Jilted: If the trial courts ruling is upheld in the Vivid appeal – and I believe it will be upheld – then the First Amendment vs. workplace safety is a moot issue. In the trial judge’s ruling, he dismissed the First Amendment argument out of hand – completely took it off the table, saying that in his view there was no constitutional issue here. He focused on workplace safety. If he’s over-turned by the appeals court on that point – he ruled against porn on other points as well – then its a potentially different ball game. Either side can request an en banc hearing – a hearing of the entire court; either side can try to take it to the Supreme Court. Or, it’s sent back to the trial court judge to reconsider.

Here’s the thing: Appeals court judges give great deference to the trial court judge who heard the arguments, listened to any witnesses, and read the original pleadings and evidence. The trial court judge has to be plainly wrong, meaning so wrong that it would be obvious to a third grader who’d watched a couple of episodes of The People’s Court.

Porn could still win – the ninth circuit is the most liberal appeals court in the country so if there’s a group of judges likely to be sympathetic to porn’s argument, its that group – but its an uphill slog.

Just seemed odd as inconsistent with known STD risk to oral cavity and the history of the bill. Porn being porn I can picture company’s opting to go all oral vs condom 😉

Re the ADA & HIV+ the goal of treatment being undetectable viral levels combined with frequent testing to ensure acute HIV isn’t on set would be beneficial to both +\- to reduce Acute & co/opportunistic infections.

@lurking

I think CA understands this industry will exist even if they ban it. Therefore, they allow some things to occur like oral sex. Blowjobs with condoms is one of those things that are sliding.

The porn industry is being allowed to operate, but they just have to do a few things. Doesn’t make things “safe” in regards to the definition. People need to learn when something good happens.

CA isn’t stopping porn. They are allowing it to continue in an unsafe fashion, but it is slightly safer than before.

@cpanzram

One of the oddities I see in ab1576 is omission of oral sex, as if it were tailored to the reduction of HIV & HepC with lower rates of oral transmission vs the overall risk of contracting a std orally.

Anyway with that oddity the dental dams are removed from folks screaming hazmat suits 😉

@jilted

That’s similar to what I am saying. We have the freedom to do what we want as far as porn goes, but the second we do it and people are paid to participate and a product is going to be shipped/broadcasted across the country then laws have to be followed. Free speech does not require financial gain. That is only an advantage of it in certain circumstances according to how laws are written.

The first step is to prevent transmission of diseases. After that happens then it will be easier to get workplace safety laws stopping things like fisting. (Having no HIV is more important than unraveled rectums.) I don’t know how you would regulate fisting in the workplace. Would a fist, wrist, and forearm only allowed to be so large? What about the b-hole? What is the required circumference when gaped? If they move to Nevada and become unionized then will the person who measures have a specific job? Is the director allowed to measure? 😉

The gay industry ran free for a very very long time. It is probably because no one wants to be the person pointing and saying “Look at what the gays are doing” and get descriptive about it. Gay people have a much different culture when it comes to sex and as a result the porn created can reflect that.

Laws are laws though. If you want to shoot unprotected gay porn and sell it then simply drive/fly/unicorn-ride it to a place where it is legal. If that is not an economically-viable way to operate your business then maybe you should look into something else. People bitch that keeping things safe will cost them too much. If you are unable to afford to run a business in a safe and/or legal manner then that is your problem and shouldn’t be that of your employees or anyone else. You should be closing your doors.

People can get multiple strains of HIV and when combined they can progress to full-blown AIDS much faster. HIV fucking HIV is still a “no” as a result. Even if their culture is different a workplace isn’t.

In regards to the ADA one can be HIV positive and still shoot gay porn. They would have to use condoms for all forms of penetration including oral. They may be unable to kiss if you want to take laws seriously. A blowjob scene could be construed as a direct threat. Kissing can too. Especially when certain STD’s can cause bleeding gums or sores in the mouth. Science is science.

HIV-positive men can film themselves doing that with each other all they want and without condoms too. When you make it a workplace shit starts getting real.

Would those with HIV be getting much work if porn was shot following laws? Probably not. Would one be able to claim discrimination? Probably not. A jury isn’t going to go give someone the right to spread HIV in a rare chance. Not being able to perform fellatio is much different than someone being denied a job as a meat cutter because they were HIV-positive.

It will come down to them. Picture a jury ruling in favor of a guy that is basically saying “I have HIV and they won’t hire me to fuck him even though he has it too.” If I was on that jury I would view being given the case as an insult.

@jilted

“Of course nothing prevents the individual from sharing the results,,,and that is where a verifiction system like TTS would come in. No need for PASS.”

There lies the Crux of the issue…any protocol that relies on individuals sharing their direct test results is equivalent to current …performer choice with respect to condoms. Remember…filmed sex is a workplace and not the equivalent of making personal choices to divulge or not divulge to a partner.

When it comes to workplaces with naturally occurring risks, the employer must reduce or mitigate them to lowest levels…with filmed sex there is the added dimension that they are testing humans vs cave walls or air for methane levels …those inanimate risks don’t have medical privacy concerns..yet the employer is still responsible to measure and reduce.

Stakeholders paying for tests will quickly change their tune about giving the silent nod to bareback escorting with untested clients. Talent will quickly see the value of making responsible off set decisions when those that don’t are passed over for more reliable /less expensive talent not costing production delays.

@jilted

Depends…if the employer considers a broken condom or other barrier a risk exposure for someone with HIV that would jeopardize their health they could specify employment fitness to require negative ELISA as well as use viral particle testing for ongoing screening.

If an employer considers the risk of broken condom or other barrier to not pose a risk to HIV+ or other employees they could specify viral particle testing only to HIV to less than 40 parts per ml of blood plasma as a risk measurement to eliminate the higher HIV particle counts known to carry higher risk of transmission.

So…if it’s about protecting performers there is no need for something like PASS and verification would happen by ordering a medical certificate of fitness directly from the provider.

I know it’s hard for many to wrap their heads around the benefits of third party payment…eliminating performer direct pay also eliminates situations like Gonz who knew he had HepC for at least three years, Mr. Marcus having the ability to omit a portion of his test image. It opens the door to alternate anatomical swabbing in test rotations for those with consistent testing frequencies.

This will also require changes to standard model release clauses…IIRC there is a clause requiring model to provide and certify that their STD tests are true, while releasing stakeholder if co-worker models violate that clause in their contract…

New contracts would reflect the stakeholder policies …leaving it to lawyers as to how they word testing, risk reduction and lowest permissible levels

Of course nothing prevents the individual from sharing the results,,,and that is where a verifiction system like TTS would come in. No need for PASS.

Cpan,\ I am pretty sure I agree with you. What do you think of this?

Regarding condoms being a violation of first ammendment rights….nothing prevents someone from filming others fucking, sucking, sticking thier fists up eachothers asses,,,,,,but once you attach a paycheck, and market if for sale and profit,,,it becomes business, and a work place,,subject to workplace laws.
Is this similar to what you were trying to say?