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

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

Too Close For Comfort, But #BAHLOCKED Again!!! For Realz, Too!!! Condom Mandate Bill AB 1576 Finally Whacked By California Senate For 2014 Year

It may have gone on a bit longer for some people's comfort, but the battle over #AB 1576, Isadore Hall's proposed condom mandate/testing/documentation for porn bill finally ended last Wednesday, when the California State Senate Appropriations Committee tabled the bill without a vote, or even bringing it up.

Last week, after testimonials both for and against the bill, which would have mandated both condom usage and testing for all shoots performed within 14 days, that committee placed the bill "in suspense" without a vote, essentially preparing the bill for ultimate closure.

The main sticking point was more than likely that the bill would have violated the fiscal threshhold limit of $150,000 for costs of enforcement, which is the standard used for rendering a bill fiscally responsible enough. However, the fact that the industry rallied hard, and was able to actually turn some favorite press with some powerful mainstream institutions (including this powerful editorial from the Los Angeles Times), combined with the universal opposition ofporn production companies including Kink.com, and  performers, led admirably by Lorelei Lee, to name just one of many, was as much a factor as any.

Considering the pessimism that existed when AB 1576 was able to pass the California Assembly generally with little discussion or debate, the quick turnaround was indeed surprising, yet most certainly welcomed, in the midst of this bad lawmaking.

Both Assemblyman Hall (who will be term-limited out of his seat after this year, but is comtemplating a run for the Cali Senate), and his backers at the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, issued the usual press releases expressing such sorrow that the Senate decided to place "profit" over "worker protection", and AHF announced that they would try again next year with similar legislation.

So...that's one less stumbing block for the LA- and California-based adult entertainment industry to endure. There's still the ongoing court cases over both Measure B (the original referendum which imposed the condom mandate on most of Los Angeles County), as well as the original ordinance passed in the City of Los Angeles. Plus, there is the continuing attempt by CalOSHA, assisted by AHF, to rewrite the workplace codes to impose mandatory "barrier" protection for adult performers, via proposed CCR 5193.1, and expand that nationally through the federal branch of OSHA.

But, at least for now, the threat to porn production in California is significantly less than it was even one week ago. Props to the good guys for winning one, and may this be only the end of the beginning.

More info via TRPWL, XBiz.com, and AVN.

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

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

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

First, their original argument (with signatories attached):

Measure B is a ridiculous waste of tax dollars.

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

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

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

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

Vote NO on Measure B.


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

DR. PETER MIAO
Infectious Disease Specialist

DIANE DUKE
CEO Free Speech Coalition

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

RANDALL WEISSBUCH, MD
Physician

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

RANDALL WEISSBUCH, M.D.
Physician

JOHN URIBE
Civil Liberties Attorney

TED BROWN
Small Business Owner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vote Yes on B!

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

RICHARD G. POLANCO
Senator Richard Polanco (Ret.)

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

MICHAEL WEINSTEIN
President, AIDS Healthcare Foundation

MARK ROY MCGRATH, MPH
Public Health Analyst, UCLA

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Paging Shelley Lubben, me thinks??

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

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

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

Yep. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How dare you?

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

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

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

Shame on you.

In.  FUCKING.  Deed.

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

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

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

Porn Panic 2012: Now It Is Officially War Time: LA County Puts Condom Mandate Ordinance On September Ballot

Well...on Tuesday, the inevitable happened.

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors has now allowed Michael Weinstein's proposed "Safer Sex In The Adult Film Industry" ordinance to be put to the voters of LA County, voting 3-1 to send the proposed condom mandate/adult permitting law to the ballot for later this year, probably November. (The full text of the ordinance can be seen here. [PDF document])

The ordinance is pretty much similar to the law that was passed by the City of Los Angeles earlier this year, but has not been enforced as of yet due to concerns about the scope of enforcement.

Essentially, the ordinance, if passed, would require two-year permits for anyone filming explicit sex acts within the county, and mandatory barrier protection, including condoms, for any performance of explicit sex acts within the scope of Los Angeles County, though individual corporated cities would have their own jurisdictional parameters for enforcing the ordinance.

Indeed, as X-Biz.com discovered, in order to be considered legal under the mandate law, adult performers would have to actually obtain two permits; one for the film production and one for "public health", with mandatory training in "bloodborne pathogen barrier protection" also required.

The primary role in enforcing the mandate would fall upon the LA County Department of Public Health Services, which would gain one full-time and one part-time inspector who would be responsible for random permit and "condom checks", along with reinforcement form more traditional law enforcement.

A preliminary memo produced by LACDPHS Director Jonathan Fielding (available here, PDF document) establishes the preliminary scope of the proposed regulations and permits.

Although there was plenty of adult representation at Tuesday's LA County Supervisors meeting, it was obvious that the majority simply ignored their concerns and generally defaulted to the "OMGWeHaveHIVEpidemicInPornWeMUSTProtectThePoorPerformers!!!!" meme.  And considering that AHF spent nearly $2 million to get their measure to the ballot, I'm sure that they have plenty more to spend to promote themselves and get it passed.

That moment we have all dreaded is finally here. It's time for the industry to either unite and fight this, or risk losing everything. Moving to Vegas or Pheonix or New Hampshire won't help things, because this condom mandate will go national if successful. Unless, of course, you want the pirates and tube sites to have a field day selling all the bareback porn which will become the new gold when this ordinance passes.


Update:

Michael Fattorosi, long time attorney representing adult interests, just posted at his Twitter page (@Pornlaw) a link to a memorandum written to the Los Angeles County Supervisors by Los Angeles County Chief Counsel John Krattli, dated on July 23rd, that was placed on the record prior to their vote on allowing the condom mandate ordinance on the ballot. The letter contains much more detail on the parameters of how the law will be enforced if the ordinance passes.

The second most startling information in this memorandum is that even if the ordinance is passed, it would only take effect in the nonincorporated areas in Los Angeles County....and not at all in three cities within LA County: Long Beach, Vernon, and Pasadena; because the latter three cities do not contract out with LACDPH for public health but have their own autonomous public health departments. In addition, there are also 85 other incorporated cities within LA County that would require changes in their policies in order to adapt the provisions of the ordinance; that means that LACDPH would have to get these cities to adapt the ordinance one at a time. That probably would not be an issue considering the deep pockets of AHF and the dominant unpopularity of the porn industry, but it would slow things down considerably in the event of lawsuits against all these jurisdictions.

But even that is secondary to the most startling fact about the LA County ordinance: it goes well beyond even the ordinance passed within the City of Los Angeles, and covers not only porn producers, but anyone who produces or films explicit sex and puts the results online, whether for profit or not. It basically gives LACDPH inspectors a free reign to raid any home or place where they suspect someone is making porn without the required permit, and allows them to seize any and all materials suspected in the making of such videos. It also requires anyone seeking a permit to enroll in a mandatory "blood pathogen training course" prior to receiving a permit, enlists huge fines and possible jail terms for anyone shooting non-condomized porn or even shooting without a permit, and essentially uses the costs of the permits to fund the entire effort on the backs of porn performers. And, that would include even homemade websites, webcam performers, and even personal videos not even intentioned for profit.

In effect, this ordinance would criminalize the filming of bareback sex, even among married monogamous couples and other people with no risk of even coming close of contracting STI's such as HIV, and would predicate a grave intervention into the bedrooms of consenting adults...as grave as even sodomy laws or laws against "cohabitating".  That in and of itself should prompt people to reject this proposal, and question its Constitutionality. But, that this is seen as the preferred solution to the NON-issue of HIV in porn, and that this proposal flies in the face of the reality of porn production, and would impose serious dangers on porn performers due to the replacement of the testing and screening regime currently in place..that should give people serious thought to the actual agenda here.

There are many ways to tackle the scrounge of HIV and other STI's. Forcing adult performers and private consenting adults to be guniea pigs for the State is NOT one of them.

Porn Panic 2012: LA County Condom Mandate Initiative Officially Makes November Ballot. It's WAR Time, Folks.

While everyone is being entertained by the Great Porn Testing War between the Free Speech Coalition/APHSS/Cutting Edge Testing and the Shy Love/Talent Testing Services factions, no one has mentioned that all this show and blow could still be rendered irrelevant if Michael Weinstein gets his wish and imposes a condom mandate over Los Angeles County, as he already has over the city of LA.

And today, Weinstein and his AIDS Healthcare Foundation flunkies are one November ballot measure away from pulling the proverbial rug out of everyone.

The Los Angeles Times dropped the bomb this morning.

A ballot measure asking Los Angeles County voters whether porn actors should be required to wear condoms during filming has received enough signatures to qualify for the November election, a county elections official said.

The initiative, one of the most explicit ever seen on a ballot, will be decided by voters in a county that is the nation's most populous and headquarters of the U.S. porn industry.

Los Angeles AIDS activists and other supporters say porn performers are at constant risk of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.

"The lives of these performers are not disposable," AIDS Healthcare Foundation President Michael Weinstein said Wednesday. "This industry is sending out the wrong message about safer sex."

Many adult film producers oppose the initiative, saying that actors and actresses should be able to choose whether to use condoms.

Diane Duke of the adult film lobby group Free Speech Coalition could not be reached for comment late Wednesday. She has said previously that the measure was " government overreach into the way we make movies." Porn producers have said they tried using condoms in the late 1990s following an HIV scare, but consumers were not interested in spending money on porn with condoms.

Weinstein said his group collected 371,000 signatures in five months, far exceeding the 232,000 signatures needed to qualify the measure for the ballot. The county Board of Supervisors must take the final step of placing the measure on the ballot.

If approved by voters, the measure will require adult film producers to pay a fee and obtain a permit from the county Department of Public Health. Actors will then be required to use condoms for acts of anal and vaginal sex. County officials will have the authority to suspend or revoke the permit for violations, and could follow up with civil fines or misdemeanor criminal charges, according to the AIDS group's petition.

Weinstein said he was confident of success. The AIDS group released the results of a March poll of more than 1,000 likely voters, which said that 63% would vote yes.

"The people are ahead of the politicians on this issue," Weinstein said. "There's never been something on the ballot as sexually explicit as this, so it's going to be excellent education for people."

The requirement would apply to filming in unincorporated areas of the county and 85 of its 88 cities, including Los Angeles. The cities of Pasadena, Long Beach and Vernon have their own public health departments.

In fact, this gets much, much worse...because the story doesn't factor in the continuing and ongoing efforts of Cal-OSHA to procure regulations on "barrier protection" in the taping of sexual acts within porn, which would include not only condoms for anal and vaginal sex, but probably oral as well. Those regulations would probably become the template for enforcing any condom mandate law....and they could be enforced not only in LA County, but nationwide, since it's likely that the national branch of OSHA would be more than interested in the outcome.

And...this isn't just an issue for big porn studios, either. The authorities have every intention of applying the law not just to porn shoots, but to even private personal websites and cam services...in fact, anyone who makes any kind of sex scene for their own profit would have to apply for a permit AND impose condoms..even if they are married, monogamous, and totally free of STD's....all for the sake of generating money for Weinstein's enterprises driving the porn industry into the underworld some false sense of protection from STD's and HIV.

In short, the war we have been fearing is now upon us, and time is running short.

I don't live in Los Angeles County, so my vote won't count in this ....but if you do, and you are a fan of adult sexual media and you actually give a damn about its continued existence and the right of performers to make their own choices without misguided (if well intentioned) bureaucrats telling you how to engage in sex, you really, really need to follow this upcoming mandate campaign....and then turn out to vote.

Otherwise, we may wake up next year and find that the Lubben/Weinstein Model has been imposed nationwide and your personal sex life becomes an open fishbowl for public view and exposure and policing by the Condom Nazis.

My suggestion to Shy Love/TTS and Diane Duke/CET/APHSS?? Bury the hatchet, agree to disagree, and ally together against this proposal and all other attempts to impose this law. If there ever was a time for the industry to unite and fight, it is now.

Porn Panic 2012: The "Weinstein-Lubben Model" Of Sex Containment Hits LA Hard; Immoral Productions Busted By Vice Already

UPDATED....scroll to bottom.

A lot of people were fearing the day when the LA condom mandate law would begin to be enforced.  That day came yesterday, and it probably won't be the last day, either.

On the eve of what was supposed to be the final meeting of the Los Angeles City Council committee drafted to set the parameters of enforcing the newly passed ordinance, the porn production/cam company Immoral Productions, directed by "PornoDan" Neal, was hit with a unexpected bust by the LA Vice department, and thusly charged with violating the law, which states that all adult prodution within the city of LA must have a valid permit, and must also, in exchange for that permit, mandate that male performers wear condoms in their sex scenes. (There are some exceptions for those shoots with their own sound stages located in site.)

Here is the full accounting from XBiz.com:

LOS ANGELES — Immoral Productions received a citation from the Los Angeles Police Department on Thursday night for filming without a permit, CEO Dan Leal confirmed to XBIZ.
Leal said that eight officers from the LAPD's Vice Division visited the Immoral Productions studio in Chatsworth, where an independent contractor for Immoral was preparing to shoot an advertising spot with a handful of adult performers. Immoral produces numerous different live cam shows at the studio that are also later packaged for DVD distribution.
Leal was not at the studio Thursday during the visit, but he says he will appear in court on June 7 for the citation. He told XBIZ it was his understanding that he was specifically targeted by the LAPD, and that other webcam shooters should be aware that they also will have to obtain a permit in order to shoot or risk citations.
The LAPD officers were only at the studio for about 15 minutes, Leal said.

Of course, no one knows what the actual citations or punishments for violating the law will be, or whether or not, given the economic depression, LA Vice actually has enough juice to successfully implement or enforce the law.

And as for that meeting, that took place this morning??  Once again, here's the first scoop from XBiz:

Panel Needs More Time to Craft L.A. Condom Policies

LOS ANGELES — The panel that has been charged with crafting policies to implement Los Angeles' porn-condom ordinance will meet one more time next week.

On Friday, the Adult Film Industry Working Group convened for what was supposed to be the last time before they release findings in a report to City Council over how to enforce Los Angeles City Ordinance No. 181989, called the "Safer Sex in the Adult Industry Act."

But Los Angeles City Administrative Officer Miguel Santana on Friday said the panel needs more time and will meet sometime next week so that they can release findings to City Council at least by May 23, in accordance with a 120-day rule over when ordinances must be enacted after approved by City Council and the mayor.

The porn-condom ordinance was passed by City Council in January while a ballot-initiative effort by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation was in full swing; council members decided for the ordinance after weighing legal and ballot-initiative costs.

The "Safer Sex" ordinance currently isn't being enforced in the city, but later this month the ordinance likely will be put in effect, dramatically changing the wheels of porn production in the region. 
  
At Friday's City Hall meeting, the 11 working group members heard public comments less than three minutes each from Immoral Productions Dan Leal, Free Speech Coalition Executive Director Diane Duke and adult industry attorneys Michael Fattorosi and Alan Gelbard, as well as the AIDS Healthcare Foundation's Mark Roy McGrath.

The meeting lasted one half hour.

Leal, whose company was cited just last night by LAPD's vice squad for filming without a permit, told the panel about the bust, and asked how them how they could reasonably create an ordinance that would regulate sex between couples — "even married couples ... how could you regulate that?" he asked.

Fattorosi told the panel that any such ordinance would be "impossible to regulate."
"It will be an insurmountable task to identify the real producers for an industry that is worldwide," he said.

Duke, meanwhile, said that the ordinance is a "different type of censorship" that is filled with constitutional issues.

Gelbard echoed Duke's take on the ordinance, saying the statute is unconstitutional, that it is content-based regulation of speech and will never survive strict scrutiny, a standard of judicial review for a challenged policy where the court presumes the policy to be invalid unless the government can demonstrate a compelling interest to justify the policy.

The delay in crafting the enforcement leg of the ordinance was openly criticized by McGrath, the only AIDS Healthcare Foundation rep in the audience, which numbered about a dozen. McGrath also complained to the panel about creating a "permissive fees" structure  for adult entertainment film permits.

Basically, McGrath wants to put any porn producers and performers not using condoms to be put in jail and/or fined out of business. And, I assume that this includes even those who use cams in their personal homes to produce paid content for their home websites. In effect, use the full powers of the State to force performers to use condoms or simply quit the business.

Welcome to the "Weinstein-Lubben Model" of neoliberal sexual fascism, people. Scared enough to fight yet??

Michael Fattorosi has been covering this process throughout its genesis, and his @Pornlaw Twitter page is a valuable source for anyone wanting some valuable insight.

Then again, some people are willing to walk the talk. Like, say, Sean Tompkins over at The Real Porn Wikileaks, who issued this bit of warning to the likes of Bill Rosenthal and Mike Weinstein today:

To quote Steve Martin in Planes, Trains and Automobiles, “You’re Fucking With The Wrong Guy.” I couldn’t care less about your publicity raid.

You guys are no different than the bullies over at PWL You’re like one of those stupid lizards that puffs up their head to make them seem scary. In reality, you’re a collection of gay people [sic] who despise straight porn, straight sex and the freedoms that go with it.

Sadly, you’re dealing with a billion dollar industry that has no idea how to rally the troops. But once they figure it out, AHF and the rest can shove the condoms up their asses.

UPDATE:

More details on how exactly the condom law will be enforced in LA are coming in, and it is getting progressively worse.

Michael Fattorosi has been using his @Pornlaw Twitter livestream to update the adult performer/producer community on the potential impacts of the law, and he has discovered a segment of the law that can only be described as frightening.

The fulcrum of the law is the requrement that anyone producing porn in LA must get a permit from the group FilmLA to shoot porn, or face not only stiff fines, but also potentially a year in jail for shooting without a permit or violating the terms of the permit (including, of course, shooting without using a condom). The local LA Police Vice Squad would probably be the main group responsible for enforcement, but AHF spokesperson Mark McGrath testified at today's hearing that he would suggest that AHF officials from outside be recruited to become vice members as a means of enforcement.

Well, according to Fattorosi, his interpretation of the law is that  that proscription would not only cover porn shoots, but also potentially adult camshow productions as well. Meaning, that anyone, even those who upload camshows for their own homegrown websites, could be subjected to being raided by the Condom Nazis (or even just the Vice Squad) for not having the proper pemit to perform.

In effect, this recriminalizes private commercial adult sexual expression and media within the juristiction of the City of Los Angeles (well, at least those not meeting AHF's standards of "condom only").

The only thing missing from this debacle is Hollywood celebs talking up how adult webcamming is part of the Great Sex Trafficking Network...although I'm sure that McGrath and Weinstein already have a press release ready for that.

And now you know why Shelley Lubben was so gung ho in aligning with Mike Weinstein on this. It's never been about protecting porn performers from HIV and other STI's; it's always been about wiping adult commercial sexual media off the face of Los Angeles...and eventually, the rest of the world. And, of course, about getting easy money off porn panics.

I ask you again:  Scared enough to fight this, people??

The Free Speech Coalition (@FSCArmy) has just released their review of the hearing; it can be accessed here.

How To Run A Smear Campaign: The AHF War On Porn..Errrrrrrr...Condom Mandate Campaign EXPOSED Via Email Dump

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

LA Porn Panic 2011/2012: The Series Continues: Mike Weinstein Gets His Condom Mandate Initiative On LA Ballot For Next June

Things are now about to get real, folks.

Yesterday, Michael Weinstein of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation released a press statement and had a press conference announcing that his proposed initiative mandating condom usage for all porn shoots in the greater Los Angeles area had gotten past the necessary 48,000 signatures to appear in the ballot for June of next year.

The presser was done to coincide with World AIDS Day (yes, because you know that only porn stars and gay men get HIV/AIDS, get it???) and to give Weinstein yet another chance to play verbal roulette with the truth.

Using his dedicated front group, the oxymoronically acronymed "F.A.I.R" ("For Adult Industry Accountablilty"), Weinstein was all a flutter about getting his precious initiative going, even with the progress of Cal-OSHA's making their own regulations on mandating condoms and other "barrier protections" for porn performers against their stated will.

So much so, in fact, that he wasn't even willing to wait until the vote next June; he wants the L. A. City Council to use the sigs to enact the proposal NOW. As in, before Chiristmas.

Don't believe me??  Here's a direct quote from the AHF press release (via here):

“Producers of adult films are required by California Code of Regulations Title 8, Section 5193 to use barrier protection, including condoms, to protect employees during the production of adult films,” said Brian Chase, Assistant General Counsel for AIDS Healthcare Foundation. “However, many producers of adult films in Los Angeles consistently violate the worker safety provisions of this Code. In addition, pursuant to Section 12.22(A)(13) of the Los Angeles Planning and Zoning Code, producers of all films within the City of Los Angeles, including adult films, are also required to obtain film permits. Such permits issued may contain conditions ‘consistent with public health, safety and general welfare.’ We believe the city already has the authority to tie film permits to condom use—this ballot measure will allow Los Angeles voters to weigh in and make certain this happens.”

 And here's a direct quote from Weinstein himself at the press conference, as captured by AVN's Mark Kernes (full article here):

Perhaps the most important point for the adult industry, aside from the announcement that AHF had apparently collected more than enough signatures to put its mandatory-condom initiative on the ballot in June, was the claim by AHF president Michael Weinstein that if city clerks, doing a random check of petition signatures, find that the initative has qualified for the June ballot, that enacting an ordinance needn't wait for voter approval.


"At that point [after the signatures have been checked], the city council will have 20 days to enact the ordinance as is, or else it will go to the June ballot," Weinstein said. "We're very confident of victory in the election. Certainly, we think it is primarily the responsibility of the city council to enact this measure, and we hope that their consciences will be pricked and they will do the right thing and do that, but we're perfectly prepared to move forward.... We will be making an announcement shortly about actions we're going to take to move the agenda along at the county level as well."

 Of course, Weinstein seems to have forgotten that the second the condom mandate even becomes law, it will be hit with a tsumami of lawsuits challenging its legality...never mind the fact also that I'm guessing that LA doesn't have anywhere close to the funding to effectively enforce such a broad-reaching law. But, then again, all those potential condom dollars from Lifestyles and Durex must still be affecting his brain cells.

To further buttress his case, Weinstein bought out his crewe of sycophants and "several former actors" in the adult industry" (at least, that's what his press statement promised)...which turned out to be two actors. But oh, how interesting they were.


Testimonial #1 was from none other than Derrick Burts, the eye of the 2010 "porn scare", who waxed real good about how easy it was for him to get all kinds of STI's from unprotected sex and how only condoms would have saved him. (From Kernes again)

Burts, who "works alongside the AIDS Healthcare Foundation" and claimed to have been infected with chalymdia, herpes, gonorrhea and HIV after performing in adult movies (straight and gay) for just four months, opined, "I think it's very safe and fair to say that in this industry as a worker, when you're not wearing barrier protections, the likelihood of you getting an STD is extremely high."

Perhaps more interesting was Burts' claim that, "One thing I always point out time and time again, is that testing is not enough because there's too big of a time frame where we can go out and have sex with someone in the general public—you know, a lot of performers, female performers go out and have sex in the general public—male performers as well—and we go back to work on a porn set and we can easily spread that before testing again."

Ahhh, yes...the old "we porn stars are just too slutty to protect ourselves, so we need the State to intervene for our own good and jam condoms down our throats" card. Funny, but having someone who managed to infect himself in a scene WITH A CONDOM INCLUDED, who openly boasted of being an active bisexual swinger, and who even managed to use a negative AIM test to pimp himself for Rentboy.com, is hardly the best person to use to promote sexual restraint. (Also, go here and here to see more of DBurts playing fast and loose with the facts.)

The other former actor to take advantage of AHF's crying towel was Darren James, whom at least has a bit more cred as the centerpiece of the notorious 2004 HIV outbreak that actually did claim 4 female performers (Lara Roxx included).Like Burts, James pitied the fact that his life essentially changed after his HIV infection, and naturally, he blamed not having a condom on during the scene:

"People are going to buy porn regardless," James argued. "The fans that I've seen on the street, they could care less. They just want to see performers. If that means that a guy can't use a condom, you get a better actor that can use a condom... It's gonna sell. Don't believe all the directors talking about—they try to use every kind of scapegoat they can to get out of it, but it all comes down to the same thing: You gotta stick by the condom. The condom is the only way because just testing—that's what I thought: Just getting a test was saving me. And look at me now: I'm HIV-positive. The tests don't mean nothing; it's after the fact."  (excerpted from Kernes)

So, Mr. James...why weren't you willing to stick to your own words when you had that tryst in Brazil before doing that scene?? Or..why didn't the obvious anal sores on Lara Roxx's buttocks raise the red flag that something was more than a bit wrong and that maybe it should have been time to bail out?? Viruses don't invade by themselves, you know..you have to get them and spread them.

And don't even begin to start me on the claim that James and/or Roxx might have been infected before that infamous shoot, due to they shooting in Canada..see this story.

The other spokesperson there was Brian Chase, AHF's chief legal counsel, who riffed on how the condom mandate would be enforced if the initiative was ratified or passed. Apparently, he thinks that FilmLA, the organization that permits movie shoots in Los Angeles, can be induced to enforce the law:

"Everyone knows that when you go the city to get a permit, that permit comes with some conditions," Chase stated. "If a mainstream film studio wants to get a film permit and there's going to be pyrotechnics, then they have to have safety measures; they have to have the fire department involved. When you get a construction permit for your house, that means you've got to follow all the rules regarding workplace safety for construction workers. It's the exact same thing in the adult film industry. We have regulations saying that when workers might be exposed to the threat of disease, they have to be protected with barrier protection. In the context of adult films, that means condoms. This is a law that already exists, but this industry seems to believe that it's above the law, that it can just ignore the law and get away with it. It can't, and we're going to continue to do whatever we can, including going to the voters, to put pressure on this industry to start protecting its workers."

 Yes. but FilmLA does not have a charter to impose rules for condoms on porn shoots, and I don't see LA giving them the money to do so (otherwise, that would be called an "unfunded mandate", which is a no-no politically). But, Chase and Weinstein have an out for that: just let either the LA County Dept. of Public Health or Cal-OSHA take over the enforcement. The former, though, wants out of the condom police biz altogether after being burned far too often, and the latter already has enough powers through fines and raids (and is currently seeking to change the regs to force the mandate via "barrier protection" enforcement".

Just as interesting as who was there, though, was who was absent.

Like, for example, any active current porn performer, even though there are more than a few who do support the idea of more condoms in porn.

Also...no females this time; you'd think that Weinstein would want to avoid the stigma of having men lecture female performers on protecting themselves.

But the biggest absence of this drama?? No Ministeress!!!

Apparently Shelley Lubben has become much too radioactive for even the folks at AHF to recruit her ministry for propaganda's sake, thanks to the allegations that "Madelyne" (the former Michelle Avanti) raised against her and her Pink Cross Foundation. Either that, or Shelley's decided to focus her audience for her book on her fundamentalist Christian roots, and palling around with a liberal gay organization would get in the way. (Not that she's not doing her deeds en rogue, her YouTube page just put out a video of the presser, albeit altered to make it seem as if she was there.)

And if you remember, Clones, Shelley and Pink Cross was all over the original presser in June announcing the initiative; she even had her present protege Jan Meza pose in the background.Whether this is a permanent break or simply part of the strategy of divide and conquer, we shall see.

In any rate, maybe it's time for the industry to get past their differences and pull together and fight this nonsense. It's only your profession, you know.

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

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