Cal OSHA Issues An Occupational Health Alert

The long term results of what this means are yet to be found out but this is a very clear shot across the bow of the Adult industry.  What it immediately does is dispel the myth that testing is enough.  It also dispels the bullshit about no on set transmissions in ten years. But let’s face we ALL knew that was bullshit, anyone who didn’t know that is prolly too dumb to be in porn to begin with.
I think it would behove people in the biz to see this as a shot across the bow, because that is exactly what it appears to be.
If you are a smart performer you will make sure you are signed up for health insurance as is required by law, Then you should get on a PreP regimen which your insurance should cover based on this Alert.  This should actually be encouraged and/or required by agents.  It takes some of the responsibility off of them and off of producers.
 calosha-1

77 Replies to “Cal OSHA Issues An Occupational Health Alert”

  1. LurkingReader

    For women considering PrEP…A heads up to allow you to make your choices accordingly…PeEP is proven to prevent anal transmissions while studies for Vaginal Studies returned dismal results outside of monogamous serodiscordant couples also using condoms. Specific questions are best discussed with your medical provider.

  2. LurkingReader

    Folks shouting unconstitutional might want to consider all the other industries that said the same before they had to modify their stance after taking workplace safety fights through every venue available. IG: Artists kicked and screamed when lead paints were no longer acceptable for any commercial paintings.

  3. rawalex

    Two things in this bother me. First is that it seems to be making testing as a “should” and not a requirement. While testing is not a be all and end all solution, it’s does take care of a fair bit of the issue up front. Making it anything less than mandatory makes it meaningless.

    Second is that there is no mention of how the HIV in the cited (gay) production happened. Performers who have unprotected sex outside of the workplace generally should be considered “unsafe”. If both of the performers involved tested negative but one or both of them had sexual contact with non-tested individuals, then the system breaks down.

    It does also point out that if straight porn performers want to stay safe, they should not do scenes with male performers who are either gay or gay for pay and doing unprotected gay sex scenes, as the risks in that community as a whole are significantly higher than the general population. The popularity of anal sex scenes for straigth performers among some production companies does not help either.

  4. SabrinaDeep

    Bad people, good people: they exist in every known profession. Serious companies take their interviewing process very seriously; it doesn’t guarantee that the person you hire is good for the job, but it helps keeping a lot of bad people away. In porn, an interview is merely a look at front, back and side set of pictures. You can enforce all the regulations you want, but when it comes to STDs you will never be 100% safe and you will always be at max 20% safe for as long as the bad people have a nice ass or a nice pair of boobs. Ethics, professionalism and attitude are not required assets in porn and just enforcing all the above it is not going to help a bit. I throw it there: give us a license, then make clear rules and enforce what you think it’s best and the first one breaking the rules fine them and withdraw their license; make hiring unlicensed performers a felony; make this industry a legit one run by professionals. Amen.

  5. jilted

    @Jennifer
    You must be joking in this post, and the one below. “Unecessary rectal swabs” thats a joke right Do you have any clue as to the rates of std’s in these anatomical sites in the porn industry. It is an absolute joke that the industry themselves do not voluntarily test these sites. And regardin your ‘bedroom.’ This ridiculous argument was shredded the first time it was mentioned years ago. This has nothing to do with what you do in the privacy of your own bedroom,,absolutely nothing. This is about WORKPLACE safety. I cannot believe that people in the industry are still making these kinds of statements, It is these kind of statements that show who ignorant of the law people continue to be, and exactly why this industry needs regulation.

    And nobody is ‘forced’ to be vaccinated, It is recommended, and there is a legal form that all employers have that has a nice little box where the employee can either,,,,accept the vaccination, deny the vaccination, or state that they have already been vaccinated.

    its almost hilarious how many constitutional scholars and medical experts have decided to go into the porn business/

  6. jilted

    And again Sabrina hits the nail right on the head. And regarding the licensing of sex workers,,,that would be a huge step towards being classified independent contractors, but that licensce would probably require a drug test, and that would eliminate a huge portion of the working pool.

    Too bad there is not one single member of APAC who has balls as big as Sabrina(just a figure of speech lol) I know that many performers agree with her, but they just dont have the balls to speak out, nor do they have any organization to speak for them. You would think that an organization that calls themselves ADVOCATES would address these issues,,,good luck, like Sabrina said, if youre looking for ehtics and professionalism anywhere in this industry you will come up emptly.

    I nominate Sabrina for “Most Honest” person in porn. Funny thing is she wins becasue there are no other candidates.

  7. jilted

    Refarding this “Alert.” This is one single step in a process. They say OSHA can only respond to complaints filed, but that is not true. OSHA can take action without a complaint, and this is the first step to taking that action in this industry. Note how the OSHA departments from different states are cooperating in this matter…..Kind of makes ya wonder just how wide open those Nevada arms are for the industry to set up shop there.

    ps.,,,is APAC open to gay industry performers?

  8. jilted

    AIM went bankrupt because they misappropriated their funds. They owed their labs over $650,000.00, and when they couldnt find another lab to do their testing during the week they were closed for remodeling they had to shut down,, Like the other misinformed statements you have here, neither OSHA or AHF had anything to do with AIM’s closing, and the complete bankruptcy papers for AIM are on this site it you care to take a look and get the facts. And again, the government is no where near your bedroom, unless of course YOU have turned your bedroom into a workplace, where rules and laws apply to everyone.

  9. jilted

    Let me clarify about this first step. Department of Public Health says their is a chronic, ongoing problem in an industry,,,,now OSHA can take action without a specific complaint,,,,a little more complicated than that, but this is the jist of it. AHF has all the time, and money in the world to keep going. And a statewide initiative on the next ballot, and a direct appeal to governor moonbeam to appoint a special committee to “look into” these issues. ps,,,,one of moonbeams top advisors is on the BOD of AHF.

  10. jilted

    A little off topic but, did you know that in 2011 Dianne Duke’s base salary with FSC was $150,000.oo,,,in 2012 it was $158,000.00 and in 2013 it was $175,000.00. Cant wait for the 2014 docuents to be made puplic. Hey Stagliano, how does it feel to hand so much cash to DDuke? Are you getting your money’s worth?

  11. rawalex

    Sabrina, are you a professional and licensed comment writer? Can I see your government issued permit? Think I am being silly? You have to remember that to some extent porn is an expression of protected free speech. You cannot limit free speech by creating restrictions on who can do it and when. It’s why anti-porn campaigners do things with zoning laws and “health” regulations, in a very good part to try to regulate your free speech. Will it be acceptable when there are no longer cumshots or oral sex (both dangerous!), or when lesbian scenes can only happen when both are clearly wearing dental dams to stop the spread of disease? It’s the old slippery slope, and “licensing” porn people is the first step towards discouraging people from exercising the free speech rights. Go look up “prior restraint” and you will get an idea how it works.

  12. Karmafan

    AP (Associated Press) released this today:

    Two adult film actors have tested positive for HIV, with one most likely infecting the other during unprotected sex at a film shoot in Nevada, California health officials said.

    One of the actors had previously tested negative for the virus that causes AIDS before a pair of film shoots but then began showing symptoms during the second shoot and was later found to be HIV-positive, the California Department of Public Health said Monday in a statement.

    “In this case, the actor and production company thought he was HIV-negative during filming,” the statement said. “Shortly after his negative test, HIV levels in his body rose rapidly to where he could infect other actors through unprotected sex.”

    The other infected actor also participated in the shoots, and health officials said the virus was probably transmitted by the actor who previously tested negative. California health officials would not give further details about the patients or cases, citing privacy restrictions. A message left with public health officials in Nevada was not immediately returned.

    The infections came amid a major decline in porn filming in Los Angeles County, once the center of porn production in the country, where a 2012 law requires actors to use condoms. The number of porn filmmakers applying for filming permits in the county declined from 485 in 2012 to 40 in 2013. The last confirmed on-set HIV infection was in 2004.

  13. LurkingReader

    @jilted

    Lol yes very complicated, last year I noticed the majority of inspections were being processed out of the Oakland office whether or not they were marked as ‘Targeted Compliance’ The next step after Alert is State and/or Regional focus. As things wrap up for enclosed space, elevators and silica dust the western Region has more time and resources to delegate to other areas. Porn’s time to be recognized as the legitimate workforce it has claimed to be has truly come….with regulations to distinguish adult film from prostitution. 😉

    Lol the special committee to look into these things started over a year ago with The Governors appointments to OSHA and budgeting funding restoration with other changes to Cabinet agencies. The fact that this alert spells out details shows the weakness agencies are going to exploit to enforce regulation … Equality. Folks doubting this need only click the OSHA link on the Alert to see the new and updated page OSHA is devoting to adult film performers….post exposure testing is mandatory as are pre-employment vaccines.

  14. LurkingReader

    @karmafan

    That AP version one doesn’t have the tid bit in others…the industry trade group declined comment. Seemed awful nice of the AP to not name the trade group.

  15. LurkingReader

    High Hazard workplace Designation coming to porn sets in California with associated Target Compliance Enforcement. That’s really gonna fuck with plan to ditch LA County and their legislated permit schemes.

  16. LurkingReader

    “Yesterday, the California Department of Public Health released information about an incident this past September concerning a performer with HIV working on a non-compliant adult film set in Nevada. This is, however, not a ‘current threat’ as stated in the press release.”

    From FSC press release…even if you believe FSC/PASS protocols work (which I don’t) FSC must want you to believe that all production and performers suddenly signed onto their protocols and PASS to say this isn’t a current and ongoing threat…SMDH

  17. jilted

    @Rawalex,
    The licensing of paid performers does not violate prior restraint. The speech does not belong to a paid performer, it belongs to the producer. Now if they were requiring a license to PRODUCE porn i would agree. The license for performers is only in regards to health,safety, and ability to safely perform. The free speech right belongs to the producer, not the performer. Even shool teachers have to pass certain health restrictions in order to be allowed in the classroom. And as the court recently ruled in the Measure b case,,,,,condoms are not a prior restraint.

  18. LurkingReader

    @rawalex

    ” Performers who have unprotected sex outside of the workplace generally should be considered “unsafe”.”

    That’s the basis to the conflict….employers can and do regulate some things their employees do off the clock…IG illicit drug use, residential location w/I city boundaries etc in the guise of employee qualifications. There is no way porn as a workplace can regulate employees (IC if you prefer) to only those who have protected sex outside the workplace because of our anti-discrimination laws. To do so would invite challenges to interference in reproductive rights among others.

    The regulated workplace vs the individual who has protected freedoms.

  19. SabrinaDeep

    @rawalex You are talking to someone who is against the mandatory use of condoms. Fact is, though, that many girls and boys in this industry don’t give a flying fuck about safety: they get tested today, fuck bareback an untested client tomorrow and shoot unprotected porn the day after. Am i right or wrong? We all know who they are. They all get plenty of work, because producers, guess what, don’t give a flying fuck either. Am i right or wrong? Now, if i was even partially right (and i know i’m fully right) do you agree that this is bad and what other solutions you have for getting this scum off the biz, but sending them to school to learn the basics of professionalism and respect for the next and making them responsible for their actions with threatening to take their job away if they don’t comply, as well as fining whoever keeps giving jobs to this scum? I am provoking, of course, and if you have a better solution to clean this industry up in an unobtrusive way, i’m all ears. Something like a license shouldn’t be necessary, if everybody used common sense, but in this industry common sense is like the pest: avoided at all costs; it’s a jungle where those who fuck the others best win. And i’m not talking about sex.

  20. mdxxx

    Once again this is a gay porn issue, not a straight porn issue. Sure it could become a straight porn issue, but I feel that in 2015 changes will be made.

    Especially after this, I expect many in the adult industry to refuse to work with crossover talent. Not much crossover talent is left anyways, but the remaining will die out.

    Finally this occurs in other places other than Nevada. If you went to Treasure Island Studios in SF for a month, you would see enough to make you sick to your stomach if gay porn isn’t your thing. Yet politicians and others want to banter about condom use, when condoms are the least of everyones worries right now.

  21. MikeSouth

    Sabrina, I wish everyone in porn, male or female had your common sense and sense of responsibility and professionalism. You are a treasure. Much respect for you doll!

  22. LurkingReader

    @SabrinaDeep

    Licensing porn performers idea has been bantered around for over ten years. Policy makers wind up discarding it pretty quickly when some wonk points out the obvious…it carries the same faults as the current FSC testing protocols and can’t meet goal of weeding out the riff raff who’d fuck a Mack truck if it paid the rent or bought stuff from their amazon wish list

  23. rawalex

    Sabrina, not believing that the law can stand a solid legal challenge doesn’t mean that I don’t think condoms are the correct idea. The problem faced here isn’t one of “the industry” but rather of all of those individuals who have the free speech right to film themselves fucking and then give it away or sell it if they like. You cannot tell a married couple of that they must use a condom because they are also using a camera. That limits their free speech rights, plain and simple. So if you cannot regulate all of the producers of porn videos without violating free speech rights, then it’s very hard to enforce it on anyone. Trying to act like the “porn industry” is limited to the few hundred players in the valley is pretty much a non-starter.

    Again, I am not against the mandatory use of condoms, but used unwisely, I actually think they constitute a back step and not a forward move. Removing a couple of bullets from the gun doesn’t make Russian Roulette turn suddenly into a fun family game. Making people think it’s suddenly safe because Cal-OSHA says so… you don’t have to look hard to see the cliff that car is driving over.

    Think further: If you cannot enforce the law without violating an amateur’s rights, then can you enforce that on someone who might sell an amateur’s legal video? If you make it harder to distribute legal free speech, you are exercising prior restraint (look back to the issues of printer ink, it’s very old case law).

    Also, the OSHA rules generally fail, because they don’t address many of the ways that STDs can be transmitted. Using a condom for vaginal or anal penetration would certainly make things safer, but if the guys pulls the condom off and spews cum all over the girls genitals or down her throat (or in her eye, even worse) then you have a hazard. The only true “safe” sex would involve use of condoms and dental dams for all acts, and would forbid ejaculation, deep kissing, and other potentially hazardous acts. So even in the best of times, there will always be risk.

    Moreover, I think it’s a pretty big concern that people will rely too heavily on the condom for protection. OSHA’s document suggests that testing “should” happen, but does not make it mandatory or set standards for it. It does not set standards for HIV positive performers (there are some in the gay market), and places pretty much the whole deal on a .03 thin piece of protective rubber… It may make you feel better, but if it leads to people being more sloppy and less concerned than they already are, then your risk actually goes up.

    Getting past those pesky first amendment issues will be tricky. You just need some amateur camgirl to get “caught” having unprotected sex by OSHA for the whole deal to get split wide open.

  24. rawalex

    Sabrina, let me take this one step further (and drag Mike in).

    Southern Bukkake. Safe or unsafe?

    Discuss among yourselves, I am a little verklempt over the whole thing.

  25. Danny Davis

    How many more crossovers will die out?
    How many more HIV outbreaks will happen
    in 2015? Remember, its all about the Agents(pimps)
    and Producer’s rights. Not the performers.
    Performers sold themselves out big.
    Happy New Years.

  26. BT

    Folks, and with all due respect to Ms. Ruby, this is not meant to be a rude post. However, this whole line of argument that the law is unconstitutional is a waste of your time and energy. The Federal Court System, not bloggers, twitter, or comment posters on MikeSouth.com, determine whether or not a law is constitutional. That, by the way, is constitutional. So, where are we …..

    First, as one of the posters below points out, this has nothing to do with what happens in your personal bedroom, which would be a constitutional issue related to personal privacy. This has to do with workplace safety. OSHA was found to be constitutional years ago. Workplace rules to protect against the transmission of disease from blood borne pathogens or other bodily fluids, sexually-transmitted or otherwise, have been in place for decades. They are as common as requiring hard hats and steel toed shoes on a construction site or that medical and dental professional wear latex gloves and glasses before they work on your mouth.

    With regard to whether the law – which is different from an OSHA regulation – is constitutional or a joke has also mostly been settled. Why? Because under the Constitution, the federal courts and not bloggers or posters on MikeSouth.com determine whether a law is constitutional. That, my friend, is constitutional. When the condom law was passed, the blogosphere went wild claiming that porn has a first amendment right to spread STDs. Vivid sued, claiming it was protected under the First Amendment, and a bunch of commerce clauses, to not use condoms. Vivid lost in a federal district court, where the judge said, sorry, there is no First Amendment violation here. Vivid appealed to a federal appeals court. They just ruled that the trial judge was right: The appeals court explicitly said that porn’s message – its First Amendment right to express sexuality – is not constrained by the use of condoms. The court also said that protection of the public health trumps porn’s right to film sex without condoms.

    If porn still really believes that the law is unconstitutional, porn can appeal to the Supreme Court, which is the last stop in this process and the final arbiter.

    With regard to swabs and all the other stuff that some folks here object to, remember that what they are suggesting – and perhaps mandating – are the ways that you test for STDs. I have to chuckle a little when the porn industry thinks nothing of shoving dildos, toys, fingers, tongues, and dicks up asses, but then says, wow, you want to swab my butt with a Q-tip? How dare you!

    So, where are we? We have a law and we now have OSHA requirements. The law has been found to be constitutional. The only real question at this point is whether anyone – either the County of Los Angeles or OSHA – is interested in enforcement.

    If yes, porn will have to change its ways, or, appeal to the Supreme Court, hope that the case is heard, and it wins.

    If no – if no agency wants to enforce the law – porn can go on its merry way.

    That’s where you’re at. But the continual idea that the law is unconstitutional or that porn performers are independent contractors and not protected by law or any of the other arguments that bloggers and comment posters have argued were blown out of the water by OSHA and the courts. Those ships have sailed.

    Enforcement. That’s what you’ve got to worry about.

  27. BT

    Sorry to disagree, but, you can tell a married couple engaged in an act of commerce – producing porn for profit – that they must wear a condom. It is no longer a private act between consenting adults. That’s like saying, under the law, you cannot tell a dentist to wear gloves if he examines his wife in his office because they are married or a husband and wife don’t have to wear hard hats on site if their construction company is building their office building. Workplace safety rules are workplace safety rules. They don’t make a distinction for the relationship between the parties. If a husband and wife want to film porn for commercial purposes, they have to play by the rules – a spouse does not have a constitutional right to infect his or her partner with a disease for profit.

  28. SabrinaDeep

    @rawalex Nothing is safe. Even not the fact that i have to tell you so. Husband and wife is not safe, parents and children is not safe, fluoride in water is not safe, taking a crap is not safe. Forgive me if i smell trolling, but i found that comment of yours as such. You are free to use the nickname you want, but when people put a face behind their statements it’s a whole different world, in terms of credibility. I might HIV tomorrow, you never know…but after over 7000 men fucked and hundreds of liters of sperm i had to deal with, i still follow the same procedure: test, fuck tested, take a break, rinse and repeat. Why? Because i care for my and others’ health. Not and never gonna be 100% safe, but better than test, fuck untested, fuck, fuck untested, fuck untested, fuck, rinse and repeat. Happy new year to you and everybody else on this board.

  29. jilted

    @mdxxx,
    The lack of seperation of gay and straight porn makes this and issue for everyone in porn. Derrik Burts being the perfect example. Burts had an agent who knowingly booked him with 2 HIV positive gay performers, then booked him to work unprotected with females,,,,all during the same testing cycle. And this is happening regularly. Even APAC noted in one of their press releases that there is no longer a seperation onf the industries.

    And this is why there are now gaping holes(pun intended) in this so called safety net. Testing means nothing when half the people(gay/crossovers) work with people who dont participate in the testing program.

    And the next step, which lurk pointed out, the designation of the porn industry as a ‘high health risk’ industry will then require that the IIPplans have to reflect this new designation(more work for Karen Tynan). Slowly but surely,,,like weinstien pointed out, it took twenty years to get needle exchanges made legal. And nice to see Nevada communicating with California on this issue. Looks like those open arms that Dianne has spoken of arent so open after all. Cant wait to see what Nevada OSHA does to the company involved here.

  30. MikeSouth

    LOL Oh now ya went and done it…thats my Ox LOL. In all truth I agree with Sabrina NOTHING is safe, but I do take all reasonable steps to insure the safety of all my performers male and female and they are working, with some luck added in no doubt because in 20 plus years of doing porn There hasnt been a single std of any kind on my set (knocking on wood) but I shoot in a VERY VERY different environment than porn valley. My guys ONLY shoot for me. I know them all personally and if they even have a cold they will bow out of a shoot. they shoot once every couple of weeks and thats it. Now were I shooting in L.A. I am sure I couldnt make that claim. As it stands the condom law doesnt effect me except when the bukkakes turn into gangbangs which as of late have been all condom.

  31. LurkingReader

    @rawalex

    assuming you’re basing this on Freeman…as a producer (stakeholder who stood to gain or lose) he was charged and successfully defended charges of hiring talent based on the first amendment…because it was a situation of contractual labor vs prostitution or pandering. I’d be interested in any legal precedent you have that exempted porn or any other commercial concern from established labor regulations.

    As for amateur vs professional….the legal definition of amateur moots the argument making it inexperienced professional vs experienced professional with the first contract.

    Look at Circus performers …my kids will never experience the awe I felt as a kid attending events with untethered high wire and trapeze performers swinging freely through the air. This point hit home after taking them to Cirque Du Solei when they noticed the drapes were a tether equivalent.

    Prior restraint has nothing to do with why policy folks quickly dismiss licensing schemes. I’ve gone back to 2000 and seen every well intentioned idea or proposal towards licensing adult film performers abandoned because it would create governmental burdens without hope of meeting it’s purpose.

    To connect the dots here…the (Circus) stakeholder is responsible for ensuring compliance with all applicable municipal, state and federal laws. This includes ensuring all performers aka workers (classified employee or IC) comply with the same.

    The stakeholder/performer contract defining payment for services voids free speech rights for individuals as they are not FREELY expressing themselves they are exchanging their services for a consideration. Artists contracts for commissioned paintings and sculptures make this point better than I can.

    Drape work as an equivalent to guide wire tethers in circus type settings is the rationale behind my constant encouragement to individual producers and small companies to get involved in the OSHA process to avoid having FSC speak for them. While stakeholders were pissing and moaning over guide wire regulations hurting their bottom line, performers looked for alternatives methods to preserve their paychecks.

    Lastly Strip Clubs pushed the IC angle hard enough that some municipalities require Dancers to be licensed. Those licenses are the equivalent of a business license and survived prior restraint lawsuits. So it’s possible that performers could be licensed but extremely doubtful any license would include STI prevention measures.

  32. jilted

    How can the FSC cry ‘self regulation’ and then turn around and say this shoot was on a non compliant set…..Self regulation means everyone makes rules for themselves, so how can anyone ever be non compliant with their own regulations,,,,,,and if this set was ‘not in compliance’ then who sanctions them, what penalties are there,,,,,,,NONE, because they police themselves, and nobody is going to sanction themself.

    This is a perfect example of the industry to demonstrating how they handle these situations,,,,they do nothing, no sanctions, no outing the company or individuals who they say were non compliant.

    APAC. what is your stance on this ‘non compliant company, and performers? Anybody going to boycott them, or will it be business as usual, no sanctions, no nothing. THIS IS PROOF POSITIVE THAT SELF REGULATION MEANS NO REGULATION. NO SANCTIONS, NO BOYCOTT, JUST BUSINESS AS USUAL. When the FSC says self regulation, who does the regulating? I will answer that for you, nobody. Can anyone prove me wrong>

  33. jilted

    Maybe I missed something, but has APAC made any statement on ths yet? Or are they waiting for the FSC to write their press release? How can the self called ADVOCATES remain silent. LOL

  34. LurkingReader

    Haven’t noticed anything except APAC retweet Connor Habib tweet offering to be there for any gay performers ….lmao like the same thing couldn’t wouldn’t or hasn’t happened on straight sets? WTF

    So APAC has the same hugs PAW offered…nada about hooking them up with free or low cost HIV resources lol

  35. johne72

    Interesting comments so far. I found it rather shocking that my local Portland Oregon news station picked the article up. http://www.katu.com/news/entertainment/Alert-issued-after-likely-HIV-porn-set-infection-287117831.html

    I have said for years we would not be in this position if people used common sense. Sabrina is right to a large degree. Sadly Sabrina is also a rarity. Mike is fortunate that he sits outside the LA bubble. He uses his own talent mostly. What law has now done is spread shooting locations all over with talent flying in and out of area. Which will make testing and keeping track of testing much more difficult.

    Mike is probably better informed her but typically LA, Vegas, San Fransisco(kink), Phoenix, Miami and Montreal have been the hot beds for filming. All these cities have testing locations. But it still takes time to get organized and send results places. If this OSHA Alert covers both LA and Vegas isn’t this the first case showing up out of LA?

    Why condoms aren’t mandatory for at least penetration is mind boggling. Solo Female sites that typically are run by husband and wife should have a bit of leeway. Really this should not be a state law but a federal law or regulation so that every state follows the same laws.

  36. Nick East

    Exactly, Ruby!!! Why would anyone compare people with absolutely NO actual working skills with house painters, right? I mean, Gosh!!! House painters make more money than male porn stars all day long, eh? Not to mention the fact that THEY are looking out for their futures and saving for retirement and leading everyday normal lives instead of whatever it is todays male porn actors are doing. AND you’ll never see house painters on skinemax late at night without them having the sense to be paid RESIDUALS, eh? Truly, I say to you, house painters are smarter than that!!!

  37. BT

    Opposed to government regulation is great, but ….. the courts have spoken and that ship has sailed. Government and OSHA, which is a regulatory agency, are now both involved, whether one is opposed or not. Porn mostly brought this on itself as a result of a completely inane and ill-informed public relations battle. Mostly, they took exception with legitimate studies and misrepresented their own statistics. If you read the appeals court ruling, they bought into the statistics put forward by Weinstein’s group.

    Moving porn production does not change those facts. OSHA has a nationwide reach – OSHA rules in California related to the spread of sexually transmitted diseases as a result of contact with blood and bodily fluids will be the same everywhere. The ruling out of the Ninth Circuit appeals court is now a precedent. If Nevada or Arizona decide to pass a condom bill like California, it doesn’t even have to be litigated because they are also in the Ninth Circuit. If Florida decides, porn could file suit, but they would probably lose because attorneys for the other side would site the Ninth Circuit ruling. So, again, this is the big leagues and you’re playing for keeps.

    Porn can swing for the fences, appeal to the Supreme Court, and take an all or nothing approach.

    Porn can try to figure out a way to work within the condom law and OSHA requirements.

    Or, porn can hope that no one gives a crap and doesn’t bother to enforce the law, which is mostly what’s happened to date.

    Right now, enforcement is porn’s biggest enemy, especially from OSHA.

  38. common sense

    @jilted: I decided to send the “chairperson” of APAC, Mr. James Deen a message to see if he has any statement on this issue and so far I have received no response. 🙁

    But judging from his latest tweet it appears James is really concerned:

    “i don’t mind peeing on the floor… the thing i don’t like is when i forget that i peed on the floor and then end up with wet socks”

  39. common sense

    @Jennifer: I’m the public and I could care less whether someone is wearing a condom or not. I find it amazing that all you are doing is regurgitating the industry bullshit.. not very bright, huh?

  40. common sense

    @Jennifer: LOL! More industry bullshit! It appears you have been speaking to the members of APAC. lol

  41. common sense

    @jilted: “its almost hilarious how many constitutional scholars and medical experts have decided to go into the porn business/”

    it’s almost hilarious? It IS hilarious.
    if you guys are SO smart why are you in this industry? lol

  42. common sense

    @NickEast: male porn stars? what about the women? they aren’t making any money either.. People that work at McDonalds make more money than these people do..

    and you will never see a housepainter on “skinemax” late at night because they’re not stupid enough to enter this industry in the first place let alone worry about collecting residuals…

    but since you brought it up. how stupid are these performers to not demand residuals? answer? REAL STUPID! The producers are laughing their asses off at how STUPID these performers are! lol!

    Oh and there is NO doubt that housepainters and most other people on earth are smarter than Jen Ruby.. apparently this is the type of women the men in this industry love, huh?

  43. common sense

    Jen? Jen? what are we going to do with you? You can do whatever the hell you want in YOUR bedroom. you can fuck 10 guys who have AIDS without a condom.. whatever you want.. it’s YOUR choice. BUT when you go to WORK there ARE health and safety laws one MUST abide by.. got it? Jen you have clearly ingested too much semen… 😉

  44. CPanzram

    @jennifer
    “All this did was drive shooting underground again in a manner of speaking.”

    Underground? Really? So, is all of this content being shot in the shadows also being kept in the shadows? If people were operating in secrecy then there would be a steady flow of content available for purchase.

    “why do you think everyone is running to Vegas in the first place.”

    Because they are morons. When fleeing regulation why would one go to the most regulated city on the west coast if not the entire country? Stupidity.

  45. common sense

    “Because they are morons. When fleeing regulation why would one go to the most regulated city on the west coast if not the entire country? Stupidity”
    LOL! I couldn’t agree with you more on this statement, CPanzram!
    The people in this industry are definitely NOT known for their intelligence.

  46. CPanzram

    @common

    Jennifer may be right.

    Comparing adult performers to house painters is a far stretch. House painters are exposed to workplace hazards like falling from ladders and fumes.

    Adult performers are exposed to workplace hazards like FUCKING AIDS.

    As a result, adult performers should be more regulated than house painters.

  47. LurkingReader

    @Cpanzram

    Lol…it seems some folks missed the point that house painters are free to ditch their hard hats, face masks and use the ladders damaged beyond worksite specs all they want in their own homes or at a friends house where no contract exists & no money changes hands. That this is the difference between personal civil liberties and the fiscal exchange folks make every day for the almighty paycheck.

  48. common sense

    Hey look everybody! Kimberly Kane found a new gynecologist thanks to APAC!

    “I just used the @apacsocial members resources to find a new Gynecologist! So many great (adult friendly) listings. 🙂 ”

    Keep up the good work APAC! Ya really are looking out for the performers! I can smell change in the air! YAY APAC! 😉

  49. rawalex

    ” I’d be interested in any legal precedent you have that exempted porn or any other commercial concern from established labor regulations.”

    The problem isn’t one of a commercial concern, but of anyone at all. The problem is that filming yourself fucking someone is (shockingly) protected free speech, and thus is hard to regulate without creating prior restraint. The problem you run into is that for the most part, safety rules don’t run into free speech areas, they are strictly workplace rules. The problem with porn is that the underlying act is in itself free speech, and as a result anything that makes it harder to exercise those rights ends up falling under prior restraint.

    Could you imagine requiring a license before you could speak in public? Can you imagine requiring a license before you could speak at a public event?

    The problem here is that most workplace regulations are about making a given job safer, but don’t touch free expression. You cannot require a license to operate a printing press or buy ink. You can license them as a business, you can impose safety rules on their work, but you cannot stop them from the underlying protected act of free speech.

    What OSHA is attempting to do is change the content of the expression, not how it is created. Putting safety tape on wires so people don’t trip or using safety shields on lights don’t change the nature of the protected speech. Saying that you can only have sex if you do X or Y or Z starts to push into the area of touching the protected speech itself.

    Business licenses license the type of business, but they do not and cannot be used to muzzle what the business says or does. A perfect example would be cable channels versus OTA channels. Only OTA channels have restrictions on swearing and nudity because they are using the public airwaves. Put it on cable, and those limits go away.

    You could class adult performers as IC and require them to get a business license, but it would be very hard to say “and you cannot exercise all of your free speech rights”. It’s very easy to confuse the two.

    I think it’s a very good and noble thing to be trying to prevent STDs and STIs, but dang, that first amendment still applies. OSHA is trying to change the natural of porn’s expression, and someone will take them up on it at some point and they will likely lose on constitutional grounds. They need to find a way to get the industry to WANT to do it themselves, and for the performers to decline all shoots without of their own free will, and not because of OSHA rules. At that point, they will have accomplished something!

  50. rawalex

    BT, with due respect, Vivid (as a company) is the wrong defendant for this stuff.

    The case should be tried from the standpoint of an individual performer. If a female performer’s free speech expression of their sexuality is getting creampie pussy, then the condom law would preclude and stop that expression of their sexuality. Unless an act is considered obscene, then it is protected speech. The individual’s right to free speech generally should be protected, especially when the other people (those providing said cream) involved agree and are aware of the acts and the risks involved.

    You can provide a safe workplace, you can make sure the floors are anti-slip, the lube fresh and safe, the bed strong, and the studio equipment in place. You can be mandated to have a bathroom and even an on site doctor if the risk exists. However, at the moment of free speech, it’s hard to restrict individual people’s rights to free speech.

    The court found only that Vivid as a company didn’t have their rights UNDULY restricted by a condom law. However, put to the test of an individual performer, choosing to fuck without a condom and get a creampie… well… it would certainly make for the type of argument that the courts would have a hard time ruling against.

    The other thing is Vivid attempting to get a “pre enforcement” injunction. Things would be entirely different if they were dealing with actual facts of a case, and not theoretical arguments in an attempt to gain an injunction.

    This is the US – the legal ship never sails – just ask the anti-abortionist. Roe v Wade isn’t fixed in stone to them.

  51. LurkingReader

    @Cpanzram

    Lol…almost spit my coffee out reading ‘bonded & insured’ sometimes a tomato isn’t a tomatoe lol

  52. LurkingReader

    @rawalex

    “The problem you run into is that for the most part, safety rules don’t run into free speech areas, they are strictly workplace rules.”

    Your argument of prior restraint goes out the window with the stakeholder/performer contract as that contract creates a workplace (business vs private) relationship.

    “The problem isn’t one of a commercial concern, but of anyone at all. The problem is that filming yourself fucking someone is (shockingly) protected free speech, and thus is hard to regulate without creating prior restraint.”

    The shock seems to be that there is a vast difference between filming for private (non-commercial) vs commercial purposes. Folks film themselves fucking all the time, they even share the content in private settings without the restraints that come into the picture with commercial intents. They have no concerns with performer contracts, lighting, angling or editing for best marketing advantage or 2257 etc.

    “Could you imagine requiring a license before you could speak in public? Can you imagine requiring a license before you could speak at a public event?”

    Public speakers face permitting issues all the time…whether it’s renting a park for a day, getting a permit to assemble, complying with fire Marshall occupancy limits or arranging for offsite parking when using a private residence…all of which have been litigated and none violate the right to freely speak.

    Free speech is protected only to the extent that it doesn’t cause harm IG yelling Fire in a crowded theatre. Taking it a step further with your Cable vs OTA reference makes the point of venue…folks who film fucking for commercial purposes face limits that go away when the content is filmed for private purposes.

    IC status has no relevance on commercial vs private venue. Acrobats and trapeze artists are free to practice and perform death defying feats away from the public eye but are limited once they sign a contract to perform in a commercial venue to expressions that can be performed with guide wires or equivalent tether safety measures. Performers free speech isn’t limited …commercial speech is.

    Many industries deal with naturally occurring occupational exposure risks. Porn like mining faces the daunting task of limiting those risks to the lowest permissible levels. Porn stakeholders (Producers) just like mine owners have no incentive to implement costly safety measures as long as they can convince their workers their paycheck is worth the risks. We know mercury is a deadly poison but there’s a market for the gold so….

    Folks who ought to be working out a way to reduce the risks to the lowest levels are too busy shouting First Amendment ..intrusive infringements etc which isn’t helping to create and implement efficient prevention with flexible responses to variable risks. Nor does it educate about how to determine and assess risks for performers to make informed choices.

    IG…Pushing PrEP without discussing its limitations for vaginal transmission or rationalizing local bar vs porn set risks without discussing pros/cons of treating every encounter as high risk. Shouting how great AIM was ignoring how it’s model created massive privacy issues isn’t going to help make OSHA willing to let physicians maintain medical records with producers maintaining only a document of health from physicians as other industries do.

  53. BT

    Rawalex. First, whether or not Vivid is the right or wrong plaintiff (the county of LA is the defendant because they are defending the law) is moot at this point. Vivid brought the suit.

    Second, the ruling didn’t just apply to Vivid. You had a female performer – Kayden Kross – and you had a male defendant. They also said their First Amendment rights were infringed, along with their rights to conduct commerce. The court said: Balderdash. They also said that public health concerns trumped speech in this instance. That applied to all three plaintiffs, including Kayden. Sorry, but that is what the court said, no matter how you try to argue around it.

    Now, if you think Kayden should refile on her own and argue that as an actress, she can only express her art through creampie videos, good luck.

    The anti-abortion analogy doesn’t really fly – Roe V Wade may not be fixed in stone as far as anti-abortionists are concerned, but it has been in place for over fifty years. States have been permitted to nibble around the edges but the fundamental right to an abortion stands. So, the real analogy here would be that Vivid keeps filing new suits, arguing, for instance, to its right to make creampie videos. And ….. keeps losing because of public health.

    It’s also important to remember that this case was lost in the most liberal First Amendment court in the nation.

    Now ,,,, and I have written this already … you are correct that Vivid, Kayden, and that actor dude have a couple of legal options.

    It can ask the Ninth Circuit for an en banc review. That’s a review by the entire court. Not likely to be granted because this was not a controversial decision – it was unanimous, with no dissent.

    Vivid can hope that Florida passes a condom law and that it wins in the 11th Circuit because then you would have a diversity of opinion. In that instance, the Supreme Court typically will intervene and settle the matter to avoid confusion.

    Which brings us to porn’s last resort. It can appeal to the Supreme Court. If so, one of two things can happen.

    The court refuses to hear the case, in which case, the Ninth Circuit stands and would be cited as precedent in any other case.

    The court hears the case. As I’ve written before, that’s a huge roll of the dice because if the Supremes rule, its the law of the land and not just the Ninth Circuit.

    I realize that every time I write these things, someone out there tells me I just don’t understand. But, that’s the way it works.

    I’ve been posting about this since Vivid filed suit here and on Luke Is Back. I was told repeatedly that I was a moron who just didn’t understand how the First Amendment works, this is America, yada, yada, yada. Yet, the court ruled pretty much exactly the way I predicted it would rule. If you don’t believe me, ask Mike. And, if you don’t believe Mike, read my old posts. They’re out there.

    This is now a game of enforcement.

  54. rawalex

    BT, I understand, but the lawsuit was brought as an attempt to stop the implementation of the law (injunction) and not as a result of actual harm caused. The whole ball of wax starts over when you can show actual speech impaired or restricted.

    A great example would be a company declining a scene because it features a creampie or “unsafe” sex of any kind. The Vivid case was theoretical, the courts generally don’t side with theoretical arguments… which is why it was so hard to try to get an injuction against 2257 rules. It was all argued in the theoretical, and not in the practical.

    I have read your posts. You just missed the basic concept that it’s the wrong plaintiff filing for an injuction, and not an actual harmed party trying to reverse a law that has harmed their free speech.

  55. BT

    We shall see. For two years, I have been told that I missed the point – except that the Ninth Circuit ruled exactly as I predicted they ruled. I’m no legal genius, but so far, I’ve been right.

    With regard to the First Amendment, which included performers as plaintiffs, the judges clearly said the state has an interest in protecting public health that trumps the First Amendment argument made by the plaintiffs.

    With regard to creampie videos, which is about all I can think of that are restricted by the ruling, all you need is a plaintiff and someone willing to pony up about half a million dollars to bring the case to federal court, or a couple of mill to follow it all the way to the Supreme Court. I for one would love to read the deposition of the porn chick who claims that she is an artist who can only express herself by taking a load in her vagina or ass. Otherwise, her message to the world is lost. Actually, I’d like to read the deposition of the porn chick who remembers to show up on time for the event.

    In the meantime, we’ll find out very quickly whether porn is going to ask for an en banc review in the Ninth Circuit – they have 14 days from the date of the decision. If you’re interested, you can read more here. http://www.legalactioncenter.org/sites/default/files/lac_pa_082704.pdf

    To be granted an en banc review in federal court, the decision has to conflict with prior Supreme Court rulings or create confusion within the law. Meanwhile, none of this gets them around OSHA.

    The ball is porn’s court.

  56. mharris127

    If you want to compare house painters to adult film performers here is one — requiring an actor to wear a condom is analogous to telling a painter he can’t climb a ladder or use paint that has any type of “dangerous” fumes to it. Both neuter an entire industry and make it impossible to continue to do their jobs. The people in Califonia supporting a condom requirement know this and their intent is to run the industry out of first the state and then possibly the country. They couldn’t give a rat’s ass about “performer safety”, this is a moralistic campaign to eliminate something they feel is against the Bible and their religion led by a Baptist minister and some guy who volunteered to foot part of the bill for one or two performers that got AIDS and now has had second thoughts about it — even though anyone with a brain can’t honestly blame the industry with anywhere near 100% certainty for their catching AIDS in the first place.

    Wake up and smell the cappachino, guys and gals. If you support a condom requirement on grounds of “performer safety” you have been duped — hook, line and sinker by a man with a grudge (Weinstein) and a Baptist preacher (Hall) trying to push his religious beliefs on us through the back door (since he cannot do so through the front)! Give me a fucking break, Michael Weinstein and Izzy “Preacher from Hell” Hall!

  57. mharris127

    I will agree with Jilted that a rectal (and throat) swab for VD should be done every 14 days along with that blood test. We may disagree about a lot of things but I don’t see where a cotton swab up the ass and in the mouth is that big of a deal (considering the ladies take Jack Hammer’s ten inch cock up their ass a simple Q-Tip shouldn’t be much of an issue).

  58. mharris127

    Regarding gangbangs, I hear Donna Dolore left Kink.com last month, Mike. They have a gangbang site (Donna was the director), maybe you should contact Peter Acworth and apply for the director’s position. I am sure they could find someone to do the tying of the chickies for you if necessary (really the most bondage on that site is tying some chick to the bed or her hands from behind, you can’t suspend or use fancy ties when five people are trying to shove their dicks into one pussy and one ass that are about three inches apart on the same chick). Maybe you can even talk him into some BDSM bukkake site while you are at it. I am sure you could use the six figure salary if for nothing more than to shove it into Dr. Flip Flop’s and Dr. Tynan’s faces without having to show them your brokerage statement (I saw the article on the lesser site which has a letter purported to be from Dr. Tynan with the remark about no assets and a used car). Little do they know that just because a person drives a “used” car (aren’t they all considered used once they are driven off of the dealership lot) doesn’t mean that person can’t have any other assets like a brokerage account, mutual fund or a large savings account. If you really didn’t have any “assets” like the lesser site and lesser attorney claims than you couldn’t shell out the $5K it costs to film a scene (and that may be low-balling it) and you wouldn’t be posting scenes on your websites every week or so. Let the “journalists” at the lesser site and Dr. Tynan chew on that last sentence for a while.

  59. BT

    For what it’s worth, the Supreme Court has determined that stripping is protected speech. Strippers have a First Amendment right to take off their clothes and spread their legs to express themselves. The Supreme Court has also allowed regulation, like zoning restictions that limit where you can locate a strip joint, requiring pasties and a G-string, and, yes, the licensing of strippers.

Leave a Reply