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.

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.

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).

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!

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.

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.

Hey! That

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.

@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.

@Cpanzram

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