisively and rapidly to contain this threat.


Addedum: Like I said,the Free Speech Coalition and APHSS wastes no time.  Here's some snippage from their official press release that was just posted to the AINews.com site just a few minutes ago.

(CANOGA PARK, CA) -- Free Speech Coalition (FSC), as administrators of the Adult Production Health & Safety Services Program (APHSS.org), would like to address recent reports that an active performer may have tested positive for HIV.

FSC was made aware of the purported incident on Saturday by a reliable industry source. Most importantly, FSC would like to make clear that these reports were not involving APHSS.org testing facilities. This fact has limited the information gathered by FSC/APHSS.org and we can neither deny nor confirm specific facts about this incident. Due to legal issues concerning patient privacy, FSC/APHSS.org, as of yet, is unable to implement exposure protocols and procedures.

It is the recommendation of FSC/APHSS.org that an industry-wide moratorium on production be instituted immediately and continued for a time period until the primary reports are confirmed, and possible first and second-generation exposures have been identified. The quarantine can be extended after that point, if necessary.

According to the information that is available, the performer in question may have tested positive for HIV at a testing facility that does not appear to have protocols or procedures in place for medical follow-up (including generational testing).

However, FSC/APHSS.org cannot act on the behalf of any testing facilities outside the APHSS.org system until we are requested to do so by the performer or any medical advisor authorized by the performer. Again, we have been in contact with concerned parties and have offered to assist them in anyway possible, while still remaining compliant with the performer’s wishes for assistance, in respect to legal constraints that require that the performer’s privacy be protected, as well as other compliance issues.

In addition to the moratorium on production, FSC/APHSS.org also recommends that active performers who are concerned about possible exposure (or that would like to take extra precautions to confirm their own well-being) consider being tested as soon as possible.

FSC/APHSS.org also recommends that industry members avoid spreading unverified information until the involved parties are able to confirm developments, or until information is received from an appropriate medical authority.

We are committed to assisting any industry members that have concerns involving this incident; if you have questions, please contact diane@freespeechcoalition.com or joanne@freespeechcoalition.com. But because this situation has occurred outside of the APHSS.org database program, we are limited in any available information until we are informed of any details or allowed to assist in implementing industry protocols.

Obviously, we'll keep you informed here if anything else breaks.

Porn Panic 2011 Supplemental: XBiz Reports On The FSC's Reaction To AHF's Proposed Condom Mandate Ordinance Drive

Don't ever accuse the Free Speech Coalition of not having a rapid response team to events involving the porn industry.

Here's their official response to today's news of AHF's announcement of their drive for an initiative for the condom mandate, as reported today by XBiz.com.

FSC Executive Director Diane Duke said that the Department of Public Health has already stated in response to a lawsuit filed by AHF that it doesn't see a compelling public interest to require the use of condoms in adult productions.

"Clearly AHF has an anti-adult industry agenda and like its previous frivolous lawsuits, erroneous charges with Cal/OSHA, multiple press conferences and protests, I suspect that this is the next step in AHF’s attempt to stay relevant," Duke said.

"Clearly their efforts and financial resources would be much better served in the prevention and treatment of HIV rather than continuing its witch hunt of the adult entertainment industry."

The FSC also said that it will cost taxpayers thousands of dollars to sort out what the City Attorney has already called a "non-issue."

"It's an absurd attempt at grandstanding by AHF and its president Michael Weinstein," said Joanne Cachapero, FSC's membership director. "A judge has already ruled against AHF's attempt to force the city to enforce mandatory condoms, stating that the city cannot be compelled to enforce regulations that fall under the authority of a state agency like Cal/OSHA.

"What a huge waste of resources for the people of California and for AHF's contributors, while Weinstein carries on a campaign of misinformation."

The FSC also said that the performers who appeared at today's press conference do not represent the population in the adult industry and claims that they contracted HIV or other diseases while working on adult productions are "unfounded."

"The data that AHF presents to the media has been debunked as inaccurate and is the result of methodology that has no basis in science," Cachapero said.

"There is no public health threat or epidemic, as Weinstein likes to portray. The adult production industry has been very successful at protecting performers' health and safety ever since the first incidence of HIV infection in 1998, and we continue to be a model for STI testing.

"The only logical reason that AHF would continue its campaign must be to bring attention to their own pro-condom agenda," Cachapero said.

Porn Panic 2011 Redux: FSC Unleashes APHSS System For Testing, Protection Of Porn Performers; But AHF/Cal-OSHA Continue Condom Mandate Plans Anyway (UPDATED)

Updated below....scroll to bottom.

It's been a while since I last updated you on the Porn Protection Wars....so here's here's the latest.

First, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, not completely satisfied with its efforts with Cal-OSHA to impose the condom mandate through workplace regulations, decided to attempt to strike at another angle from which it had been supposedly denied: the use of leveraging approval film permits for shooting porn scenes by the local Los Angeles Film Board.

You will recall that that particular body had been compelled via a request from the LA City Council to report on whether the board could force the condom mandate as a requirement for the Film Board's approval to shoot porn scenes in Los Angeles County and the incorporated citiy of LA. The LA County Attorney's office had filed a report concluding that the film board didn't have that authority.

Well...you know that Michael Weinstein, the head of AHF, is not too well known for taking defeat with grace and gratitude... so, it's not surprising that he would seek a second opinion on the matter. And glory be, he seems to think he's found one...from none other than his colluding associates at the LA County Department of Public Health Cal-OSHA, which has been the OTHER agency attempting to push the condom mandate on the industry in LA.

Here's some snippage from the press release from AHF, as reposted to LukeIsBack.com:

Opinion by Cal OSHA legal counsel contradicts Los Angeles City Attorney’s March 2011 report claiming the City does not have authority to condition issuance of adult film permits to condom use

In its evaluation, Cal OSHA counsel noted, “…State law does not preempt such action by the City because the City does not seek to enact an occupational health and safety standard but rather a public health standard applicable to any film activity (regardless of employment) within the city boundaries.”

LOS ANGELES–(BUSINESS WIRE)–In response to a push by AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) to compel the City of Los Angeles to tie the issuance of its adult film permits to condom use in adult film productions, a recent opinion letter by Cal/OSHA’s (California’s Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health) legal counsel sharply contradicts a March 2011 report in which the Los Angeles City Attorney’s office claimed it did not have the authority to condition issuance of adult film permits to condom use.

“Presently it (Cal OSHA) mandates that all employees exposed to blood borne pathogens wear protective barriers, which includes the use of condoms. CAL-OSHA has been responsive to complaints and has several open investigations, including production companies affiliated with Larry Flynt Publications and Playboy.”
In the initial City report, dated March 22, 2011 titled, “Mechanisms Necessary to Enable the City’s Film Permit Process to Require Workplace Safety in the Production of All Adult Films,’ Kimberly Miera, Deputy City Attorney, City of Los Angeles, on behalf of City Attorney Carmen A. Trutanich, wrote:

“It is the opinion of this Office (City Attorney, City of Los Angeles) that the current permit language covers the use of condoms on all permitted adult film sets to the extent that the City may legally do so. Based on the current permit language, along with the jurisdictional concerns in regulating workplace safety issues, our Office recommends the permit language remains unchanged and this report be noted and filed.”

However, in a researched opinion letter dated July 20th titled, ‘Position of the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Concerning Possible Conditions on the City’s Film Permits Issued to Adult Film Producers,’ written in response to the City Attorney’s March report and addressed and sent to ‘the Honorable City Council, City of Los Angeles,’ James D. Clark, Staff Counsel for California’s Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health, Legal Unit, Southern California, wrote:

“It is the Division’s (of Occupational Safety and Health) position that State law does not preempt such action by the City because the City does not seek to enact an occupational health and safety standard but rather a public health standard applicable to any film activity (regardless of employment relationship) within the City boundaries.

“Cal OSHA and Mr. Clark have provided a very clear and compelling case as to why the City of Los Angeles can condition the issuing of film permits to adult film producers based upon compliance with condom use in their film productions, as currently required under state statute,” said Michael Weinstein, President of AIDS Healthcare Foundation. “Ordinarily, state agencies are given deference by cities and local bodies in situations such as this, and we ask the Los Angeles City Council to do so in this matter in order to better protect workers and performers working in the adult film industry here in Los Angeles.”


In her March report to City Council, Deputy City Attorney Miera also confirmed that condom use in adult film production in the state is required, writing,

“Presently it (Cal OSHA) mandates that all employees exposed to blood borne pathogens wear protective barriers, which includes the use of condoms. CAL-OSHA has been responsive to complaints and has several open investigations, including production companies affiliated with Larry Flynt Publications and Playboy.”

 The latter refers to a case that was filed against Larry Flynt Productions and Playboy on behalf of AHF, which resulted in fines imposed on the two companies for allegedly not using the proper protective measures for their performers.

Of course, the problem with all this is that the LA County Attorney's opinion is the word of law, while Cal-OSHA's and AHF's opinions are just subjective....and I'm just wondering whether or not AHF is willing to risk a legal challenge to the local office just to force the condom mandate on the Film Board. Or, are they simply awaiting the final appeal on that other case involving the LA County Department of Public Health's supposed lack of fervor in forcing condoms down performers' throats??

AVN.com columnist Mark Kernes found some other flaws in AHF's arguments, too.

Of course, AHF focused on Clark's stated "conclusion": "It is the Division's position that State law does not preempt such action by the City [in requiring condoms, etc.] because the City does not seek to enact an occupational health and safety standard but rather a public health standard applicable to any film activity (regardless of employment realtionship) within the City boundaries."

But indeed, Clark makes it clear that Cal/OSHA only has power of employer/employee situations—an issue that has been hotly contested before the Cal/OSHA Standards Board's subcommittee on performer health which has held several meetings over the past year.

"The Division has jurisdiction over 'places of employment,'" Clark wrote. "It has no jurisdiction unless an employer-employee relationship exists. ... The Labor Code and Title 8 CCR also set forth the means by which the Division is to exercise its authority to assure employee safety. The system for asserting its authority is, generally, by issuing citations that include administrative penalties for violating one or more of the Title's workplace safety standards."

Indeed, that's something CalOSHA has done a dozen times to adult producers since 2004, though four of those cases (including one against AIM) remain under appeal.

But according to Clark, nothing in CalOSHA's regulations prohibit the city from dealing with what it may perceive as violations of occupational health and safety regulations.

"It is clear that the only matter that the Legislature has put in the hands solely of the Division is the 'enforcement of occupational safety and health standards adopted by the [Standards] [B]oard'," Clark stated. "By clear implication, localities may adopt and enforce their own standards as long as that adoption is within the localities' police powers. This is true even if the local standards could be construed as 'occupational safety and health standards.'"

AHF, of course, was overjoyed with Clark's opinion—even as it continues to repeat misinformation about the infection rates and number of infectees in the industry.

"Cal/OSHA and Mr. Clark have provided a very clear and compelling case as to why the City of Los Angeles can condition the issuing of film permits to adult film producers based upon compliance with condom use in their film productions, as currently required under state statute," said AHF president Michael Weinstein said in a press release. "Ordinarily, state agencies are given deference by cities and local bodies in situations such as this, and we ask the Los Angeles City Council to do so in this matter in order to better protect workers and performers working in the adult film industry here in Los Angeles."

However, as things stand now, FilmL.A.'s website gives no indication that permits are conditioned upon complying with any particular laws or regulations. It merely requires that the company obtain liability insurance, which may be increased if the action being filmed includes "exceptional activities"—but having sex on camera isn't one of them. The permitting process also includes the possibility that a FilmLA Monitor may be assigned to the production "in areas that have Special Filming Conditions in place," which are generally "many of the most popularly filmed neighborhoods in Los Angeles."

The next two graphs by Kernes spell out the real risks in AHF's actions.

But what many may not remember is that adult companies have been applying for and receiving filming permits for less than 20 years. Prior to that, the usual practice was for the cast and crew to meet up at an agreed-upon location, then caravan to wherever the movie was to be shot, often in some out-of-the-way, little-traveled place where they would be unlikely to be observed.

If the LA City Council, the LADPH and/or FilmL.A. makes it impossible for adult producers to make movies that will sell—i.e., through rules that require condoms, dental dams, rubber gloves and face shields for all sexual acts—the possibility exists that many of the companies will go back to the "old way" doing doing things—and few in the industry want that to happen, since to do so would likely even further compromise the health and safety of the very performers AHF claims it wants to protect.

 Another way in which good intentions unfettered by common sense lead to bad outcomes.

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

On the other hand, the other news couldn't come at a better time for performers waiting for a replacement to the system that AIM had in place. The Free Speech Coalition last week finally unveiled their highly vaunted performer testing and health information system for performers and producers alike.

The program is called APHSS, for Adult Performer Health and Safety Services, and it includes not only a secure database that would protect sensitive information about performers without dealing with medical data, but would also provide comprehensive STI testing through various vendors (or through personal doctors) at a yearly fee that would be affordable to all.

Joanne Cachapero, Membership Director over at the FSC, gave a brief description of how the APHSS system and database would work, and how it improves on the pioneering work of AIM.

Performers, agents and producers can go to www.APHSS.org and click “sign-up” to be led through a simple registration process. Other information that is available at the website includes links to testing facilities, FAQs and contact information. Users are encouraged to view the FAQs on the website.
As with any new system, users should be aware of small glitches. When signing up, users should receive a confirmation email, but some have indicated that the emails went to their spam folders; please, check there if you sign-up and don’t receive an email. For any questions or if you need assistance in accessing your account, please contact [email address redacted to protect privacy].

“We’re starting from scratch with this database so we really need the support of performers and producers to get signed up. We already have the support of major industry producers including Wicked, Vivid, Hustler, Adam & Eve, Kink.com, Girlfriends Films, Pink Visual and Manwin producers, and we appreciate their recognition of the need for this resource. We will be working closely with the LATATA Organization and industry talent agents, to make sure to have their input for the program. We also want people to know they can contact us if they need assistance with any issues.

“Once we have the database populated, and as performers use APHSS.org testing facilities, data will be updated and users will be able to verify work availability on the site; this will take some amount of time, before the database is populated with information, as people start to use it. If anyone encounters any questions or issues, they can contact me directly. We also will have a Twitter feed @YourAPHSS,” Cachapero explained.

For two months, APHSS.org will be accessible free-of-charge, in order to give users a chance to get used to the new format and for the database to become fully populated. After the initial period is over, performers will be charged an yearly fee of $50, and producers will be charged monthly, to use the database. Funds from those fees will go to expenses for APHSS program and website operations. Eventually, APHSS.org also will add educational resources for users, to keep industry members up-to-date on health & safety-related information.

While some have questioned the safety of the database and whether or not sensitive medical information will or won't be included, Ms. Cachapero has assured everyone that medical data will NOT be included in the database at all, and that other steps will be taken to insure the security of the information that will be included, so that no Donny Long/Pornwikileaks shenanigans ever happen again.

In addition, APHSS has announced the formation of its advisory committee who will oversee and monitor the operations of the system and database, with representation from performers and producers alike. As this article posted at FSC's blog shows, they include some heavyweight names indeed.

The performer representatives are Jessica Drake, Bobbi Starr, Danny Wylde and Steve Cruz. Producer representatives are Dan O’Connell (Girlfriends Films) and Steven Scarborough (Hot House Entertainment). Performer Nina Hartley will serve as Educational Advisor, and attorney Karen Tynan has been appointed as Legal Advisor.

The appointees have agreed to a six-month term, as the APHSS.org program is launched and in its initial stages. The responsibilities of committee members are to provide insight and feedback on policies and operation of the APHSS.org. They also will help develop resources for the program to benefit performers and producers.

And, the organization has been hard at work informing the public as well. ABC's Good Morning America website on Thursday featured a surprisingly balanced and non-panicky (at least, for ABC) article on the formation of APHSS, quoting freely from many representatives (and the prerequisite contrary opposition from Mike Weinstein of AHF, of course)  Nina's contribution to the article is worth snipping:

For Nina Hartley, condoms make on-set sex uncomfortable and, she argues, more dangerous. But off-set it's a different story.

"I would say it's different in a civilian population," said Hartley, a performer of 27 years with a degree in nursing. "But public health is not served by forcing a small group of professionals to use condoms instead of being tested."

To those who say pornography without condoms promotes unsafe sex, Hartley has strong words.

"It's not the job of adult entertainers to be educating people about safe sex practices," she said, adding that the "ignorance-based abstinence-only model of sexual education" does little to promote safe sex either.

"People say cartoons promote bad behavior, and Hollywood movies promote unsafe driving. But this is pure entertainment," said Hartley. "We don't ask other entertainers in our culture to slip in the vegetables of education."

Still want that debate, Ministress Lubben??  And how about thou, Gail??


Update (8-12-11): Well now, that didn't take long, didn't it?? APHSS legal council Karen Tynan decided to launch a Scud missile of her own towards Cal-OSHA and the AHF's attempts to browbeat the LA City Council towards imposing the condom mandate via workplace regulations through the LACDPH. The weapon of choice?? An official legal-issue letter to LA  City Attorney Carmen Trutainch.

The letter, which can be read here (warning, pdf doc, needs Adobe Reader), clearly debunks the claims of AHF and Cal-OSHA in attempting to overrule establishment legal precedent and hand off their responsibilities over to the locals, while still attempting their other legal coups through the regulatory processes.

The synopsis of the letter that was posted to the FSC blog says it better than I ever could, so I will simply quote from it.

“When I saw that counsel for Cal/OSHA was advising the City of Los Angeles to jump into this issue, I was appalled,” said Tynan. “I don’t see Cal/OSHA writing to the city council of Bakersfield or Fresno imploring those cities to write regulations on heat illness to protect the field workers, so why is Cal/OSHA taking this position on condoms?  This is another glaring example of the politics, judgment, and discrimination that swirl around the condom issue.

“I certainly hope that the Los Angeles City Attorney and his staff attorneys can cut through the misinformation and propaganda that continues to pour forth from AHF and their allies,” Tynan added.

In the letter, Tynan states clearly that Cal/OSHA’s attempt to hand off regulatory enforcement to local agencies is unprecedented on a legal basis, allowing local agencies to enforce health & safety regulation without clear authority to do so.

Also, Tynan points out several conflicts of interest raised by the relationship between the Cal/OSHA and nonprofit HIV organization AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF), including evidence that shows that AHF has provided expert witnesses and its own physicians to give testimony in proceedings regarding adult industry health & safety, while adult industry stakeholders had limited opportunities to present testimony or counterpoints to the data provided by AHF.

FSC, as the adult industry trade association, commissioned a report from respected biostatistician Lawrence Mayer MD, MFA, PhD, debunking the methodology used to analyze the data presented by AHF and showing that statistics used by AHF are inaccurate. That report was entered into record at the most recent Cal/OSHA meeting regarding adult industry health & safety.

“Since 2009, FSC and industry stakeholders have been working cooperatively with Cal/OSHA to arrive at industry-appropriate regulations for health & safety, so we are surprised at the latest developments,” said FSC Membership/Communications Director Joanne Cachapero. “Frankly, it’s shocking that a state agency would take action allowing the issues to become further politicized. The letter from Cal/OSHA to the LA City Attorney seems to indicate bias. It appears as if Cal/OSHA has decided to align their actions with Aids Healthcare Foundation’s continuing anti-industry campaign to mandate condom use on adult production sets.”

"Appears"??? Really, Ms., Cachapero?? There's nothing "appears" about it...Cal/OSHA and the AHF have been 69'ing each other for the past 5 years attempting to impose the condom mandate in porn. They've perfected the art of "conflict of interest" the way Dick Cheney did with Haliburton during the Iraq War years.

Porn Panic 2011 Update: New Report Debunks AHF/LACDPH/Cal-OSHA Cooked -Up Stats On Performer STI Transmission Rates..But Will Even THAT Be Enough? (Updated)

Updated...scroll to bottom.

Well....the Cal-OSHA hearings on the condom mandate proposals is tomorrow, and I'm sure that there will be plenty of industry heavyweights out there to make the case against imposing the condom mandate.

Today, they got a nice new weapon at their disposal....in the form of a report that debunks the presentation of officials at Cal-OSHA, the LA County Department of Public Health, and the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) regarding  the rates of transmission of sexually transmitted infections (STI's) among performers.

The report's author, Dr. Lawrence S. Mayer, was asked to review a presentation done by LADPH clinicians Peter Kerndt and Robert Kim-Fairley, which contained detailed statistics on the STI transmission rates amongst porn performers as compared to rates amongst the general population.

One of the fundamental foundations for pushing the condom mandate is that porn performers are infected far more often than the general population is, and without the need for "barrier protections" such as condoms (and dental dams, and the use of personal protection equipment) during sex scenes, performers are literally risking their lives everytime they do a shoot "unprotected".

As Mark Kernes reports at AVN.com in analyzing Dr. Mayer's newly published report, such claims are, to say the least, severely overhyped and distorted...and outright cooked out of thin air.

Perhaps Dr. Mayer's most important finding is that the numbers put forth by the health department doctors for chlamydia and gonnorhea infections in both the adult performer population and the public at large are statistically invalid, and therefore their conclusions are, according to Dr. Mayer, "without basis in science," and that their "conclusions, analysis and advice in these three presentations should be discarded."

That's an incredibly important finding for the adult industry, since one of the main reasons put forth for requiring performers to use condoms, dental dams, rubber gloves, goggles and face shields for all forms of sexual (and even some non-sexual) contact in adult movies is that adult performers have higher infection rates of STDs than, say, the average Joe or Jane at the local nightclub.

The idea that adult performers are more sexually active and must bear the brunt of such "protection" in order to "mentor" the general population on "safer sex" is a key talking point of groups like AHF...never mind that it restates the current right-wing trope about how porn is an incubator for "disease" and merely carries it via porn to general society. And, never mind the fact that people are just as capable of being safe and sexually active and conscious of their own risks and safety all by themselves, without the need for PPE or LADPH jamming condoms and dental dams down their throats.

It is those cooked stats that Dr. Mayer basically refutes...mostly, by attacking the methodology of how performer infections are counted in LADPH's "research". I have added bolded emphasis to particular points.

Dr. Mayer begins his report by analyzing Dr. Kim-Farley's presentation at the first advisory committee meeting, STD/HIV Disease and Health Risks among Workers in the Adult Film Industry, where Dr. Kim-Farley estimated that there were between 2,000 and 3,000 performers involved in the industry between 2004 and 2008, the years which he used in his calculations, and that 3228 sexually-transmitted infections (STIs) of chlamydia or gonorrhea were reported to the LA County Public Health Department during that period. Dr. Mayer points out that Dr. Kim-Farley provides no basis for either his estimate of the size of the performer population, nor does he provide any explanation of how the data on the alleged number of infections was collected.

"This is poor science," Dr. Mayer concluded, "and inexcusable in epidemiology which can be characterized as the science of estimating risk from counts."

Among the flaws that Dr. Mayer found in Dr. Kim-Farley's presentation were that he provided "no information on turnover or longevity in this industry, the proportion of cases that were re‐infections, or multiple testing of performers," thereby calling Dr. Kim-Farley's claim that "one-fourth of all performers are diagnosed" with either or both of those diseases "unfounded and misleading."

Part of the problem in estimating infection rates is that it requires the statistician to divide the number of persons infected with the diseases (the "numerator") by the total number of people in the population under consideration (the "denominator"), and if either of those numbers is inaccurate, the result will also be inaccurate.

"It must be noted that his estimation of the prevalence is based on the false assumption that performers are never re‐infected nor re‐tested within any one year," Dr. Mayer states, regarding the figures provided in Slide 17 of Dr. Kim-Farley's Powerpoint presentation. "He could have estimated the rates of re‐infection and re‐testing and adjusted for both although it would lead to a less startling, albeit more accurate, result.  The oversight is particularly bothersome and misleading because the AFI performers are re‐tested as many as 12 times a year or more. It would be rare indeed for [a] randomly chosen member of the public to be tested so often."

In other words, Dr. Mayer says that Dr. Kim-Farley's statistics apparently don't take into account the fact that an infected performer may have been retested once or even twice before the infection has cleared his/her system, thus jacking up the statistics for that disease, and also that the vast majority of performers are tested on a monthly basis, whereas the overwhelming majority of Los Angeles residents aren't even tested once per year—in fact, many have never been tested—so that comparing the infection rates of those two populations is statistically invalid.

Or, to put it in layman's terms:

Porn performers are required to be tested once a month, and many others test even more than that, as a requirement of future employment, and because many who happen to get infected are retested to insure the STI is cleared before they resume shooting, that will artificially inflate the rates of infection for performers.

For the general public, though, testing is mostly voluntary, based on fear of infection, and most people who ultimately get infected don't even get tested at all, thusly undercounting the rates in the general population.

Whether that's a flaw in the methodology or a deliberate cooking of the books is something I will leave to you to decide.

Regarding the rates of particular STI;s such as chlamydia and gonnorhea amongst porn performers, Kernes reads Mayer's study thusly:

Dr. Mayer deals with the issue of the prevalence of STD infections in the AFI [adult film industry] population later in the report, noting that the CDC recommends calculating chlamydia positivity by "dividing the number of women testing positive for chlamydia (numerator) by the total number of women tested for chlamydia (denominator includes those with valid test results only and excludes unsatisfactory and indeterminate tests) and is expressed as a percentage. The denominator may contain multiple tests from the same individual if that person was tested more than once during the period for which screening data are reported. The numerator may also contain multiple positive test results from the same individual if that person tested positive more than once during the period for which screening data are reported." [Emphasis in original]

However, as Dr. Mayer analyzes the data provided by Drs. Kim-Farley and Kerndt, the prevalence of STDs among the performer population "appears to use all positive tests in the numerator, but does not take into account the number of tests the subjects received. AFI performers are tested every four weeks. Kim‐Farley and Kerndt, lacking a denominator, used an estimate of number of AFI performers (2000 or 3000) when they should have used an estimate of the number of tests given to the performers. The two methodologies yield very different results."

At the end of his report, Dr. Mayer attempts that exact calculation, finding that for the years where data exists to make the calculations, the chlamydia and gonorrhea infection rates within the adult industry are statistically close to those which Drs. Kerndt and Kim-Farley found within the general Los Angeles population.

In other words, there is really no pandemic of STI's within the LA porn industry...at least, not greater than STI's in the general population.

Far more enlightening, though, is the way that Mayer reveals how LACDPH (through AHF and Cal-OSHA) deliberately distorted data they got from the former testing group AIM Medical Foundation to buttress their case for the condom mandate and other "protections". It seems that in the process, they couldn't even synch their stats to match each other.

Inbetween, Dr. Mayer tackles the report of Dr. Kerndt's 18-month "pilot study" (June, 2000-December, 2002) of "straight" performers, Public Health Issues in the Adult Film Industry: Policy Implications of an Outbreak, and finds that to be fatally flawed as well.

While Dr. Kerndt that according to that study, there were approximately three times as many chlamydia infections among straight female performers as among similarly-aged LA County females, and five times as many gonorrhea infections, Dr. Kerndt also failed to provide any data regarding the testing frequency of the "LA County female" population that formed the "denominator" count of his equation. But perhaps more troubling is his note that, "Not all individuals tested and reported by AIM are necessarily AFI performers."

In other words, not only do Dr. Kerndt's statistics attempt to compare apples (tested performers) with oranges (generally untested population at large); he doesn't even know who his "apples" are! They could just as easily be prostitutes or other at-risk women who have never even come close to making an adult movie!

Or as Dr. Mayer puts it: "Again, epidemiology is about counts, not policy. To treat counts so casually cuts against the basic grain of epidemiological reasoning. If the goal was to put numbers on the table to justify changes in policy then why not fabricate the entire analysis?"

Let us remember that AIM not only served industry performers, but also offered testing to private individuals as well...so not controlling for either the prevalency of multiple testing of infected performers or non-industry infections discovered by AIM certainly distorts the data in favor of higher STI rates amongst performers. Again, I'll leave it up to you to judge whether or not this was a slip in analysis or a deliberate con job.

Of course, the condom mandate proponents will probably dismiss Dr. Mayer as a paid stooge of the porn industry, and scream about the recent HIV/AIDS scares (restating the usual libel about how 24 performers have contracted HIV from sex during shoots, and probably using the likes of Ministress Shelley Lubben and Derrick Burts to shed crocidile tears over how "the inddustry failed and destroyed them" in the name of their scheme to impose condoms (and profit immensely from the government and the condom companies).

If they are the only voices heard, of course.

All the more reason why performers who actually care about their rights and livelihood absolutely must pack this meeting tomorrow and stand up and be counted and heard. This isn't about "protection"; this is more about a false choice between paternalism dressed up as "protecting performers" and running porn out of California entirely.

Unless, of course, you like your porn made in sweatshops in Lafvia.


Update:

XBiz.com just posted an article on the Mayer Report that gives further details on its genesis.

It was funded and initiated by the Free Speech Coalition, which has become the key organization that has been resistiing the condom mandate from the beginning, and who recently developed their own, performer-friendly, and far less intrusive, testing/treatment regimen to replace the one maintained by AIM-ORG before they were run out of business by the efforts of Cal-OSHA, LACDPH, and AHF.

Also...the report in its entirity is now available as a PDF file from XBiz, it can be read here.


Update #2:

The FSC just posted a blog entry synopticizing the Mayer Report over at their blog; and it also includes a link to the full report.

The Other Porn Panic: .XXX Gets Approved By ICANN...A Breakthrough In Protecting Children, Or Just Another Bustout??

Like I said...plenty to talk about today.

Alongside the potential shoe drop of the condom mandate, the other shoe threatening to drop on the porn industry actually did so this weekend.

The .XXX level domain, so loved by those wanting to screen adult content into its own ghetto to be exploited for their own profits, so hated by both sides of the porn debate (it's something when Morality in Media AND the Free Speech Coalition are on the same side on an issue); and so despised by many Internet geeks....was cleared for takeoff by the Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the board that supervises and approves top level domain (TLD) suffixes like [dot]com, [dot]net, and others.

Never mind that both pro- and antiporn organizations had virulently opposed adding the domain, for their own reasons. (The FSC, backed by many of porn's biggest honchos, due to the implied threat of regulation forcing adult websites into the .XXX ghetto and the costs of acquiring a .XXX domain name; the antiporn groups because it would "legitimize" content that they would much rather wipe out via obscenity laws.)

Never mind that even the ACLU had gone on record against .XXX, citing the potential abuse by cybersquatters seeking to blackmail legitimate owners of .COM and .NET sites, not to mention the windfall for illegal "tube" sites wanting to use .XXX as a license to steal.

And, never mind the fact that the proposal had been reccommended for rejection by ICANN's own Government Advisory Committee, made up of representatives from several companies, and that a similar effort in 2007 was handily defeated.

What was the difference this time around? Well, the .XXX proponents sold the proposal this time around as a means of protecting both the adult content from censorship AND as a means of protecting children from unwanted access by herding all adult content into the .XXX domain and making it easier for censorware and filters to block access to such material.

Mostly, however, they simply flooded the board with lots of money.

Because a .XXX domain will cost plenty more compared to a .COM or a .NET ($70 for a year sub as compared to $10 for other domains), the process of forcing adult websites into .XXX will produce a virtual money forest for ICM Registry, the group which owns the .XXX domain.  According to ICM head Stuart Lawley, he's already secured enough presubscriptions from scared adult webmasters fearing piracy or censorship to rake in nearly $26 million...and that was before it was even passed.  Lawley has even boasted that the potential killing from .XXX could reach as high as $200 million...not too bad in a recession.

Of course, all this means nothing unless current adult webmasters are forced into .XXX...which brings me to the one political force that may be open to imposing .XXX: Third Way Democrats and "Moderate" Republicans.

Already, US Senator Max Baucus (he of the Big Insura Forced Mandate/Bailout, aka "Health Care Reform") has introduced legislation forcing ISP's to require sites to move all adult content into the .XXX domain or face criminal penalties; and I'm sure that others will follow suit. Though most on the Right (especially the TeaPublicans) tend to be closer to the "just ban 'em" position of MiM and Porn Harms, they might be persuaded to support ghettoizing adult sites into .XXX as a stopgap measure to hold them out until they get enough power for outright censorship. As for the Left...well, suffice it to say that their stance has been somewhat incoherent, but I'd say that the 'protect children while maintaining a space for adult sites" logic will probably prevail over them enough to get their support as well.

Unfortunately, merely slapping a .XXX domain on a site brings forth some real issues.

Like....what about blogs like this one (or The Sexademic, or Julie Meadows, or Tiny Nibbles) who are not necessarily sexually explicit in imagery, but who report on issues regarding porn and include linkage to actual sites??  Would Blogger or WordPress be forced to impose a .XXX domain on popular porn blogs, or sex-education sites, or even sex bloggers?? Or..would they simply relent and just purge adult content from their platforms like Facebook and MySpace have already done?? And...would antiporn activist sites like StopPornCulture.com get exemptions based on their ideology alone??

And...who would be the arbeteurs of what constitutes "sexually explict" and whether a site would meet the criteria of being forced into the .XXX domain and enriching the back pockets of ICM?? The Miller Standards?? A local censor board??  Congress??

Remember, Lawley and ICM can't make their killing if current sites can continue to remain in .COM or .NET and pay the much less yearly sub fees for renewing their current domains. But..if such a law was passed, couldn't the case be made that it constituted content-based discrimination to force legal adult websites to pay more simply to exist for the benefit of a private organization??

Oh, who the hell am I kidding....this is Max Baucus I'm talking about!! Same Max Baucus known for taking corporate money under the table from the health care companies...so why wouldn't he do the same with ICM and ICANN??

Either way, the issue is far from resolved, even if ICANN and ICM is already accelerating the process for .XXX domain applications. The FSC has promised full action to review and repeal the decision, and I'm guessing that the antiporn folks are already blasting the ears of their reps in Congress to stop this.

We'll see soon if this really does become a bustout...or simply a bust.

Violet Blue (of Tiny Nibbles) has an excellent overview of the entire sitch over at the ZDNet site...feel free to go there and read up.  Also...see Julie Meadows.