HIV Porn Scare Update #2: Proposed Condom Mandate Bill AB640 Follows AB332 Down File 86 For 2013 Cali Assembly Session

As Part 1 of this update showed, mid week was not a particurlarly good week for those wanting to impose condoms involuntarily on porn shoots. On Friday, it got far, far worse.

You will remember that last June or so, the California Assembly decided to table on suspension AB 332, Isadore Hall's original attempt to impose the condom mandate throughout the state of California by tying porn shoots to the emerging CalOSHA standards for barrier protections for "bloodborne pathenogens". The bill had originally passed through one Assembly subcommittee, but got stalled in the Appropriations Committee due to its financial impact.

Assemblyman Hall's response to that was to attempt some legislative trickeration by tying the conditions of AB332 to an totally unrelated bill that had passed the California State Senate, SB 640, which had originally dealt with regulation of cigarettes and tobacco products.

Mark Kernes over at AVN had posted last July 27th an essay chroniclizing all the dirty deeds done by Hall in his attempt to reserrect his condom mandate bill.

But what would any good horror story be these days without a nod to zombies? So less than a month after AB 332's demise, lo and behold, it was brought back to life (more or less) as AB 640!

 Actually, those first amendments of June 20 appear to be sort of placeholders for the full bill that was to come with the next set of amendments. Rather, the June 20 amendments, besides defining "adult film," mere stated that "(a) The Legislature finds and declares that the protection of workers in the adult film industry is the responsibility of multiple layers of government; and (b) Notwithstanding any other law, a city, county, or city and county may adopt and enforce a local ordinance that protects against the exposure of workers to blood or other potentially infectious materials during the filming or production of an adult film."

 Big whoop there: Measure B had already passed and was in the middle of a protracted lawsuit by June 20, so it was only with the July 3 amendments that AB 640 was made into essentially an AB 332 clone.

For example, passage of AB 640 was now deemed "urgent" and therefore "to take effect immediately." Also, according to the Legislative Counsel's Digest, which is prepared for every bill that comes before the legislature, it would require a two-thirds vote for passage, and for some reason would not need to be voted on in either the Appropriations nor Fiscal Committees, possibly because it was claimed not to involve a "state-mandated local program."

Even so, the July 3 amendments amounted to only a single paragraph at the end of the bill: "This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are: In order to protect workers in the adult film industry from an imminent threat to public health as soon as possible, it is necessary that this act take effect immediately."

You will remember that originally Hall's bill, if passed into law, would not take effect until January 2015, at the latest...but now he was attempting to mine popular antiporn opposition.......errrrrrrr, AHF propaganda efforts, to have the bill passed to take effect immediately. I guess those condom dollars he would be getting from AHF just couldn't wait.

Funny thing happened, though....as Kernes reports, on August 27th, Hall tweaked his new toy once again. It's just a coinkydynk that the Cameron Bay/Rod Daily brohaha happened to break out just after that date, isn't it?? And, note also the relationship with the Measure B ruling which also took place that week.

As of August 27, pretty much all the language that had previously been in AB 640 was gone, to be replaced by the exact language of AB 332 as of its last amendments on April 17, only this time, the Legislative Counsel's Digest states that it will only need a simple majority to pass, that it must be vetted by the Fiscal Committee (but not Appropriations), and that it will involve one or more "state-mandated local programs." Once again, it states that, "An employer shall maintain engineering and work practice controls sufficient to protect employees from exposure to blood and any potentially infectious materials, in accordance with Section 5193 of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations," and once again, those controls could include, but are not limited to, simulated sex, condoms "and other protective barriers whenever acts of vaginal or anal intercourse are filmed," and bloodborne pathogen plans and training to implement them, all in accordance with Title 8 Section 5193 of the Health Code.

If the rumors are correct, and AHF is both vetting (if not outright composing) the language of AB 640 and providing inducements to Assemblymember Hall, who is in his third and final term in office, to introduce the revised bill, the August 27 amendments may represent AHF's fear that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will, unlike Judge Pregerson, take the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Hollingsworth v. Perry seriously and drop AHF from the Vivid lawsuit—and therefore, AHF may see AB 640 as its last chance to force the adult industry to use condoms, dental dams, goggles, face shields and, yes, hazmat suits in its productions.

For a while earlier this week, it sure seemed as if AHF and Hall would get their moment in the sun, as panic induced by the three confirmed infections (and Weinstein's assertions, still unverified, of a fourth infected performer which was unfortunately artificially inflated by an inexcusible byline lede from XBiz.com) seemed to undermine support for the existing regime of testing. By Thursday, some self-identified "experts" were sooo certain that AB 640 would practically fly through the California Assembly in its final day like George Patton's Third Army through southern France during the Normandy campaign. (Screenshot courtesy of Michael Whiteacre via his @MrWhiteacre TL)

Alas..even the best laid plans of a Numerberg rally come crashing down to earth in pieces.

XBiz and TRPWL laid out the ultimate scoreboard yesterday.

SACRAMENTO — AB 640, the bill that would require adult film performers to use condoms in adult film productions shot anywhere in California, wasn’t heard or voted on Thursday evening in the Assembly, effectively ending the threat of a statewide porn-condom law for now.

The bill’s sponsor, Assemblyman Isadore Hall, earlier Thursday anticipated that the bill would be heard and voted on in the waning hours of the Assembly’s, as well as the Senate’s, terms despite the fact that it wasn’t on the roster of bills scheduled to be heard and voted on.

But in the end, AB 640 was stuck in the Assembly’s appropriations committee.

Much of the evening in the Assembly floor session was devoted to issues such as hiking the minimum wage and introducing drivers license options for illegal immigrants.

The Assembly’s session ended minutes after midnight and business was adjourned until 2014.

Normally, Friday would be a marathon day with lawmakers debating bills until midnight. But Yom Kippur, the holiest Jewish holiday, starts at sundown, so lawmakers were pushing hard to wrap up earlier.

- See more at: http://therealpornwikileaks.com/california-porn-condom-bill-ab-640-dead-session/#sthash.ZhHLrGyH.dpuf

SACRAMENTO — AB 640, the bill that would require adult film performers to use condoms in adult film productions shot anywhere in California, wasn’t heard or voted on Thursday evening in the Assembly, effectively ending the threat of a statewide porn-condom law for now.

The bill’s sponsor, Assemblyman Isadore Hall, earlier Thursday anticipated that the bill would be heard and voted on in the waning hours of the Assembly’s, as well as the Senate’s, terms despite the fact that it wasn’t on the roster of bills scheduled to be heard and voted on.

But in the end, AB 640 was stuck in the Assembly’s appropriations committee.

Much of the evening in the Assembly floor session was devoted to issues such as hiking the minimum wage and introducing drivers license options for illegal immigrants.

The Assembly’s session ended minutes after midnight and business was adjourned until 2014.

Normally, Friday would be a marathon day with lawmakers debating bills until midnight. But Yom Kippur, the holiest Jewish holiday, starts at sundown, so lawmakers were pushing hard to wrap up earlier.

- See more at: http://therealpornwikileaks.com/california-porn-condom-bill-ab-640-dead-session/#sthash.ZhHLrGyH.dpuf

SACRAMENTO — AB 640, the bill that would require adult film performers to use condoms in adult film productions shot anywhere in California, wasn’t heard or voted on Thursday evening in the Assembly, effectively ending the threat of a statewide porn-condom law for now.

The bill’s sponsor, Assemblyman Isadore Hall, earlier Thursday anticipated that the bill would be heard and voted on in the waning hours of the Assembly’s, as well as the Senate’s, terms despite the fact that it wasn’t on the roster of bills scheduled to be heard and voted on.

But in the end, AB 640 was stuck in the Assembly’s appropriations committee.

Much of the evening in the Assembly floor session was devoted to issues such as hiking the minimum wage and introducing drivers license options for illegal immigrants.

The Assembly’s session ended minutes after midnight and business was adjourned until 2014.

Normally, Friday would be a marathon day with lawmakers debating bills until midnight. But Yom Kippur, the holiest Jewish holiday, starts at sundown, so lawmakers were pushing hard to wrap up earlier.

- See more at: http://therealpornwikileaks.com/california-porn-condom-bill-ab-640-dead-session/#sthash.ZhHLrGyH.dpuf

SACRAMENTO — AB 640, the bill that would require adult film performers to use condoms in adult film productions shot anywhere in California, wasn’t heard or voted on Thursday evening in the Senate, effectively ending the threat of a statewide porn-condom law for now.

The bill's sponsor, Assemblyman Isadore Hall, earlier Thursday anticipated that the bill would be heard and voted on in the waning hours of the Legislature's term despite the fact that it wasn't on the roster of bills scheduled to be heard and voted on.

Much of the evening in  the Legislature was devoted to issues such as hiking the minimum wage and introducing drivers license options for illegal immigrants.

The Legislature's session ended minutes after midnight and business was adjourned until 2014.

Normally, Friday would be a marathon day with lawmakers debating bills until midnight. But Yom Kippur, the holiest Jewish holiday, starts at sundown, so lawmakers were pushing hard to wrap up earlier.

 Since Assemblyman Hall is limited to 3 terms in office, next year will be his last chance to pull the weight for AHF....that is, if they don't go the route of the antigay forces and attempt to push the condom mandate statewide as an initiative, just like the anti-gay marriage proposed Proposition 8. Otherwise, it seems that sanity has proven to be an effective counterforce to insanity, and performer's choice is preserved for at least 2013.

More AB 332 Blowback: Could There Be A Statewide Initiative On The Horizon??

Well...after the California Assembly's Appropriations Committee decided to put the statewide condom mandate bill, AB 332, on temporary ice via "suspense", you got the typical reactions from both sides of the condom debate.

First, this from the Free Speech Coalition, via their director, Diane Duke:

“We are grateful that lawmakers have chosen the best interest of California’s taxpayers and the adult industry over AB 332’s misguided legislation,” Free Speech Coalition (FSC) CEO Diane Duke said. “The adult industry creates a tremendous amount of revenue and jobs for California. We have effective, successful standards in place to protect performers. This ridiculous bill was a solution without a problem.”

 What also gives opponents of the condom mandate some encouragement is the reason Appropriations Committee Chairman Mike Gatto gave for tabling AB 332 (from here, via here):

“Passing a bill, of questionable First Amendment validity, that would certainly subject the state to expensive lawsuits, would simply cost too much for California right now,” he said in a statement.

Needless to say, Michael Weinstein of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and Isadore Hall III, the Assemblyman who sponsored AB 332, have a radically different spin....errrrr, perspective on the bill's future prospects.  And, they are not too happy with Assemblyman Gatto, either. First, here's Assemblyman Hall's brief response, as quoted to the Rock Hill, CA, HeraldOnline website (and reposted by Lydia Lee at her blog):

“No vote was taken today on AB 332 and the bill is not dead. In a two year legislative session, there is plenty of time for this important public health measure to move forward. At this point, one thing is clear. Assemblymember Mike Gatto has put porn profits above the need to protect workers in California. He gives a whole new meaning to the term ‘money shot’.”

Of course, the reason why no vote was taken was because originally at the first Appropriations Committee hearing Hall himself had requested that the bill be pulled, and then Gatto acted to put the bill under "suspense"....and Hall didn't challenge it because he probably realized he didn't have the votes to override Gatto's decision.

But, oh, that was secondary to the reaction from Mike Weinstein of AHF....and he added a thinly veiled threat to take the battle to the next level. From AHF's official statement:

“We are still in the early rounds of the fight for protection of porn performers. You don't win every round. We won't stop. There are still 3 months in this legislative year, which is more than enough time to successfully provide statewide protections for adult film workers,” said Michael Weinstein, President of AIDS Healthcare Foundation. “Access to clean needles for drug users took more than a decade to enact. Since it is apparent that a powerful politician like Assemblyman Mike Gatto favors pornographers over performers we may in the end need to take this issue directly to California voters. We have no doubt that they would overwhelmingly approve condoms in porn the way that L.A. County voters did.”

Forget for a minute the Big Lie of AHF claiming to represent "protection of porn performers" (especially in the face of almost universal opposition from the overwhelming majority of active performers). It's the threat of a public statewide referendum (a la Proposition 8) that should get people's attention. Obviously, they really do think that they own enough of California that they can browbeat the Cali Assembly into submission like they did the City of Los Angeles, who most recently modified their own condom mandate to follow the tougher edicts of Measure B, the Los Angeles County based condom mandate that passed via referendum last year.

Notice also the strained comparison Weinstein makes to the clean needles exchange program...which, if I recall correctly, was an initiative of ACT-UP in the 1980's-1990's in the face of the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Considering AHF's long history of opposing harm prevention and self-cure remedies and measures such as this due to wanting more "behavior modification" strategies, it seems a stretch for them to take such huge credit for enabling drug addiction.

Unless, of course, the real idea is to allow HIV+ performers (read that to mean HIV+ gay male performers such as Derrick Burts) to escape the testing regime and use mandatory condoms and the antidiscrimination laws in Cali as a blanket of employment protection for crossover gay men who might be HIV+?? Between that and the megabucks of proper condom placement and NGO funding, could that be the real initiative behind AHF wanting to blow up the existing testing/screening regime that hetero adult porn has survived on?

Now, imagine what would happen in such a regime where testing is thrown out and condoms (and other such forms of "barrier protection" as face shields, gloves, goggles, and PPE) are totally relied on as the principal means of "protection"...and an infected performer just so happens to shoot a scene where his partner has no means of knowing whether he is clean or infected. Now...imagine what happens if the condom happens to break, or the performer, in his state of arousal, decides to remove it before the scene.

Yup....you got it. And that's before we get to the STI's that condoms don't provide protections against.

Now, Hall and Weinstein has been more than coy about their positions on testing; on the one hand, they say that they are not against testing at all, as long as condoms are still mandated; yet, their stated policy has been that condoms would render testing unnecessary; and that testing is simply a failure of will by the "pornographers" who put their evil profits above the "protection" of the performers. Not to mention, the proposed standards for testing and "barrier protection" for "bloodborne pathogens" that is currently being proposed by Cal-OSHA, the statewide agency for workplace protection, specifically ignore testing for STI's, preferring condoms and other forms of "barrier protection" as their main, if not exclusive, form of protection.

And remember, folks....this isn't just for big time porn production studios. If you own a pay website or a webcam, and have live sex on screen or online, you are or will be or potentially could be affected by this bill....just as you will ultimately be by Measure B if you live in Los Angeles County.

And...what passes California will probably be imposed nationwide, too. To remind you of Mike Weinstein's solemn oath: "Wherever they go, we will follow."

Shooting some pennies to APC4C.com and StopCondomLaws.com would be a good idea indeed. Supporting your favorite porn performers who speak out against AB 332 and Measure B would be even better.

AB332. It Be Officially DEAD. (At Least For This Year.)

Well....the industry and true performer choice just dodged a nuke for this legislative year.

The California Assembly's Appropriations Committee just decided to table Isadore Hall's bill, AB 332, which would have mandated condoms and other "barrier protections" for all porn productions statewide; effectively killing it for the legislative session this year. (Today was the final day for bills introduced to be considered for this year's session.)

Needless to say, it probably isn't a happy camp over at AIDS Healthcare Foundation today.

On the other hand, the Free Speech Coalition, which has been roundly pilloried by some as being so uneffective, actually gets to boast a victory. Here's their press release issued on the heels of AB 332's defeat, via XBiz.com:

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — The California Assembly Appropriations Committee voted today to stop Assembly Bill 332 from moving forward, the FSC reported.

AB 332 would have mandated barrier protection use in adult film productions in California.
  
“We are grateful that lawmakers have chosen the best interest of California’s taxpayers and the adult industry over AB 332’s misguided legislation,” FSC CEO Diane Duke said. “The adult industry creates a tremendous amount of revenue and jobs for California. We have effective, successful standards in place to protect performers.

Duke called the bill “a solution without a problem” and told XBIZ that the FSC would have been able to block the legislation from becoming law should it have moved on to the senate. According to Duke, legislators recognized the flaws in the bill and decided to oppose it.

“We support choice for performers, as well as the successful testing system that has been in place since 1998, which have resulted in no on-set transmissions of HIV in nine years, nationwide,” Duke said. “It is encouraging to see that legislators recognize the hard work that the adult industry has done to safeguard performers and that our hard work will not be lost to an unnecessary bureaucracy created from unnecessary legislation.”

Terry Schanz, the press secretary for Assemblyman Isadore Hall, who introduced the bill in February, told XBIZ that AB 332 is not dead and no vote was taken on it today. He added that in a two-year legislative process, there is "plenty of time" for the bill to move forward.

"At this point, one thing is clear: Assemblymember Mike Gatto has put porn profits above the need to protect workers in California," Schanz said. "He gives a whole new meaning to the term ‘money shot’."

FSC has spearheaded opposition to AB 332, Measure B and continues to oppose legislation that threatens the adult industry. FSC also upholds industry-appropriate self-regulation that includes STD testing for performers.

Mike Gatto, for those who might not recognize his name, is the head of the Appropriations Committee.

Ernest Greene had called it in the comments earlier.

Funny, I had a feeling this would happen, much as it did with the Leslie bill back in 2004. Grandstanding measures that obligate the state to spend undetermined amounts of taxpayer money for no reasonable return have a way of expiring in committee. This one could get out to a floor vote if AHF can figure out some kind of backhanded maneuver to short-circuit the process, but I suspect that will prove a bridge to far even for them.

Sacramento plays by its own rules and has its own influential constituents to please. I doubt Michael Weinstein is on their radar as anything but a minor nuisance. He can try bullying these guys and undoubtedly will, but I don't expect them to be terribly impressed.

I'm not counting any chickens yet, but AB 332 seems pretty likely to fall off the legislative calendar.

On the other hand, there are these words of caution from AVN's Mark Kernes:

Yes, the existing bill is dead, since today was the last day that action could be taken on bills that had already been introduced, and since no action—that is, no up or down vote—was taken today, the bill is effectively dead. But as some have pointed out, AIDS Healthcare Foundation is heavily invested in forcing adult performers to wear "barrier protections" during sex scenes, regardless of the fact that they are tested regularly for STDs and generally in good health—and AHF is unlikely to let a little thing like a bill being prevented from moving forward by the California Assembly stop them. So expect the same or similar bill to be introduced during the next legislative session, because they know they've got money to burn for things like this, and the publicity surrounding such issues gets them loads of donations, while the adult industry continues to struggle from the ongoing recession. So rest assured, this fight isn't over.

 But at least, that will be one less battle to worry about this year for the adult entertainment industry. And perhaps, maybe we will see the implosion of Measure B as well??

Finally, An Organization For The Good Guys/Gals To Protect Adult Choice: APC4C Emerges To Fight Measure B And AB 332

The fact that this probably should have been formed, like, three years ago, doesn't lessen the importance of it being formed right now. It was and is way, way, waaaaaay past time that porn performers coalesce and stand up for their rights and defend themselves against the Weinsteins and Lubbens and Dineses of the world who would infantalize them for their own profits.

Best to simply repost the full XBiz.com article and let you read for yourself.

And, yes, that would be THIS Lydia Lee.

APC4C Formed to Combat AB 332, Measure B

Former adult actress Lydia Lee and the FSC’s Diane Duke and Joanne Cachapero have formed the Adult Performers Coalition For Choice (APC4C), an outreach organization dedicated to toppling Measure B and barring the passage of AB 332.

“FSC does a lot on its own, but they are constantly wrapped up in [litigation over federal record-keeping law] 2257 and other pursuits far more specific to the legal side of things,” Lee told XBIZ. “They don't always have the time to reach out to every specific group. Having spent some time with these two great ladies ... it became our understanding that performers should have a coalition of their own.”

The trio has been working on the project since the last AB 332 hearing on April 24, inspired by the performer turnout there and at previous legal battlegrounds concerning AB 332 and Measure B, Lee said.

She added that, as a result of the draconian language of bill AB 332 “that references dental dams and hazmat suits,” industry talent is leaving Los Angeles County to pursue opportunities elsewhere, explaining that APC4C will work to reverse this trend by giving a voice to performers who have been “systematically ignored.”

APC4C released its first official post yesterday that included the backing of major industry players, including Alana Evans, Amber Lynn, Jessica Drake, Kylie Ireland, Nina Hartley, Steven St. Croix, Tanya Tate and Tasha Reign.

“The simple fact is that no one speaks for the intelligent, responsible community of performers that I’ve known since I entered the industry 15 years ago,” Lee said. “APC4C represents the voices of performers who are tired of being disrespected and spoken for by people who don’t even view them as a species above caged animals that get thrown a treat for performing a trick on camera. I’m proud to stand up against harassment and insults with the people I care about.”

The coalition’s immediate goal is twofold: to attract members to sign up online and to fax Assembly members to urge them to oppose AB 332, Lee said.

In the future, APC4C plans to organize lobbying efforts and fundraisers.

According to Lee, antiporn activism and its propaganda are nothing new, and she has been watching its battle against the industry for years.

“I remember Diane Duke having to bully her way into a UCLA panel discussion in November 2010 when industry people weren’t invited to add their invaluable input to the conversation,” Lee said. “Just two weeks ago I was at the AB 332 hearing while someone from UCLA was counseling a group of students in a corner of the waiting area, comparing porn performers to animals in mainstream films.”

Lee said APC4C will work to abolish such stereotypes and insert performers’ input into legal discussions concerning the industry.

And no better timing, either, since AB 332 is scheduled for it's next legislative hearing with the California Assembly's Appropriation Committee today. This would be the last stop before the bill goes before the full Assembly.

Oh, for those who think that the former Julie Meadows isn't fully committed to this battle? Read this interview at her blog she did with AVN's Mark Kernes. Then, watch this YouTube video interview with performer Melissa Monet. Then, surf the rest of her blog.

The Panic Rolls On: AB 332 Clears Another California Assembly Committee

Seems like the AIDS Healthcare Foundation has mastered the art of legislative wheel greasing. Two committees down, and their statewide condom mandate bill, AB 332, is thus far cruising.

The latest yesterday, from XBiz.com:

The state Legislature's Labor and Employment committee approved Assembly Bill 332 this afternoon at a hearing at the state Capitol.
After more than a half an hour of testimony, the bill went on to a vote where it stalled and was put "on call" because there weren't enough votes cast.  By 5 p.m. today, the committee had all the votes needed to move the piece of legislation forward. It moved on with a 5-0 vote.

[The official vote was 5-1, with 1 abstension.]

The bill will now move to the Assembly Appropriations Committee for consideration. With approval, AB 322 then would be voted on by the full Assembly. Pending approval by the full Assembly, the bill will be referred to the Senate and go through a similar policy and fiscal review process. If passed, AB 332 would be effective Jan. 1, 2015.

The Labor and Employment committee is comprised of Assembly members  Roger Hernandez, Mike Morrell, Jimmy Gomez, Chris Holden, Luis Alejo and Ed Chau.

Alejo and Chau were not present at the initial hearing, but voted for the bill before the meeting adjourned. 
  
AB 332 essentially mimics Measure B, which requires condom use for porn shoots in Los Angeles County; but differs crucially by making it a statewide mandate.

There was a gaggle of porn performers at the committee hearing to make their cases.  Two former performers, Hayden Winters and Jesse Rogers, did testify in favor of AB 332, invoking their experiences with STI's; but the overwhelming majority of performers who attended came out strongly in opposition to the bill as a violation of their civil liberties and a destruction of the industry testing system that had been in place for the past 20 years. 

One of the most powerful testimonials against the bill, though, came from former performer Lydia Lee (fka Julie Meadows), who has become one of the principal and most eloquent advocates in opposition to the condom mandate. Here's a special bit of snippage from her statement to the committee:

“Frankly one of the most frustrating things about this bill is that everyone wants to speak for women in the adult film industry,” Lee said. “Two weeks ago the author of this bill made an impassioned speech in committee stating that the Legislature needs to protect the women in the industry who cannot protect themselves. And I am quite frankly tired of being compared to an animal in a mainstream movie. I am an adult and I can consent, and let me be clear: no one in this industry is forced to work in this industry.”

There was some initial confusion on the first vote, which was 3-0, one vote shy of what was needed for passage; prompting reports that the bill had been tabled. However, it turned out that it had simply been put on hold (or "on call") so that the abstending members could be cajoled with AHF money to support the bill...and in the end, 2 members ultimately voted for AB 332 to pass, clearing its approval.

So now, it's one more committee, the Appropriations Committee, before Isadore Reed and Mike Weinstein get to play around with the entire California State Assembly. Considering the Democratic supermajority there, it's going to take far more than the regular "Stop evil government intervention" arguments to prevent this bill from passing and ultimately devastating the Cali porn industry. If there was ever a time for the Free Speech Coalition to earn the money that they are constantly and regularly begging for, it is now.

And if there was ever a time for performers, producers, and fans alike to get off the keisters, the bitTorrents, and the tube sites and actually stand up for performers rights and their own right to see safe bareback porn...well, you know the drill. Unless, of course, you like 24/7 PPE fetish porn and softcore...because that's what you are going to get ultimately if this bill becomes law. And..it won't just be a California thing, either...this is meant to be pushed nationwide.

On AB 332, Courage Vests, And The Potential Growth Of Haz-Mat/PPE Fetish Porn

If it wasn't so serious to threaten a legal industry, it would be hilarious.

Last week, the California Assembly's Labor and Employment Committee debated and ultimately sent to the full Assembly AB 332, the attempt to extend the reach of the mandate for porn performers to wear condoms and other forms of "barrier protections" against STI's to the whole state, rather than just the city of Los Angeles (via statue) or jurisdictions of Los Angeles County (thanks to Measure B).

The discussion was pretty intense, with the AIDS Healthcare Foundation represented not only by bill sponsor Isadore Hall, but also by representatives from AHF who testified for the bill; while on the other side, porn performers, producers, and the Free Speech Coalition making the case that the mandate was overbroad, overreaching, and counterproductive to protecting performers.

In the end, though, the bill was sent to the full Assembly on a 5-1 vote, punctuated by a, shall we say, passionate closing speech by Assemblyman Hall in which he channeled all his verbal skills -- accented by probably the ever fattening wallet from AHF contributions -- to motivate the committee to "put on their courage vests" and move this bill on.

That's right, Clones, you heard it correct:  "courage vests".

Because, as you know, it takes genuine courage for an esteemed person like Isadore Hall to pocket all that AHF money to become their new shill and promoter for subsidized condom ad placement on free porn stes....not to mention all the kickbacks he'll be getting for securing AHF's gravy train of NGO funding.

And, what tremendous sac it takes for Mr. Hall to get out in front of the most important issue of our time, especially when "lesser" issues like the continuing HIV/STI pandemic in the broader African American and Latino community can be pushed aside and dismissed for the glory of forcing adult performers to wrap up. Because, as you well know, young impressionable folk only learn about proper sex education and harm prevention from watching porn, not from outreach from medical professionals or proper sex education in schools. Forcing 25-30 year old adult performers to wear rubbers is far more important here than actually distributing condoms and other protective propylactics to the broader public..or, even better, actually seeking cures or vaccines that could potentially prevent STI's from spreading. But, that wouldn't be quite as good for the business of imposing morality, now wouldn't it??

But, maybe this isn't just about exploiting a moral sex panic to destroy a legal industry, or simply special interest groups getting paid off the forced labor of others. Maybe there is something more primal going on with this push for infantilizing porn performers.

Like, you know....Haz-Mat porn fetishes??

Work with me on this one...how do we know that the real reason why Mike Weinstein and his crew are so obsessed with this legislation isn't that they all have secret fetishes for Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)?? I mean, there are fetishes much more freakier than nutting off on those green aprons, goggles, and face shields, but what's to say that Hall, Weinstein, and company are actually sexual visionaries sensing a potential new and hawt sexual subgenre to mine for instant cash? I can see it now: the instantaneous signage of AB 332 into law combined with the release of the first "safe sex" classic epic, Fifty Shades of Green: Love In The HazMat Room. 

 But, all sarcastic smack aside, folks....the fact remains that AB 322 is a false solution in search of a misplaced problem, and it's passage will not only drive a legal industry underground and threaten the health of actual people; it will also codify an ill-place assumption that scapegoating a minority of performers will somehow help the majority. And, you don't need a "courage vest" to understand that.


See also Lydia Lee's (fka Julie Meadows') outstanding post here, and Mark Kernes' post at AVN here.