The Safer Sex law in Calf

[stickyvicky]

At least the LA Times is getting the word out.
http://www.xbiz.com/news/212653
LOS ANGELES — The Los Angeles Times’ editorial board today said that it rejects Proposition 60 and urges voters to do so as well.

Calling the AIDS Healthcare Foundation-sponsored initiative “extreme” and “demonstrably counterproductive,” the Times said the proposition would, in effect, make every Californian a “potential condom cop.”

The proposal, if passed would not only mandate condom use but create “a private right of action so that any resident who spots a violation in a pornographic film shot in the state could sue and collect cash from the producers and purveyors if they prevail in court,” the Times said.

“f Prop 60 passes, it seems reasonable to expect the industry to go further underground or leave the state and become further fragmented,” the Times said. “Perversely, this would threaten the integrity of the voluntary — and effective — twice-a-month testing protocol which is credited with keeping HIV transmissions in check."

The Times also called foul on the possible extension of financial liability to, potentially, individual performers who produce and distribute their own content.

The paper noted that “Prop 60 is not the right way to address the safety of a small group of workers,” particularly because there hasn’t been a documented on-set transmission of HIV in more than a decade.”

“There’s also the possibility that some people might use the new law to harass adult-film performers,” the Times said.

The Times also noted that the lawsuit provision is one of the reasons a number of organizations outside the porn industry, including the Los Angeles County Commission on HIV, Equality California and AIDS Project Los Angeles, have signed on to oppose this measure.

“It’s also telling that the California Medical Association, which backed a state bill requiring condom use in the adult industry in 2014, decided to stay neutral on Prop 60,” the Times said. “Both the state Democratic and Republican parties are on record as opposed to Prop 60 as well.

“What unites them — and us — is the belief that Proposition 60 is not the right way to address the safety of this small group of workers. Not when the California Division of Occupational Health and Safety is working to develop safety standards specifically to protect adult-film performers from exposure to bloodborne pathogens through bodily fluids.”

The Times, in rejecting Prop 60, emphasized its support for rules that make performers in adult films as safe as possible.

“That’s why we reject Prop 60 and urge voters to do so as well,” the Times said.

Over the past month, numerous papers, including the Los Angeles Times have advocated against Prop 60.

The San Diego Union-Tribune, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Fresno Bee, the Sacramento Bee, the Mercury News, the East Bay Times and the Orange County Register all have urged a “no” vote on the proposition. XBIZ's executive editorial director, in an opinion-editorial last week, also urged a “no” vote on Prop 60.

[catalina2]

BRAVO Vicky. The LA times is late to the game. Papers across the state have panned the prop. The only issue is: NOBODY GIVES A DAMN ABOUT NEWSPAPER EDITORIALS OR ENDORSEMENTS today. Social media, various internet sites, radio talk shows and a handful of cable news programs dominate the dissemination of news. The "newspapers" have lost as much credibility as the major network news programs. It's a step forward, Vick, but what is really needed is what I think it was Walt that suggested - billboards, social media movements (yes, #NoOn60), facebook posts, etc. The millennials ( so f***ing over rated) get their news from these "reliable" sources and outnumber the remaining xyz generations. Too bad they're the least educated and most naive of every generation that preceded it. After all, they were the ones that gave BO (Barry) a first and second term (again, the devil made me write that). I'm with you all the way Vick, but am now very much a pessimist re the defeat of this measure.

[catalina2]

Vicky, I have a suggestion: why cannot the remaining 150,000$ or so raised by those opposing the prop simply rent for the next two weeks billboards placed strategically in the cities of LA, San Francisco, San Diego, Riverside, Palm Springs, etc. stipulating solely a list of the thirty plus parties and organizations opposing prop 60 and the seven incestuous organizations supporting it?? No discussions of porn or condoms or the specifics of the measure, just a listing of those for and against. Effective?? I think so. Had I the resources that's exactly what I would do.

[stickyvicky]

I don't know, I'm on the sidelines over here in florida. Ask Julia, she is involved in this fight deep. There is only so much I can do .... I'm busy running a network, working my ass off to keep everything running smoothly.... I'm not in tight with the FSC they are not my favorite people at all, but it's all we got... but ask Julia she is spearheading this movement on social media, I'm just here to help her when I can. Did you see the nice popups we did on her 2 sites?

[catalina2]

sorry this has to be short (going deer hunting for the week end). No, unfortunately I did not see them, Vick. I am a member of three sites already and that keeps me busy lol. My comment is: stop wasting money on ppl who are already con the measure!! also, while I love Sara J. (she's quite the character), I think her u tube vid missed an opportunity - she hardly mentioned the opponents of the measure at all! ppl judge many of these measures out here by the Voter Information Pamphlet and this year it is 224 pages long!! they will NOT read the details of 60 if they read it at all (all the con ppl and parties are NOT mentioned), but will see OSHA and [sic] evil porn producers and poor, exploited porn stars and will vote FOR the measure. After a cursory read even I would have voted for it. (more later, I have to split). (oh, and btw, U-Tube is an excellent venue for our goal of defeating the measure, kudos to Sara for thinking of it and carrying it through)

[stickyvicky]

Is this Derrick Burts? The guy who said he got HIV from bareback gay escorting? Then later changed his story after AHF got hold of him and starting paying him? How could anyone believe anything he says when the AHF is paying him? He will say whatever they ask him to say. It's just a paycheck.

Also he says "Condoms are already the law in CA". Well if they are already the law (they are it's true) then we do we need another law? Why not just enforce the law that already exists? Why bring in another law that takes 60 pages to explain? Just use the law that is already on the books. Makes no sense.

https://vimeo.com/hd4sitevideo/review/1 ... bda4b36b0b

[catalina2]

researched the meager U-tube anti-prop 60 videos. My analysis - 1. there is extant an "adult" community consisting not merely of performers, but associated types, i.e. directors to grips to agents to major production companies. 2. there are adult movie fans which exist in no insignificant numbers. 3. there are the remainder of the population which are indifferent to or tangentially interested in adult materials. Let's be fair, not Everyone is a porno fan whether they enjoy it surreptitiously or not. My point being - the adult community seems to be circling the wagons and firing upon the other two thirds of the equation,i.e they are not being inclusive in this battle. The fans are not your enemies. Snarkily referring to"fans" as more like "fanatics" is unfair, insulting and counter-productive. Disparaging those who more or less pay your bills (much as the major mainstream stars are ingrates to their fans) is awfully akin to shooting oneself in the foot. We as "fans" have the ability to desert the American porn industry quite easily, so why is it you belittle us?? Not mentioning names or incidents, why is it that the structure and leadership of some porn "co-operatives" assume, in disputes, that the fan must prove his innocence first?! This is just another instance of the "family" protecting its own, right or wrong. fyi it's WRONG. And further, if the adult community/family does not approach it's fans and non-fans with more respect they will reap the whirlwind of indifference.

[rokkerr]

researched the meager U-tube anti-prop 60 videos. My analysis - 1. there is extant an "adult" community consisting not merely of performers, but associated types, i.e. directors to grips to agents to major production companies. 2. there are adult movie fans which exist in no insignificant numbers. 3. there are the remainder of the population which are indifferent to or tangentially interested in adult materials. Let's be fair, not Everyone is a porno fan whether they enjoy it surreptitiously or not. My point being - the adult community seems to be circling the wagons and firing upon the other two thirds of the equation,i.e they are not being inclusive in this battle. The fans are not your enemies. Snarkily referring to"fans" as more like "fanatics" is unfair, insulting and counter-productive. Disparaging those who more or less pay your bills (much as the major mainstream stars are ingrates to their fans) is awfully akin to shooting oneself in the foot. We as "fans" have the ability to desert the American porn industry quite easily, so why is it you belittle us?? Not mentioning names or incidents, why is it that the structure and leadership of some porn "co-operatives" assume, in disputes, that the fan must prove his innocence first?! This is just another instance of the "family" protecting its own, right or wrong. fyi it's WRONG. And further, if the adult community/family does not approach it's fans and non-fans with more respect they will reap the whirlwind of indifference.

Can you give some examples? Curious to check it out...

[catalina2]

- the "fan fanatic comment", poorly produced and difficult to follow
---- one of the BEST OF ALL TO USE AGAINST PROP 60
- assumes fans are the real evil (performers being harassed by fans)
--another excellent discussion and well constructed - the approach I would prefer
-- this guy is all over the place and to state condoms are of no use in the spread of AIDS vitiates his entire argument in addition to assuming
the "public" are morons, what "unions" is he talking about?
- using gloves to penetrate everybody?? really!
- Sara's video, I've commented on this before, excellent vid with the exception that she lost the opportunity to chronicle the endless political and
more reputable organizations which oppose the prop in contradistinction to the ONE group (and it is only one as the others are simply constructs of the same individual) also an excellent discussion as to why condoms may NOT be the way to avoid
std's and aids, she explains the issue without simply stating "condoms are of no use in preventing the spread of aids"
As to the vague reference to "porn cooperatives", if you're really interested I'll PM you as I feel it is a sensitive subject and not open for forum discussion.

That's all for now though I am sure I can find more. Incidentally, I wouldn't emphasize the "worker harassment" issue. It's a money grab and a strictly political power gambit issue. Reducing it to workplace harassment fortifies this as a fight involving workers, the evil employers and the "state" as savior which it certainly is NOT.

[rokkerr]

Thanks for the links Catalina...

I disagree with your assessment of this video
She does not assume fans are the real evil. The concern are harassment by stalkers... a very real risk unfortunately in our business.
Vicky had a ''fan'' show up at her home one day and threaten to kill himself if she did not marry him.
She had next door neighbors email her and threaten to throw eggs at her car if she drove by
She had one guy mailing her literally 100 times in a day deluded messages

... the issue is Right of Privacy as guaranteed in the First Amendment to all Citizens. Vicky is as open with fans as any person I know in the business BUT out of those countless fans there are inevitably people who either are unbalanced OR just people who hate porn. What is a religious zealot gets the information who isn't a fan? There are unfortunately some people who are not rational in this world. I have not looked at all the videos yet but that girl to me was expressing that she wants to maintain some degree of privacy. I did not read it as a calling out fans as a ''real evil''. My 2 cents...

[Anthony_JK]

Is this Derrick Burts? The guy who said he got HIV from bareback gay escorting? Then later changed his story after AHF got hold of him and starting paying him? How could anyone believe anything he says when the AHF is paying him? He will say whatever they ask him to say. It's just a paycheck.

Also he says "Condoms are already the law in CA". Well if they are already the law (they are it's true) then we do we need another law? Why not just enforce the law that already exists? Why bring in another law that takes 60 pages to explain? Just use the law that is already on the books. Makes no sense.

https://vimeo.com/hd4sitevideo/review/1 ... bda4b36b0b

Actually, Derrick Burts has said repeatedly that he got infected with HIV though off-screen extracurricular activity during a condom-only shoot in Florida, though when you press him, his story changes every time.

Condoms in porn are only "the law" with respect to the passage of Measure B in Los Angeles County and the interpretation of CalOSHA's barrier protection/bloodborne pathogens standard, which has only been applied indirectly to porn shoots. There is a current attempt by CalOSHA to alter those standards to explicity regulate the porn industry through imposing "barrier methods" (such as condoms) through revised regulations. That effort was defeated earlier this year when AHF didn't get enough votes on the Standards Board to impose their new standards. (Vote was 3-2 in favor, but 4 votes were needed for ratification.) Also, the current law costs plenty to enforce and diverts resources away from actual enforcement of legitimate regulations, which is why AHF is going for this initiative to literally force the state (with the help of his soon-to-be-deputized-and-paid condom watchers) to impose Weinstein's standard much to his profit. Also, if they are successful, they can use this "Weinstein Model" to force the national branch of OSHA to impose the standard nationwide, as well as use this for legislation in other states.

[catalina2]

Rokker: point made re the vid of the young woman. I respect and understand her point and your corroboration. MY point, in-artful as it was re this vid, is the abrogation of the right to privacy when one elects to become a public figure. Let us say a "Lisa Ann" was making the same claim or Hillary Clinton. My point is and remains, the porn industry should treat its fans with the respect they deserve for they would fail without them. There are more psychos born every day but that doesn't mean they're all porn fans ready to stalk and harass porn ppl. You and I know the vast majority of fans adore their "stars" and would not tolerate any harm to them, so why is it the primary concern among these stars that fans, given the opportunity, would do them harm? We are the second part of the triad (porn family, fans, the public ) fighting prop 60. Why not accept us rather than using us as a foil to combat prop 60?

[George B]

KQED hosted a debate about the proposition today, in attendance:
Host Michael Krasny
John Schwada, campaign director, Yes on Proposition 60
Siouxsie Q James, representative, No on 60: Californians Against Worker Harassment

have a listen
https://ww2.kqed.org/forum/2016/09/30/p ... ult-films/

[WalterB]

How many deranged fans does it take to harm a porn star, Catalina? Think of Rebecca Shaeffer or John Lennon or numerous others no longer with us due to "deranged fans." A porn model must maintain her secrecy and her privacy. There IS no other choice.

When one becomes a public figure, one does not give up their right to privacy.

Porn actresses are just like anyone else. They are people, with likes, dislikes, and some have attitudes. Yes, there are some who ride a big white horse. But there are many more who are just normal, every day people, struggling to make a decent living just like anyone else. They should not have to look over their shoulders every time they go out. People have been dumped for finding out a models name and then broadcasting it here on the forum. Of course, those posts have been removed and the posters immediately banned. But a porn actress, whatever her status, has every right and expectation of privacy jut like the rest of us.

[catalina2]

well, we do have some very divergent views here I must say. Walt, as much as I respect your views, I disagree with your interpretation of the law re public figures and the right to privacy, e.g. see libel laws and free speech vs public figures. I am not and I emphasize not on the side of prop 60. I AM against using fans (as fanatics) as a cudgel against supporters of prop 60.
Also, Rokker, on a lighter note, I have a neighbor that threatens to egg not only my car but ME on a daily basis for reasons I will not disclose. lol
George: I listened to that show and was outraged by the outright lies and misrepresentation of the medical associations [sic] they were mislead. I am a surgeon and damn well know, that while the AMA stood mute, they did not support the measure out of ignorance or lies. also, on the whole, I think anyone listening to that radio show should become even more pessimistic as the dissembling and patronization of the prop 60 proponent demonstrates the length to which these ppl are determined to impose their views.

http://www.nytimes.com/1983/06/12/weeki ... -well.html attn:Walt

[catalina2]

btw George, thx for posting the show, I am constantly on the look out for how this prop is fairing and the news "ain't" good.

[catalina2]

addendum for Walt: ''Privacy is a simple matter in my case,'' Warren Beatty, the actor and director told the American Society of Newspaper Editors last month, ''I don't have any and I don't really expect any.''

[rokkerr]

It's not directed to ''fans'' per se who most of the girls like...

It's directed at the State of California forcing everyone who wants to make a porn to go down, register, provide IDS and let.. in some cases.. the fans be policemen...
The state should simply have the balls to be the enforcer IF it's going to make the law...

That is an open invitation to slimey lawyers everywhere to get in the ''sue a pornstar'' game...

The girls are not in my opinion angry at the fans though... it's truly the lawmakers who are suggesting it

[catalina2]

The girls are not in my opinion angry at the fans though... it's truly the lawmakers who are suggesting it - then why are they (the girls) using the argument that the "fans" they love will harass them?? It will be the state that harasses them, not the fans. Anyone of any notoriety is going to attract nuts but why use this as an argument and further alienate your base of support (your fans)?!

[rokkerr]

The girls are not in my opinion angry at the fans though... it's truly the lawmakers who are suggesting it - then why are they (the girls) using the argument that the "fans" they love will harass them?? It will be the state that harasses them, not the fans. Anyone of any notoriety is going to attract nuts but why use this as an argument and further alienate your base of support (your fans)?!

We agree to disagree... I am a big believer that even celebrities or people with notoriety don't lose all their rights of privacy completely... these are women who have sex on camera who attract strange stalkers more frequently than you would think.
99% of fans are amazing, but the 1% is a bit scary...