Porn Panic 2012: The UCLA/Talent Testing Services Sexual Health Study: Empirical Research Or An AHF/Cal-OSHA Blindside For The Porn Industry??

Well, now....the Porn Testing Wars just got a new and ultimately interesting twist this weekend. As if the breakdown of the compromise between the Free Speech Coalition/Adult Performer Health and Safety Services and Talent Testing Services wasn't enough of a twist already.

Talent Testing, you will recall, reported last week that they would now back completely out of the compromise that they reached with APHSS, where they would share their test results with the database that APHSS uses to notify performers and producers of porn of their clearance to shoot scenes.  Basically, they cited incompatability with the protocols required by APHSS, including the requirement of a doctor on staff to verify test results and notify performers who are at risk for positive STI infection, as well as the need to maintain their "independence" from production companies such as Manwin, whom had essentially funded and backed the APHSS standards and protocols, and even offered to repatriate some of the costs of testing for performers. Mostly, though, they were opposed to joining APHSS on the concern that the latter group was, to their eyes, only a fundraising shakedown for the Free Speech Coalition, and biased towards a competing testing group, Cutting Edge Testing, that was formed out of the charred ashes of AIM -- the original testing group that was ridden out of LA in 2010 as part of the campaign to impose condoms in porn -- and whom was fully within the APHSS protocols.

Given the timing of all this happening while the Los Angeles County condom mandate is still being prepared for a November vote, one can marvel at the way that the industry is eating itself at precisely the wrong time.

However, a new and intriguing outside source has intervened to further stir things up a bit.

On Saturday, Talent Testing Services announced that they would participate in a sexual health survey hosted by the University of Cailfornia at Los Angeles (UCLA), in which they would offer their clients incentives (such as discounts on testing and free followup care) to participate in the survey. Essentially, any performer participating in the survey would have to sign a waiver giving UCLA the right to use their information (I assume with names removed for privacy protection) from their tests in whatever way they see fit.

That wouldn't be too much of an issue...except for one inconvenient fact: UCLA has also been the home of some of the more strident and openly hostle advocates of the condom mandate.  In particular, UCLA  - though its Reproductive Health Interest Group - has hosted seminars on performer testing and condoms in porn that have degenerated into nothing more than glorified press conferences for the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, the LA County Department of Public Health, Cal-OSHA, and other groups seeking to impose "barrier protections" in porn. (One such seminar even allowed Shelley Lubben to become the default "repesentative" of porn performers, while totally freezing out active performers who weren't so zealous towards the condom mandate and willing to torch the industry for its supposed mistreatment and "abandonment" of its talent.)

So, the question remains: Why would Talent Testing knowingly ally themselves with an organization which has openly abetted the agenda of AHF and would ultimately seek to undercut the industry??

At his latest post over at Adult Legal Blog, Michael Fattorosi weighs in one factor that may count: $$$$$:

There is a third potential possibility as well. Many people are now starting to understand that information is worth money. Data mining is a big time business in this world. STI testing results are indeed worth money to the United States government as well as corporations developing new drugs for STIs.

[...]

Performers wanting to receive a $40 gift card and free follow up STI medical care can participate in the study. Which essentially means that UCLA will have the right to their test results and medical care to use as part of their study – in essence a performer waives their right of privacy in so much that the information will could be sold. I am sure this information will be sanitized – meaning names will be removed since UCLA probably doesn’t care about a performer’s name or identifying information – rather UCLA cares about the empirical data – how often one tests, how often one catches an STI, the treatment received for such, how long the treatment lasted and how effective the results of the treatment were. That could be a data goldmine for a drug company trying to develop the next anti-biotic to fight any one of the many STIs on the planet.

How much can a group or organization receive for this type of information ? According to the link I posted to the National Institutes of Health’s grant overview information website, there is no limit. However if you want more than $500,000.00 you have to call the NIH directly. Apparently you cannot just email the application for a grant requests at that level.

I am not saying that Talent Testing Services received the grant themselves, however it does appear that UCLA has indeed received grant money for the study of STIs. The performers present a very unique situation in the world when it comes to STI research. I am going to bet that no where else in the United States does a group of people test for and possibly contract STIs as much as performers do in porn. And now that the testing cycle is being pushed to every 14 days, the amount of information is only going to increase and therefore the potential gold mine of data will increase in value as well.

As I tweeted, “there is gold in them thar HIV tests!”

 But as usual, I have a much darker, less pliable motive in play. Remember that UCLA has been all in with the AHF and Cal-OSHA throughout the entire condom mandate, and AHF has had no qualms in using underhanded tactics in using and acquiring performer records (whether it be using lawsuits to force AIM to hand over personal and private medical information, to using LACDPH staff to go to performers' houses with syringes seeking live blood samples, to exploiting both private message boards and underground sites like the original Porn Wikileaks in order to use private performers' medical records for their own cause). There's nothing that says that there wasn't some grease applied by AHF to get UCLA their grant for this study, and nothing says that the information gathered by this study won't be used by AHF as campaign fodder for their condom mandate ordinance. Or worse, that the information couldn't be conveniently be "sold" to AHF for use as blackmailing performers into compliance, or even recruiting them unwittingly in service to their potential "condom police".

It probably has also crossed Talent Testing's mind, too, that collusion with AHF/UCLA/Cal-OSHA, combined with busting the Manwin/APHSS/FSC/Cutting Edge Testing trust could gain them some serious credibility later on if the condom mandate ultimately passes and withstands court challenges. Clearing out a competitor AND getting paid...not a bad concept.

Now, all of this is simply conjecture on my part...for all I know, Talent Testing is simply taking advantage of an opportunity to contribute to a badly needed assessment of performer testing and STD study. But, considering the timing of all this, at the very least some answers are in order as to why they would do this at this time, rather than at least wait until after the condom mandate issue is resolved.

And, Shy Love and all those agents who are so exercised at defending Talent Testing's right of "independence" should take a step back and ask these same questions.

Porn Panic 2012: AHF Gets Their Sigs For Their LA County Condom Mandate Initiative; And LA City Council Punts City Mandate To Another Committee

Two developments today in The Great Condom Mandate War, and both of them not so good for the good guys.

First off: Michael Fattorosi has just tweeted at his @Pornlaw Twitter stream that AHF has now announced that they now has achieved enough signatures to have their condom mandate initiative sent to the voters of that county later this year.

And now, it has been confirmed by LAWeekly as well:

The AIDS Healthcare Foundation will turn in signatures tomorrow in its bid to put mandatory condom use for the area porn industry before L.A. county voters, AHF chief Michael Weinstein told the Weekly.

The group has more than 300,000 signatures, more than 30 boxes worth, that it will haul to the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder's office in Norwalk Friday morning, said another AHF official.

That means ...

... that you will likely be voting on the matter in November, because the group only needs about 232,153 valid, registered voters to sign on: The Registrar-Recorder still needs to validate the signatures and approve the measure for ballot placement.

The other news actually happened yesterday, when the LA City Council basically decided what they were going to do to enforce their new condom mandate law after the Adult Working Group committee which was supposed to draft new rules of enforcement tapped out without any resolution.

Their solution: kick it to another committee, this one featuring their own!!

The story from the Free Speech Coalition website:

CANOGA PARK, Calif. – Free Speech Coalition (FSC) was notified today by the L.A. City Administrator’s Office that the L.A. City Council has referred development of enforcement strategy for the city condom ordinance to the Arts, Parks, Health & Aging Committee.

Until recently, the development of an implementation and enforcement strategy had been charged to the City Administrator-appointed Working Group on the City of Los Angeles Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Ordinance. At the last meeting of the working group on May 11, the group postponed submitting the results of a report that would have recommended protocols for enforcing condom use on adult productions.

A few days later, it was widely reported that the working group had requested a 90-day extension of presenting the results of the report.

It is unclear why the issue has been referred to the Arts, Parks, Health & Aging Committee. That committee is made up of three L.A. City Council members, including Councilmen Richard Alarcon (7th District), Tom LaBonge (4th District) and Ed P. Reyes (1st District).

I'd say that it's because the council doesn't trust anyone else to voluntary enforce the law, so they want to railroad the process through.

It does mean that there probably will be that 90-day delay in implementation until the new committee reaches a consensus.

That previously mentioned LA Weekly article also noted that Weinstein had said that contrary to other reports, he would not seek a Request For Proposal (RFP) for AHF to bid for becoming the enforcers of the law, rather allowing the committee to resolve the issue. That probably means the committee will browbeat the LA Vice department and FilmLA to do the dirty bidding of being the "condom police". Weinstein also said that he would be willing to accept a 90-day delay; which conflicts with the POV of his legal counsel, Mark McGrath, who wasn't too happy of the "stonewalling" at the meeting today.

The bottom line remains the same: the battle isn't over; it's only just begun. The lawsuits are about to hit the fan the way Hurricane Katrina hit the Ninth Ward levees. Buckle up, Clones.

Porn Panic 2012 Continues: From Inevitable Tsunami To Spring Shower: LA Condom Mandate Committee Asks For 90 Day Extension Due To "Complexities"

You know, Clones, momentum is a strange thing. One day you have it like you think you will move the world on your little finger; the next morning, it slips though your hands.

I'm sure that before this morning, the folks over at the AIDS Healthcare Foundation were feeling mighty good about themselves, since they had browbeaten the LA City Council into passing their condom mandate law, and were just theeeees close to getting the hammer they needed to smash the LA porn industry into submission.

Problem was, reality got in the way of their mission...and now they will have to defer their celebration for an indefinite spell. At least, for 90 more days.

Today was supposed to be the day that the advisory committee setting the rules for enforcing the condom mandate law would issue their final report regarding the details of how they were going to enforce said law. The report was a prerequisite of the 120-day grace period between the passage of the law in January and the supposed enforcement of the law, which was scheduled to take hold on June 1st.

Unfortunately, like I said, reality got in the way.  Well, that, and the heavyweights of the porn industry finally getting together to fight the law.

First, the news that the final meeting of the "Adult Film Industry Working Group" was canned and delayed until further notice, via XBiz.com:

L.A. Porn-Condom Panel Postpones Meeting

 LOS ANGELES — The Adult Film Industry Working Group's fourth and final meeting slated for this week has been postponed.

The panel has been charged with crafting policies to implement Los Angeles' porn-condom ordinance and planned to schedule a final meeting sometime this week before they release findings in a report to City Council.

But Los Angeles city analyst Eva Bitar told XBIZ that the meeting has been postponed for this week and that no new date has been set for next week.

City officials last week said they were hoping to release findings to City Council by May 23 in accordance with a 120-day rule 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 ordinance currently isn't being enforced in the city, but later this month the ordinance could be put in effect.   

At the last meeting on Friday at City Hall, the 11 working group members heard public comments from Immoral Productions' Dan Leal, Free Speech Coalition Executive Director Diane Duke and adult industry attorneys Michael Fattorosi and Allan Gelbard, as well as the AIDS Healthcare Foundation's Mark Roy McGrath.

Now, keep in mind that this process was supposed to be completed TODAY, with a final report sent to the full LA City Council by May 23rd -- that would be this coming MONDAY, Clones -- so that they could rubberstamp their final approval and officially begin the process of blowing the LA porn industry to bits....errrrrrrrrrrrr, improving protection for porn performers.

It's looking more and more like that's just not going to happen now, so what the "Working Group" will send to the Council at its scheduled meeting on Wednesday will not be "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!!" but rather "Give us a bit more time, and we will get this done.  Maybe. Probably. Hopefully." Again, from XBiz:

 L.A. Condom Panel Asks for 90 Days, Cites 'Complexities'

 LOS ANGELES — The city administrative officer has asked for a 90-day extension to report back to City Council and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa over rules implementing the new condom ordinance targeting adult performers.


The request, made in a memo obtained by XBIZ, cited "complexities of this issue" and asks the City Council and mayor to give the Adult Film Industry Working Group additional time needed to complete the report.


The request effectively puts enforcement of the ordinance, which makes condoms mandatory for performers at on-location adult film productions within city limits, on hold until at least late summer.


The Adult Film Industry Working Group has met three times already to craft policies to implement the ordinance; the panel, composing of city, county and state officials, had planned to schedule a final meeting sometime this week before reporting to City Council, but that meeting ended up postponed.


The panel had been pressured to create a master plan for the ordinance within 120 days of the law being passed by City Council and signed by the mayor. The condom ordinance was passed by City Council in mid January after threats of litigations from the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which was successful in getting a ballot initiative pushed through.


In recent weeks the Adult Film Industry Working Group panel has heard from a contingent of vocal adult entertainment industry officials who say the ordinance is faulty and unneeded.


Two weeks ago, Free Speech Coalition Executive Director Diane Duke and FSC Board Chair Jeffrey Douglas met separately with the city administrative officer, Miguel Santana, and his staff to discuss specific complications inherent to the ordinance's  implementation and enforcement.


And last week's meeting at City Hall produced a strong turnout for the adult entertainment biz and included public comments from Immoral Productions' Dan Leal, Duke and adult industry attorneys Michael Fattorosi and Allan Gelbard.


Gelbard, who spelled out problematic legal consequences associated with the ordinance at the meeting, told XBIZ today that the 90-day extension may give the panel more time to logically think things through.


"Perhaps, if they take a more thorough look at the constitutional issues involved in attempting enforcement, they will realize what a mistake passing this ordinance truly was," Gelbard said.


"I would hope the working group advises the city that the chance of this ordinance surviving a legal challenge is all but nonexistent, and that the city — in this time of fiscal uncertainty — can ill afford the cost of defending this clearly unconstitutional statute in court, not to mention the significant additional financial exposure of having to pay an attorneys fees award when it is finally struck down."


Fattorossi told XBIZ that because of the industry's comments and analysis at the meetings, the working group is now well aware of problems that enforcement of the law will place on the city's services.


"The act is unconstitutional and it is encouraging to see the city finally recognizing how it is fatally flawed," he said. "It was apparent from my attendance at the meetings that the members of the working group had not considered how far reaching and overly broad the act is.


"I have a feeling they may need even more than 90 days."

XBiz has also posted a copy of the Working Group's official request for an extension, you can read it here. (Warning, PDF document requiring Adobe Reader)

This coming Wednesday's LA City Council meeting just got a lot more interesting.

I'm sure that Mike Weinstein and Brian Chase are going to be mad enough to be spitting bricks and chewing nails (and I don't mean fingernails), and they are going to have some real choice words to the council. And, I'm doubly sure that they will also have their Request For Proposal paperwork in their hands, screaming that if the LA City Council won't do its duty and choke the XXX industry to death with their condoms and dental dams, then perhaps they should simply outsource the job to those who will...namely, AHF and their allies. How that will fly in the wake of the expected wave of budget cutting due to the state of California being too broke and in debt, we'll just have to see.

Considering that AHF has already agreed to foot the bill for any and all legal costs for defending the law, you can probably understand their zeal.

This isn't to say that LA porn purveyors should declare victory and get out by any means.....there's still Cal-OSHA and their proposed "barrier protection" regulations that not only could supersede any actions by the LA City Council, but could be imposed statewide. Not to mention, nationwide, since the federal branch of OSHA has their own interest in this. (Those are the ones, remember, that would impose "barrier protections" -- meaning condoms for men and dental dams for women, and possibly even gloves, goggles, and other personal protection devices -- for any act of penetrative sex (oral, anal, or vaginal).) Plus, one should never underestimate the ability of AHF to simply throw tons of money to bribe their favored politicians into compliance.

This battle is far from over, and will be a marathon fight to the finish. Even past 90 days.

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.

Could Scottsdale, Arizona, Become The New "Porn Valley"?

As the day rapidly approaches that the LA condom mandate law takes full effect, the speculation has already began on whether the porn industry either fights the law or takes flight for more secure surroundings.

Some have been talking Las Vegas as a possible target replacement, while others have focused on Florida, where production has already been at full strength for quite a while.

However, the latest speculation is that the metro area of Phoenix, Arizona would be the prime candidate for porn production should there be a mass exodus of the San Fernando Valley.

This has been further strengthened by a story that originally aired on the ABC-TV local Tempe affiliate, then reposted to TheRealPornWikileaks, in which there is a discussion on whether or not the industry moving to the Phoenix area would be a good idea.

The article used two familiar faces for the "debate"; for the pro side, performer Taryn Thomas:

Taryn Thomas tells ABC15 Arizona could see an increase in adult films being made here because of a new regulation in Los Angeles.

The Los Angeles City Council recently passed an ordinance requiring condom use on porn sets.

Filming pornography is actually legal in California but that’s not the case in Arizona, here it’s considered pandering.

But Thomas tells ABC15 pornography is shot in Arizona anyway.

In fact, Thomas says the Valley is a breeding ground for adult film stars like her.

Thomas says with porn being a multi-billion dollar industry, Arizona should be happy to have it.

“Ultimately it’s going to bring revenue if it does come here,” said Thomas.

“Arizona should be thankful and begging us to come here because our state is in such a budget deficit.”

Needless to say, there is a contrarian view....and no surprise who ABC15 tapped to present it.

But Shelley Lubben, President of the Pink Cross Foundation, believes talk of the porn industry moving to Arizona is simply a bluff to get the ordinance changed.

If the industry does move to Arizona, Lubben says Arizona will be worse off for it.

“You don’t want this in Arizona because they’re bringing prostitution,” said Lubben. “They’re bringing illegal drugs. They’re having unprotected sex so those sexually transmitted diseases go into the general public. You don’t want this.”

Right, Ministress....because crystal meth labs don't already exist in Arizona, and people aren't already engaging in "unprotected sex".

Actually, probably fitting that the article pits Shelley against Taryn...a few years ago, Lubben had made an attempt to recruit Thomas into her PCF flock, taking advantage of a couple of low days Taryn had. When Thomas politely denied Shelley, the latter went apepoop, threatening to out Taryn for allegedly engaging in "dangerous sex" and using drugs, among other sins. Taryn simply flipped Shelley off and moved on. (A abridged synopsis of the matter can be found here.)

Interestingly enough, there may already be some "casing" going on, since Taryn Thomas hosted one of the first ever porn conventions in Arizona, the Pornstar Ball.  I'm sure that a good time was had by all...just check Taryn's Twitter page for updates.

Update:   WOW...Taryn Thomas just tweeted that apparently ABC15 is tiring of the clown act of Shelley Lubben, because in this morning's coverage of their "porn coming to Arizona" story, they purged all of her "testimony" from their segment. Ouch...even I felt that one.

Why Kayden Kross Kicks More Ass Before 6 AM Than Most Regular Folk Do All Day: The FOXBiz "Condom Mandate" Debate

 [Updated...scroll to bottom.]

A very illuminating debate on the LA condom mandate law took place last week.

Representing the pro-mandate side was Wendy Murphy, crusading prosecuting attorney and long-time TV trial analyst, well known for high-profile prosecutions...and apparently, waist-deep in Gail Dines' antiporn ideology. (Yeah, like Gloria Allred and Marcia Clark and Nancy Grace and other high-profile female prosecutors aren't???)

Repping the anti-side?? Porn performer and Digital Playground contract starlet Kayden Kross, who also knows how to spin a phrase or a thousand, having wrote plenty of pieces for Mike South's blog, and whom was a major contributor to Michael Whiteacre's still-in-the-works expose/documentary on Shelley Lubben.

The venue?? The FOX Business Channel's "The John Stossel Show".

Now, if you weren't aware of Kayden's gift of the tongue, you'd think that she would be mincemeat for the much more seasoned Murphy. Heck, Murphy basically looks like she could be Kayden's mother...and as we shall see, Murphy probably acts like she wants to be Kross' mother, too. After all, the prevailing conventional wisdom is that unless her name happens to be Nina Hartley, porn girls are so obsessed with their boob implants and what/how many dicks they can jam into their vaginas and mouths and buttholes that they aren't really that bright enough to defend their profession.

That day, though, Kayden busted that stereotype and crashed it into a million pieces. To put it simply, she kicked ass.



This was an especially gratifying boat race because apparently Wendy Murphy had gotten the memo from her antiporn colleagues that it was perfectly OK to slut-bait and personally embarrass Kayden for being such an advocate for intelligent porn women...up to and including bringing Kross' parents into the debate and dissing K2's arguments as "the dumbest thing I've ever heard". That K2 handled such an ambush with her usual public grace and class is not too surprising..though, I'm sure that her inner voice had some much...ummmm....earthier phrasing.

But aside from the personalities involved, the most important discussion point of the debate was the conflict between using the law for the purpose of "public safety and protection" -- the main justification used by proponents of the condom mandate law -- and the protection of individual liberty and freedom from unnecessary government intervention...which happens to be Stossel's main theme as a right-wing libertarian.

I should preface this with my own disclaimer: I am not a fan of John Stossel or of any network associated with Roger Ailes's "Political Crackhouse"....errrrrrrrrr, FOX political propaganda outlet, and I fundamentally reject his base view of libertarian capitalism totally freed of useful regulation and affirmative government as a referee insuring a level playing field.  I may be pro-porn and sex positive, but I'm still also very much a Lefty. Refer all objections to my new Twitter page, @AJK_DontGiveAFuck.  (Please don't..it doesn't exist..but you get my drift.)

However, there are times when I do think that libertarians do have a point or two...and this is one of them.

Allow me to quote from Marv Montag, an adult reviewer who posted at his blog his own review of the FBC's debate.

To start, it should be noted that I have no problem with condoms in my adult films, and I fairly regularly review the one (?) company that I know of that consistently uses them--Wicked Pictures.  I also review the releases of a number of companies that don't.  I'm neutral on the whole issue from the "aesthetics" perspective.

That said, I do have a problem with the unnecessary intrusion of laws on personal freedoms--particularly those dealing with freedom of expression.  In her rebuttals, Ms. Murphy noted that it was the job of the government to protect people.  On the surface, this is a laudable goal and has a good deal of truth to it.  What is lost in her espoused application of this idea, however, is the fact--and it's one fundamental to our nation's very core--that it's as much, or more so, the government's job to protect our liberties.  In watching various shows on television and reading various news articles, I have found that certain prosecutors seem to have a tendency to forget this fact...or at least put it aside when they so choose or when it's most convenient.  Indeed, sometimes the best way for a government to do its job--and to protect its peoples' liberties--is to do nothing at all.  (Thoreau, anyone?)

Now, one argument that invariably arises in this debate is the notion that workplace safety is regularly regulated by law and governmental agencies, etc. and that this should be no different.  It is certainly true that workplace safety is regulated.  As someone who deals with this firsthand in "real life", one might even say that it's regulated too much.  That said, the overall effect--in general--is a positive one.  But, what this argument fails to account for is that those instances most thought of in terms of workplace safety regulation do not deal heavily with inherently-speech-related items.  In the state of California--where this is all going down--the production of adult films falls fully under constitutionally-protected freedom of expression  (ref.:  the Freeman decision).  By forcing adult performers to wear condoms in their scenes--because the government presumes to know "what's best for them"--the art itself is being changed...the expression itself is being substantively and meaningfully altered.  This--to me and as one who holds dear all of our personal liberties--is enough to call this new law a "bad" one. 

Further, it does--as Kayden noted--have serious ramifications in the area of personal choice...sexual choice, which is also a form of personal liberty.  One could envision any myriad of things that could be "regulated" out of existence in the interest of "protecting people against themselves".  Indeed, if given enough leeway, a good many of our rights could be squelched by these same types of arguments.

Mr. Montag's point about prosecutors taking liberties with their power to convict people by appealing to the meme of "Those criminals are really guilty, they're just using their 'Constitutional rights' to trial by jury to game the system and get over from justice!!" is very much a germane and excellent point...especially given my point that most female high-profile prosecutors tend also to be more than a bit biased towards the antiporn crusader position of "rescuing girls from their abusers". That mentality does tend to support more coercive and blunderbuss regulation of public behavior, under the notion that going after the "source" and the "roots" of violent and dangerous behavior will curb the negative impacts of such behavior.  That describes the condom mandate proponents down to the crossed T and dotted I.

My main focus, though, is on the notion that because the government has a role in workplace safety because private business simply can't be trusted to self-regulate themselves, that automatically justifies laws like the condom mandate. Even though I support the use of government in ensuring government safety, I always have qualified that support with the condition that such regulation be limited to the harm that is being mitigated, that such regulation not be excessive as to harm those who are not directly responsible for that harm, and that those who will suffer the full weight of that regulation have some flexibility and some input into how such a regulation should be enforced. In other words, an effective regulation should be focused on the immediate harm, not be used as a wedge to impose even more restrictions on those not directly affected.

I also agree with Marv's position on how the condom mandate would essentially destroy free sexual expression in porn by reducing such expression to a narrow political/"health protection" spectrum. It's one thing for government officials to give rewards to groups who do endorse proper health care goals such as reducing STI's or promoting condom usage broadly as one of many means of prevention. It's quite another to insist that ALL porn performers should be forced to wear condoms and dental dams, and that any portrayal of sexual expression lacking such should be sanctioned, punished, or even censored. The former is proper progressive activism; the latter is what is more common with fascists and Nazis. Art and expression should only be regulated to the point that free and consenting adults are given full rights to engage in such with maximum protection from abuse or coercion. When government or monopolistic business abuses their power to micromanage adult people's sex lives or viewing habits, then we have lost any legitimacy as a representative democracy or a humanist state.

However...my main objections to the condom mandate remain the same as they always were: the law simply addresses a phantom pandemic that simply doesn't exist and never existed; it destroys and scapegoats a community (porn performers) who actually had a system of prescreening and testing that actually DID work well in containing STD's; and it is essentially a Ponzi scheme for the gross profits of shakedown artists like AHF's Michael Weinstein, BS propagandists like "Christian" activists Shelley Lubben and Monica Foster, and ultimately, a drive to regulate porn out of existence in California, and do an end-around over the Freeman decision that legalized porn production.

That "liberals" like Wendy Murphy and Gail Dines and Mike Weinstein can ally with "conservatives" like Pat Trueman and Shelley Lubben in boosting this law says a lot.

A few more eloquent voices like Kayden Kross would do a lot of good. And, I don't even mind the red hair. In fact..it kinda rocks.

Keep kicking 'em, K2.

Update:  Sean over at TheRealPornWikileaks.com has just posted a followup interview with Kayden Kross, where she elaborates on her adventure with Stossel and Murphy and restates her views on the condom mandate's impact. Just go there and read up on it...Kayden's looking better by the second. As if she didn't look damn HOT already.