I got a copy of the subpoena that AHF has sent to TTS and CET it is linked below.
What I want to point out is what it is that is being asked for.
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1.
All DOCUMENTS and RECORDS, including COMMUNICATIONS,
REFERRING or RELATING to the results of all tests for any and all SEXUALLY
TRANSMITTED INFECTIONS that were provided to, forwarded to, released to,
accessed by, and/or utilized by the Free Speech Coalition, the Adult Industry Medical
Foundation, the Performer Availability Provider Services (also known as PASS), the
Adult Production Health & Safety Services (also known as APHSS), and/or any other
person or entity associated with and/or involved in the making of an ADULT FILM,
for all tests conducted during the period January 1, 2007 to the present. Information
that would disclose the identity of the persons who received the tests may be redacted
from the DOCUMENTS and/or RECORDS, including, but not limited to the
following: name, date of birth, social security number, address, and/or phone number.
The request is pretty clear to me they aren’t really asking for any information that is technically private because they are requesting information that has already been shared (with or without performers knowledge or permission) with the FSC, PASS, APHSS, AIM and others. The testing facilities also have the option to redact any and all identifying information.
I don’t like this one bit but then I dont like that any of this information has been shared with The FSC and others either…they cant say AHF is evil for doing EXACTLY what they are doing, they are both evil.
The FSC can ask you to write letters till the cows come home as we say here in the south but right now the testing facilities have only two choices, one is to comply and release the information, the other is to try and fight it in court and all the performer letters on earth wont change that…fighting it in court is expensive and may or may not be worth doing since AHF will argue that the information has already been shared and that they are perfectly fine with any and all identifying info being blacked out. If The FSC REALLY wants them to fight it maybe they should be offering TTS and CET resources to do so.
This is what you got with APHSS, I have said since it’s inception that no good will come of it, specially with The FSC’s dirty little hands all over it.
This information is going to really play hell with The FSC statements that porn is safe and that testing works. The real data is likely to be in direct contradiction to that.
I am contacting TTS and CET to inquire if they will redact all identifying information from the data they turn over if they are forced to turn it over.
If there’s an attorney out there who would like to expand on this, correct me or disagree I welcome the input.
Subpoena w. attachments of Cutting Edge Testing, LLC
57 Responses
The Text Of The AHF Subpoena And As Usual The FSC Hasnt Been Honest http://t.co/1XpH3jE5mM
This is completely outside of my experience with the law, so, caveat emptor – I may not have a clue about what I’m about to write. That said, the one potentially comparable example that I do have experience with is a reporting refusing to turn over interview notes, tapes, or the identification of an anonymous source.
The irrelevant part is that the court allows you to use confidentiality as a shield – a reporter can say I have a duty to protect this source and I’m not going to identify them. The law protects that. However, the reporter can’t then use the anonymous source as a sword – they can’t say, what I wrote is true because I relied on this anonymous individual but I won’t tell you who that individual is or turn over any of my notes or anything else that would prove it,. You can’t have it both ways.
The part that may be relevant is that you can not claim that someone is an anonymous source for the purposes of a lawsuit if you have otherwise revealed the identity of that source to someone else. Once you break that confidentiality in anyway, you can’t get it back.
So ….. where this may be relevant is that if the testing organizations have revealed this information to anyone or any entity other than the tested individual, they may very well have given up the right to then say: Whoa, it’s confidential. Moreover, they can protect the privacy of the individuals by redacting identifying information while keeping the relevant testing information.
Again – just guessing, and doing so based solely on my experience as a reporter who had on a couple of occasions to protect an anonymous source in a lawsuit. The plaintiff tried to get me held in contempt of court; the court ruled in my favor on confidentiality, but had the case gone to trial – it was tossed, so it didn’t come to that – we would not have been able to use the information in our defense.
I don’t think the issue is similar to that of revealing anonymous sources. The issue, I think, is this. The testing protocols and procedures appear to be at issue in the case. Thus, the testing results are likely relevant to a determination of the ultimate issue. The relevance of the issue then has to be weighed against the loss, if any, of the performers’ privacy rights. The subpoena provides that the testing facilities may redact all personal information regarding the performers. Thus, assuming the testing facilities redact the information, as they are permitted to do, then no personal information will be revealed. Now, you don’t have to like my opinion, but if you objective about it, for a minute, much like a judge will look at this objectively, the request provides a way to put evidence before the Court while protecting the rights of the performers. For these reasons, I think the subpoena will survive objection.
Good Supoena, something that could make an interesting court case. Depending on the outcome, there is potential for sides to get drawn up and this sort of case to roll all the way to POTUS.
Here’s a question: You get hired for a new job, but part of the hiring process requires that you get a physical to prove that you can handle the rigors of the job (ie, cannot be done by someone with a heart condition, reduced breathing, or something like that). The company pays for a medical exam, which is in turn provided back to them.
Has this sharing created a situation where patient confidentiality is broken?
When a adult worker shows a “clean test” to get a job, are they not basically violating their own doctor / patient confidentiality in doing so? If they show it to one (or more than one) person on set and do this on a regular basis, is the material in fact confidential anymore? If producers document the status (by making a photocopy or taking a photograph) of the test results, are they in fact confidential anymore?
The supoena is careful to try to get personal information redacted. However, there may still be enough information to correlate with other sources (like say records from productions) to create personally identifiable test sets. That could in turn reveal information about particular performers who do not want whatever to get out.
Just when nothing happening in porn…stuff starts happening. The 2257 case is doing its thing hopping back & forth too. This subpoena is just …WOW!
This is the employer/stakeholder CYA stuff I pranced in here harping about with a comment I doubt two people read back when in fall of 2013 when the 5193.1 draft was first released and ever since.
Tossing out shared costing methods, fitness certificates/limits forms, single use verification codes while Jilted defended TTS system integrity of provide/patient confidentially which was a whole separate issue from the can of worms in this subpoena. This is the game changer that FSC/stakeholders have been fighting for years. All the press in 2011 and since about performer privacy rights. The Marcus presser in 2011 that Rhett somebody wrote up…WOW.
This has already been to the Supreme Court from lots of angles.
HIPAA third party payors
Pre employment screening
Ongoing fitness requirements ..annual exams… by-weekly makes no difference
Oil Rig worker with HIV lost a discrimination suit…the job was a danger to him.
EEOC, ADA, OSHA, WC, and all kinds of other alphabet acronyms related to LABOR …. porn isn’t unique or exempt because PORN IS A REAL JOB it’s a legitimate profession welcome to the real world. White collar, blue collar and now …no collar (unless you’re into bondage or the submissive on a leash 😉
This subpoena goes back to 2007 but it only includes one of AIM company. Can’t recall off top of head if foundation was pre or post 2010 stuff when the state closed the doors because it wasn’t registered a specific way. If it’s the one formed in late 2010/early2011 it’s just a couple months of stuff …WOW.
@rawalex
This isn’t about WHO had the STD’s it’s about how many and the efforts the industry has gone to to keep that under wraps. The study methodology they paid a researcher to dispute while AB1576 was happening. Decades of FSC/stakeholders saying your data is flawed here’s why and never offering actual data…this subpoena might just get it unless a Hail Mary is in the air or more storage facility destructions/accidents or some other crazy event doesn’t crop up.
Were’s Jilted when we need him. We’ve gone to both CET and TTS, CET has a file on us for what ever reason with all our info in it. Does that mean AHF can see all our medical information along with the courts? We’ve been going to TTS for the last year. All they have us do is sign a paper, there is NO file on me or my girl. The next morning we get our results emailed to us and were put in there dashboard. We have never had to show our actual results to anyone. Now TTS has the f-buddy system which is right on. If CET would update there system who would need FSC!!! Mike I wish you weren’t right about FSC. Why are they having all us write letters to TTS and CET, what to put a scare in all of us performers. So Diane Dukes comes out as some kind of hero you know our knight and shining armor, we don’t get it. And Mike no offense to you but how did you get a copy of the subpoena. I hate to say it but if CET just handed it over to you, does that mean they will just hand over our medical records to just anyone??? Were’s Jilted? Well since he’s not around, I’ll say it for him “only in porn”.
I really do think the fact that these organizations have released this information to other parties in the past will negate their ability to say that it cannot be released in any form whatsoever. They have given up that argument. Redact the names and any other information that could identify a specific individual, for sure.
My guess is that AHF has good legal representation and that this request was pretty thoroughly researched before it was filed. Otherwise, they’re just wasting everyone’s time and money in a goose chase, and they don’t strike me as that kind of organization.
My guess is that after a brief skirmish, the documents will have to be produced.
Also, here’s why the sword and shield analogy that’s applied to other areas of the law, like this. A reporter can’t reveal information about a source to someone and then go into court and say they won’t reveal it; I can’t testify about some aspects of a thing and then when it gets to a difficult question say: I’m taking the fifth. Once you start speaking, you give that up.
Porn can’t say: We don’t need condoms because our testing works, there have been no onset transmissions, and we have the research to prove it ….. but we won’t release the same data we gave to our own researchers so you can put it to the test.
“This is of grave concern for us as we always hold performer privacy as an important right and protection.” From the FSC press release.
Oh yes this is of grave, and I mean GRAVE concern for the FSC,and every single password holder to PASS. But dont be fooled by thier claim that their concern is for your privacy, their concern is for the giant cock about to shoved up their asses. Hey, JW, remember when I told you to get your records????
And the letter with the threats to CET and TTs,and now West Oaks, LOL. And APAC, do you guys have a lawyer yet. you’re gonna need one, and make sure its not an FSC lawyer, because they are the ones your going to need to be protected from. ONLY IN PORN
JW getting a copy of the subpoena was easy because it is public record, I asked and a copy was sent to me. You are testing with TTS and they have indicated to me that if they have to comply they will remove all identifying information, so all that is sent is essentially the numbers. As others have pointed out AHF doesnt care WHO got an STD they want to know HOW MANY. the other thing to remember is that this is a court order they have to send over the information or they have to go to court to explain why they shouldn’t, then the court would decide.
Well well well, Jilted hasn’t gone anywhere its nice to see you posting once again. Well Jilted we never got our records, I won’t go into that here, but we did go and look them over. Thank you for the heads up a while back. But we should of listen to you and insisted on them. Also Mike thanks for letting us all know that TTS is not going to give out any personal information on us performers, we all know the damage that can do, remember Donny Long? I can only hope CET doesn’t give out any information either.
Mike – the missing piece. What is this in relation to? Is AHF suing FSC or some other porn entity? It’s not clear in the subpoena. Generally, you don’t arbitrarily ask an entity for its records. I’m just wondering the context.
It looks like the AHF and in particular Mr. “Let’s Run Porn Out Of California” want the actual results minus names, addresses, SSNs and other identifying information. Whether the industry can lean on HIPPA to put a stop to this insane lawsuit is debatable but one tactic they could use is to drown them in paper — interpreting the subpoena literally if you will — of course redacting anything identifying. That would entail literally printing or copying the results of each industry test they have on file since 2007 on a copy machine, then taking a black marker and obscuring the identifying information. That would cost $20K or so each (maybe $35K for TTS if my estimates on the number of tests are low) for CET and TTS while drowning the AHF in so much paper that they cannot reasonably get the results they want without spending a million dollars plus for auditors to read each individual test result and tally the results (tallying results for use in court would require CPAs — yes they are used for this type of job, a more known example is Price Waterhouse Coopers counting and securing the votes for several mainstream entertainment awards shows each year — costing the AHF much more than what it would cost CET and TTS to print/copy results and have a flunky black out the identifying information — costing the lab offices about $60 an hour each for four flunkies from a temp service multiplied by however many hours it would take to copy and black out identifying information plus paper, printer/copy machine and ink, AHF would spend at least one million dollars to get the information they are asking for from this deluge of paper). As I understand it with the backing of this court order HIPAA would allow for redacted information to be released although if it were pushed SCOTUS might rule the court order invalid on its face depending on what the actual act states (rather than the summaries healthcare offices use to remain in compliance with the act). Drowning the AHF with paper might accomplish the same thing (making their lawsuit too expensive for even Weinstein to continue) as fighting the subpoena with much less cash expended. Yes, the lab offices could use their database and a computer programmer to do this but that is making Weinstein’s job easier and cheaper, why would the industry do that when they can drown Weinstein in paper, possibly raising the cost of their insane lawsuit to the point where he has to drop it altogether? I love using legal means to obstruct pricks like Weinstein and there isn’t a fucking thing he can do about it!
I base this on a minimum average of 250 tests a month from each of CET and TTS, TTS since 2007 and CET since 2011 — 21K tests in the case of TTS and 12K from CET. My understanding is the test results from AIM are long gone thanks to whatever idiot made the locker full of AIM paperwork disappear. Jilted could likely answer whether the labs themselves would still have the results this many years later although since the medical practice is responsible for records retention likely not.
its in re the vivid lawsuit against ahf,ahf is the defendant
Hey there’s Jilted 🙂 Wow! read the subpoena to the tune of The Gambler blaring….somebody is showing some nice face up cards. Exciting time waiting to see how the rest of this hand plays out.
Lol on FSC press release…This sentence as quoted IS what makes Duke worth her salary to FSC.
““This is of grave concern for us as we always hold performer privacy as an important right and protection.” From the FSC press release.”
That is no bullshit! Every word is 100% true
“This (PERFORMER RIGHTS) is of grave concern for us” no doubt about it…they’ve been putting their money where their mouth is for decades…really! Ask anyone they’ll tell you all the great stuff they’ve been doing even before many current performers were born. Margold doesn’t care what I think/say about PAW (Protecting Adult Welfare) as a NPO, he came and said so, then stood firm on his record and commitment to PAW.
2. “as we always hold performer privacy as an important right and protection.”
They HOLD ….that’s right. For decades they have helped performers by safeguarding performers rights from the big bad government. They aren’t lying when they say they’re protecting what’s yours as if it were their own.
Having taken HOLD of the awesome responsibility of safeguarding PERFORMER PRIVACY decades ago it damn sure is IMPORTANT to them as THEIR RIGHT and THEIR PROTECTION.
FUCK THAT! ….IT WAS NEVER THEIRS …IT’S YOURS!
JW …you’re asking the questions EVERY performer ought to be asking hitting the nail on the head about doing what you need to do to protect your rights.
“We’ve gone to both CET and TTS, CET has a file on us for what ever reason with all our info in it.”
Bullseye…WHO has MY records, WHY, WHEN, WHERE, HOW & WIFFM (what’s in it for me) is the big deal behind the HIPAA document YOU sign to PROTECT YOUR RIGHT TO MEDICAL PRIVACY.
I don’t know about CET, TTS, West Oaks or any other PASS approved facility operations because I’ve never used them. Doesn’t matter your basic HIPAA rights are the same nationwide with some states adding extra rights.
Last week I went to a new doctor who uses EHRS (Electronic Health Records System) aka ERS. Instead of old school signing a release, sending it to old doc, waiting for a paper file…I signed acknowledgements of their HIPAA and ERS policies. They offered me a paper copy which I declined because it is included in my record and on their site. Their EHRS was a separate form …it’s the HOW of the HIPAA permissions I’m choosing. I accepted phone and declined the option to access my records and test results via Internet and email communications. I can change that anytime by notifying them …with a new form.
“Does that mean AHF can see all our medical information along with the courts?”
The short answer to both questions is …NO not without your permission. The short answer assuming your questions relate to this subpeona is neither AHF, LACPH or the courts wants YOUR PRIVATE health information.
Your HIPAA rights are the same regardless of how your medical provider collects or stores your records. (old school walls of files, paperless w/o shared access or part of the nationwide EHRS)
AHF and other LACPH medical providers are most likely linked into the national EHRS like my new doc is. They aren’t allowed to enter your name and find out stuff you don’t want them knowing about you or even stuff you don’t care if they know. You go to the radiology dept, the clerk at reception asks you..what are you here for today? They don’t tell you even if they know. They can’t risk being overheard telling your info, you get to choose to say it verbally, silently hand order or write it yourself. 🙂 Restricted access, field permissions.
” We’ve been going to TTS for the last year. All they have us do is sign a paper, there is NO file on me or my girl. The next morning we get our results emailed to us and were put in there dashboard. We have never had to show our actual results…”
There is a file and my guess is the piece of paper you each signed is an acknowledgement of YOUR HIPAA rights with a section that says YES I’m GIVING TTS permission to communicate with ME electronically via their dashboard application. Unless you’re signing a new HIPAA each visit you probably have a file. (Ask the provider)
Bottom line if your doc says…I had nine cases of the flu today he isn’t violating YOUR rights or disclosing your private medical info even if you were one of the nine cases. If your doc says JW came by with a nasty flu today…YOUR RIGHTS were violated because he disclosed your PRIVATE MEDICAL info.
Hey JW…my guess is this long winded answer has something to do with Jilted urging you to get your records from PASS approved providers. If/when you get your records make sure they give you the HIPAA document(s) you signed 🙂
@Mharris
Vivid is suing LACPH. AHF is backing LACPH to defend the fight they won with Measure B. Vivid doesn’t want to STOP this lawsuit…they want to win. They want a miracle, magic anything to STOP this subpoena without jeopardizing the claims they have riding on it.
When a defense subpoena like this gets signed and the attachment with definitions too …the plaintiff already tried killing it and lost. Vivid made some sort of claim or argument dependent on the STI Data they said CET provided.
The list of STI includes Bacterial Vaginosis which isn’t and never was a FSC protocol but IT IS a fancy medical term for infected CONDOM RASH 🙂
Think back to 2012 and before that. Minnesota U researcher calling bullshit on AHF & LACPH data, long fight to get OSHA to buy a epidemiology study until summer 2013 FSC pleading for more time so they could pay for epidemiology studies before 5193.1 went to draft. AB1576 congressional testimonies, senate subcommittee testimonies re permits, condom rash, calling bullshit on UCLA study West Oaks, John’s Hopkins researcher flawed study methodology.
Think of all those FSC/STAKEHOLDERS shouting from rooftops how reliable FSC testing protocols are to keep STI out of the talent pool acting like a gate.
CET isn’t a party to the suit so they can try to kill it but my bet is they won’t be claiming the subpoena violates HIPAA. The scenario of digging thru dusty patient files, find desired page, copy, replace original….redact one at a time or pile then make the copies court wants …yeah it could happen but it won’t help Vivid if it does.
In a nutshell the industry threw CET, probably every other PASS approved provider under the bus and they’re desperately trying to keep that bus from backing up their asses without lube.
@JW
Medical services providers should have a policy for patients to get a copy of their file. Most have a patient records release form and may or may not charge a per page copy fee, require x days etc. if they don’t have a form send a certified or register return receipt letter (keep a copy)
You can also have a doc request them for you which might be best if your concern is a complete history for doc to do their stuff making decisions about what care is most appropriate for you.
Lurking: What is Vivid suing over? The original suit in federal court is over. Vivid lost on appeal to the Ninth Circuit and never filed for a complete review. They must be suing in county court? But I did a Google search and can’t find any references other than the original case.
Vivid is suing to turn over Measure B in LA county.
This is Federal case 13-CV-00190-DDP-AGR central district California
Something got sent back from the 9th because this is the original suit
Will see what I can dig up … It should be on PACER will see what’s happened since it came back from 9th and let you know.
@BT Here’s the docket, didn’t copy the first 78 entries. Let me know if you want a document.
08/16/2013 79 ORDER DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART INTERVENERS’ MOTION TO DISMISS 49 ; DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 55 ; AND VACATING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 64 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (lom) (Entered: 08/16/2013)
08/19/2013 80 NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th CCA filed by Plaintiff Califa Productions Inc, Jane Doe, John Doe, Vivid Entertainment LLC. Appeal of Order on Motion to Dismiss Case, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings,,, 79 (Appeal fee of $455 receipt number 0973-12574151 paid.) (Peterson, Matthew) (Entered: 08/19/2013)
08/20/2013 81 NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number 13-56445, 9TH CCA regarding Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 80 as to Plaintiffs Califa Productions Inc, Jane Doe, John Doe, Vivid Entertainment LLC. (car) (Entered: 08/20/2013)
05/15/2014 82 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg is participating in a pilot project regarding the submission of SEALED DOCUMENTS. Effective July 8, 2013, all proposed sealed documents pertaining to discovery matters referred to the magistrate judge must be submitted via e-mail to the Judges Chambers email address at [email protected]. Please refer to the judges procedures and schedules for detailed instructions for submission of sealed documents. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (kl) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 05/15/2014)
12/08/2014 83 ORDER from 9th CCA filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 80 filed by John Doe, Vivid Entertainment LLC, Jane Doe, Califa Productions Inc, CCA # 13-56445. Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Motion to Take Judicial Notice is GRANTED. Intervenors/Defendants-Appellees Request to Take Judicial Notice is DENIED. Plaintiffs-Appellants Motion to Dismiss Intervenors/Defendants-Appellees from this preliminary injunction appeal is DENIED. Order received in this district on 12/8/14. (mat) (Entered: 12/10/2014)
01/08/2015 84 MANDATE of 9th CCA filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 80 , CCA # 13-56445. The decision of the District Court is affirmed. Mandate received in this district on 1/8/15. (mat) (Entered: 01/09/2015)
04/24/2015 85 ORDER setting Scheduling Conference for 7/6/15 3:30 PM; compliance with FRCP 26(f) and filing of Rule 26(f) Report by Judge Dean D. Pregerson (lc) (Entered: 04/24/2015)
06/29/2015 86 JOINT F.R.C.P. 26(F) REPORT REPORT filed by Plaintiffs Califa Productions Inc, Jane Doe, John Doe, Vivid Entertainment LLC, Intervenor Parties Campaign Committee Yes on B, Major Funding by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, Arlette De La Cruz, Whitney Engeran, Marijane Jackson, Mark McGrath, Michael Weinstein. (Cambria, Paul) (Entered: 06/29/2015)
07/02/2015 87 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: plaintiff Report, 86 . The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected. The correct event is: Joint Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (lc) (Entered: 07/02/2015)
07/06/2015 88 MINUTES OF SCHEDULING CONFERENCE: Scheduling Conference held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. Court and counsel confer re case status. Court sets trial dates. (Refer to the SCHEDULING ORDER to be issued hereafter.) Court Reporter: Maria Bustillos. (shb) (Entered: 07/17/2015)
07/17/2015 89 ORDER/REFERRAL to ADR Procedure No 1 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. Case ordered to Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg for Settlement Conference. (shb) (Entered: 07/17/2015)
07/29/2015 90 SCHEDULING ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. Court issues the following Order: Counsel must agree on the date for the disclosure of expert witness reports pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(a)2. The agreed-upon disclosure date must precede the discovery cut-off date such that all discovery, including expert depositions, must be completed prior to the discovery cut-off date. All discovery motions must be heard prior to the discovery cut-off date. FACT DISCOVERY CUT-OFF: 12/31/15;EXPERT DISCOVERY CUT-OFF: 3/15/16; LAST DAY TO FILE MOTIONS: 4/15/16; FINAL PRE TRIAL CONFERENCE: 7/11/16 at 11:00 a.m.; 2-3 DAY COURT TRIAL: 7/19/16 at 9:00 a.m. (lom) (Entered: 07/29/2015)
Thanks, Lurking. What I’m guessing this relates to is the one small victory Vivid eaked out of the original suit. Vivid lost in court and on appeal the constitutionality of the original mandate – the federal court said the County can require condoms in productions, its a public health issue, it is not a violation of anyone’s first amendment rights. That was upheld on appeal in the 9th Circuit and Vivid did not file for an en banc hearing. That issue is dead.
What porn won on was the permitting fees and also, if I remember correctly, inspections (I might be off on this). My guess is that AHF appealed that on behalf of the county – my memory is that AHF intervened on behalf of the county – and it was kicked back to the original judge because there are motions in front of Judge Pregerson.
If I’m right, in light of that, it would make sense that AHF is asking for in discovery all the testing materials because porn claimed in its original suit that testing works and no onset transmissions. AHF should have the right in discovery to ask for records that would document that statement.
Part of the problem with this sort of warrant is that it is a fishing expedition of the highest kind. Nobody denies some porn performers have contracted STDs, some very serious including HIV. The question as always is the source of the infections.
Contrary to the claims, yes there are most certainly and without a doubt infections on set. However, that happens almost entirely because one or more of the people involved cheats on the system by having unprotected or risky sexy outside of the system and between tests. If your test is good for 2 weeks, and 1 day after a test you have unprotected anal sex with a total stranger in a bar, you are creating risk for everyone else that works with you until your next test.
Most of the big cases in the last 10 years can be traced back to poor judgement by a performer who got sick offset, and brought it with them to the next shoot, and the one after that, until someone is visibly sick or tests positive.
Would condoms help? To some extent. The problems at hand however are that a number of common acts in porn (from oral sex to cumshots, analingus to deep kissing) come with some risk as well. Would there be a market for porn if the male performer always ejaculated into the condom or onto himself, never kissed the girl, wore a condom during the blowjob scene and used a visible dental dam during oral?
For that matter, the question comes up of infecton rates relative to the general population. Is making porn inherently more risky than just being a drunked slut in a random bar every saturday night, or a dude that fucks anything on two legs bareback? Put in context, the AHF may in fact be fishing for information that disproves the basic arguments, against their own interest.
Further, it’s important for the porn world to put forward the message that there is a big difference between the infection rates in straight, hetero performers compared to cross over and gay only performers. It’s a situation that makes the cross over performers an even bigger risk.
If the infection rate in straight porn is lower than the general population, the what? That would support (sadly for some) the concept that testing is having at least some effect on things. Saying it could be better with condoms is truthful on it’s face, but the first step in a very slippery slope where you slowly but surely regulate various acts out of the performance or moot their meaning by requiring covers and no contact. Perhaps that is the ultimate (conservative backed) goal in all of this, to make porn so undesirable because people are having more fun in their own lives and at the corner bar than they see in the videos.
Rawalex – You’ve probably heard the old lawyer saying: Never ask a question you don’t already know the answer to? The corollary to that is, don’t let your mouth write a check your ass can’t cash.
So …. I don’t generally disagree with you, but in this instance, calling the document request a big fishing expedition is just wrong. The reason: Porn’s mouth wrote a check and AHF has a right to find out if its ass can cash it.
In the original suit, Vivid, and hence, the porn industry, put its testing methods and results front and center in its offense and its defense. Porn’s central argument in this case, in front of the state legislature and in the media was and is: Condoms are not necessary because our testing procedures work. There has been no on-set transmission.
They opened the door. AHF now has the right to say: OK. If that’s your claim, show us the evidence to prove it. The evidence, in this instance, are testing records.
Once you open that door in litigation, it can’t be shut again unless Vivid drops that as part of its defense/offense. The best Vivid et.al. can try to do is limit the information they provide to AHF.
I am not a lawyer, let alone their lawyer, and don’t pretend to know they’re thinking. But, if I had to guess, my guess is that they probably thought their first amendment issue was so strong that the rest didn’t matter. Instead, the judge tossed out that argument on its ear and rooted his decision in public health.
Again, the industry has only itself to blame because it opened the door. That’s just the way it works.
And BT hits the bullseye/ And again, the incompetence of the FSC is under the spotlight. THEY opened the door,,now they are going to say, “BUt we dont have actual medical records in PASS, or anywhere else for that matter, and the judge will ask then how do you prove this claim of no transmissions. THEY CANT, NEVER COULD. AHF has had a long term plan for that started YEARS ago. They are not flying by the seat of their pants the way the FSC and Karen Tynan are. A
AHF has all the time in the world. Hasnt the industry been calling for the removal of Weinstien for YEARS now,,,he’s a croook, he embezzled money, he ripped off Medi-Care,,and look whose still standing, kicking ass, and taking names. And the fist that has been slowly woking its way up the industry’s ass is just getting inside now, and a full thrust is now on the horizon, FSC<Karen Tynan<APAC< and the AGENTS, who have also been talking publcily for so long about the testing program are going to REGRET every single public word they ever uttered,,,,BECAUSE< The time to put up or shut up is right on the horizon,,,,actuallly, the time to shut up, and I mean SHUT THE FUCK UP FOR GODS SAKE, was a long time ago for the industry, but hey, and open mouth is what this industry was built on, literally, and figuratively.
WELL DONE BT, the boobs at the FSC,APAC, all of them opened the door and put out the welcome mat, exept the FSC is not wiping their feet on their way in. LOL<>>> ONLY, and I mean ONLY IN PORN
PS,,I warned every single entity mentioned here of this years ago, YEARS ago. But I wanted to help PERFORMERS FIRST AND FOREMOST, and that didnt sit well with too many other so called industry leaders.
And they dont want performers NAMES on any documents,,,they want to see the proof in the pudding, just the results with no names, just the REAL stats, and that is what the FSC, and the industry FEARS most.
Thier is PROOF in the pudding,,its just NOT the proof that FSC wants anybody to see , and that comes from one who has seen it, up close and personal. lock stock and barrell for years straight.
@rawalex,
there is no evidence of any kind in the gay industry, and no lawsuit, no law, nothing in the courst is going to ‘discriminate’ between the two industies…..the courts are not going to simply say “We take you at your word, no onset transmissions, she will be asked to back up that ‘claim’ with EVIDENCE…she has NONE, it does not exist,,,what she does actually have PROVES exactly the opposite, and she knows it, so does the entire industry.
@rawalex This is not a warrant, the defense is not arresting or seizing anyone’s medical records. It’s a civil not criminal matter. It’s a sport 🙂
The docket is a roster of teams, players, tally of plays last season and the schedule for this season. The subpoena amounts to AHF getting the player they wanted in the draft, it’s exciting but lots can happen before the big game. Discovery is sizing up your own and the other team’s roster, experts are special teams,…right now neither side has finalized their roster for this season. We know what a kicker can do but no telling at this point if the wind is with or against them when they make their plays on game day.
“Nobody denies some porn performers have contracted STDs, some very serious including HIV. The question as always is the source of the infections”
There ya go…the source. Look up top 6/18/2009 were they or weren’t they performers? Are performers skirting the reporting system? Does PASS work …. as a means to make the paying customer happy?
The industry says PASS works, the data used to say it doesn’t is faulty and doesn’t justify condoms as a necessary restraint. How is any of this different than high wire performers? They fought and lost the battle to astound and amaze audiences with their daring feats impossible to perform wearing guide wires to keep them from falling through the safety net.
“For that matter, the question comes up of infecton rates relative to the general population”
Yes it does, and that’s what this data may settle. Is porn safer than bar hopping?
Lol did you see FAQ FSC posted on PASS
Hoisting a glass of wine here thinking its a nice size for creative paint letters w some nice ivy border ONLY IN PORN!
Why …why …why do they keep telling on themselves?
#2 yes you are allowed to know WHO, WHAT, WHEN,WHERE and HOW your provider might, will, or did share aka DISCLOSE YOUR info.
If you didn’t authorize your medical provider to share, your information with the entities listed then no worries cuz ….This subpoena only wants what was ALREADY shared but with the names removed ….so what’s the worry about HIV results here?
They happened, they got shared and FSC/stakeholders called a moratorium , notified and paid for all first & second gen exposures … All together now hoist your glass ….” NO ON SET TRANSMISSION” …ONLY IN PORN
If those positive tests reported to LACPH weren’t performers or performers in the previous 30 days …then their records weren’t shared right?
AB1576 subcommittee hearings….No ON SET TRANSMISSIONS NATIONWIDE for a decade…ONLY IN PORN
Oops damn out of state Non-Compliant sets fucked with a perfect ten year record NO ON SET TRANSMISSIONs …… Hmmmm….ONLY IN PORN! crazy stuff 😉
” Look up top 6/18/2009 were they or weren’t they performers? Are performers skirting the reporting system? Does PASS work …. as a means to make the paying customer happy?”
The problem is like anything: If your car has seat belts and airbags,and you remove them both and get hurt in an accident, in theory you are liable for your injury. The warped jury / legal system would likely find that the car company failed to automatically turn it off when the airbags are missing, but i digress.
PASS (and any other fully inclusive) testing system works. The problems are not the system itself, but the humans involved. Those who cheat and bypass the system render it no more useful that a seatbelt on your garage floor.
The broken part of the system is those performers who test on Monday, fuck someone bareback on Tuesday for fun (or profit as an escort), and the report to work on Saturday to shoot three unprotected anal scenes. They introduced the variable of the “paying customer” or “friend in need” or “fuck buddy” into the system, and broke it. There is no testing in the world that can fix that.
However, condoms don’t fix the problem, and represent a poor replacement for testing. Condoms encourage people who are infected to keep working because “it’s safe, I’m wearing protection / he’s wearing protection”. Without testing, the potential that someone with HIV or another serious STD could come onto sets with impunity and continue to shoot scenes. After all, if they are wearing a condom, it must be safe, right?
So then you get into the situation of “belt and suspenders”, condoms and testing. The question then becomes “does the combination significantly reduce the risks, to the point where it in fact represents 1 full less infection of some sort each year?”. Remember, this is facing the reality that a number of sexual acts (oral sex, example) would continue to be done without protection, and that cumshots will continue to happen, including facials, in the mouth, and in the eye type stuff. Does the condom during the intercourse part by itself reduce the risk that significantly considering all of the other unprotected acts that occur in a normal scene – we don’t know.
Finally, let me say that the “no on set transmission” statement likely comes with a bit more in the sentence, at least implied. It’s more like “no on set transmissions for performers who are compliant with the system and don’t have sex with people outside of the set who are untested. Each and every one of the infections I have seen talked about in the last decade or so (including Lara Roxxx, hi there!). was related to unsafe activities outside of the porn world by a performer who brought the disease to work.
History is important.
@rawalex
“Each and every one of the infections I have seen talked about in the last decade or so (including Lara Roxxx, hi there!). was related to unsafe activities outside of the porn world by a performer who brought the disease to work.”
????
Well, duh. Porn production does not create the HIV virus. 😉
Compliant with the system or not doesn’t equate to safety. Just a little less risky. Vaginal or anal tearing is going to be the most likely way of transmission. So yeah. Condoms do make it less risky, but compare it with skydiving. Does a parachute make it safer? Fuck yeah. Is it still risky as hell? You bet. Just because a condom may not always prevent it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t wear one. Parachutes don’t always work, but since a person can see the obvious harm that could be inflicted given they neglect to use one they use it.
The testing helps, but at the same time it is ruse. It tricks performers and others that it is “safe”. The testing system does not work because it relies on the humans involved. Due to the variables that cannot be controlled it’s a fucked system.
History IS Important!
Your position is the performer is the source…we agree. We aren’t on the same page after that.
” The problem is like anything: If your car has seat belts and airbags,and you remove them both and get hurt in an accident, in theory you are liable for your injury. The warped jury / legal system would likely find that the car company failed to automatically turn it off when the airbags are missing, but i digress.”
Lol…my first cars didn’t have factory OEM seatbelts, third rear brake
light, airbags, assisted parking and all those fancy bells/buzzers….so let’s talk about that fancy PASS vehicle 🙂
It’s a fucking death trap for anyone taking a ride thinking it’s a safe ride.
Performers are workers buying a ticket to ride the company bus driven by drivers whose only qualification is having a ticket too.
Producers are leasing the company bus through cooperative agreements with mechanics, fuel depots etc…
The Company threw the mechanics under the bus…
Those HIPAA forms they want performers to rescind…yeah it isn’t going to stop the subpoena. It is going to stop the providers from sharing performer private medical info with FSC/stakeholders…the COMPANY BUS is an illusion 🙂
” PASS (and any other fully inclusive) testing system works. The problems are not the system itself, but the humans involved. Those who cheat and bypass the system render it no more useful that a seatbelt on your garage floor”
There is nothing in the garage anymore and whatever was there has bigger problems than passengers removing the seatbelts & handholds 😉
@Cpanz
Thank you for your take on the very quote that had me wanting to punch stuff.
“was related to unsafe activities outside of the porn world by a performer who brought the disease to work.”
This is like Frank Purdue blaming a specific chicken as the source of salmonella, saying that slut chicken spread its nasty salmonella all over his processing plant, not his fault.
The question is: Is the condom actually better?
Let’s see. Condoms break. It’s a given. Anywhere between 2% and 15% depending on brand. That is in just general use, not porn use with nasty lubes and other things which can raise that failure rate higher. Most people think that they throw on a condom and they are somehow safe. With a high enough failure rate, is that really the case?
So, you have to consider that if porn goes 100% condom, without testing (because why test, everyone is safe with condoms / producers meet the manditory OSHA requirements with condoms) what would the result be? If you have even 5% failure rate on set, and a pool of untested (or self selected tested only) performers, and risky sex acts… what is the result?
Remember too: Sex with a condom can lead to abrasions, and with a high failure rate, can lead to “blood to blood” contact between performers. If they aren’t tested, the chance that someone with a disease is on set gets higher.
So, would going all condom, meet the OSHA rules only be the best solution? Using your analogy, the driver throws 15% of the passengers under the bus, and lets heavily armed people onto the bus because it’s “safe” on the bus.
@rawalex
Is the condom really better? Than what?
I have lots of questions about this subpoena, the lawsuit and all the other related stuff that may or not be affected with how this subpoena (and others Ive heard about but not seen) and the rest of this case plays out with so many other balls in the air.
I challenge you to find any convo where I’ve advocated condoms or any other one size fits all solution to the issues discussed. Two years ago around the guy with HepC crap you’ll find a comment where I said DONT FUCK WITH THE PROVIDERS cuz I saw this day coming.
FSC has issued lots of press releases directly through its subsidiary programs, board member controlled media outlets, paid barkers and other supportive media outlets ….since 2011 when they formed APHSS because AIM was beyond salvage… tried to throw TTS under the bus when TTS didn’t sign onto the same deal they made when CET filled the void left by AIM’s demise. They tried to throw TTS under the bus again in 2012 with the syphillis debacle, then 2013 HepC was blasted off the front pages with one, two, three who the fuck knows how many performers winding up with HIV.
How many years has it been and you’re still throwing Lara Roxxx under the bus? A fucking kid who didnt know jack shit about corporate entities didn’t know jack shit about the way the world …porn or otherwise works … 11 years this kid has been living with HIV and still getting smeared as an example to the flaws of the system that didn’t even fucking exist! Eleven fucking years ago ….before DNA/RNA were approved HIV screening or diagnostic tests.
Fuck you and anyone else blaming a performer as the flaw to your system, in a time when every egg, package of poultry, beef, tin of seafood, vegi and produce in every grocery and restaurant is source traceable. Even non-complaint know where the stuff they sold came from be it locally sourced or the boxes out back from costco.
The system you’re advocating doesn’t fucking work!
The system you’re advocating won’t do a fucking thing to decriminalize sex work in other states, won’t do a fucking thing to destigmatize HIV or get rid of stigmatizing HIV criminal laws. The system your advocating keeps them in place.
Today a prostitue with HIV antibodies is automatically a fucking felon, they can’t whip out their OSHA compliance plan, or public safety plan cuz OSHA wouldn’t apply to them as a self employed entity w/o employees. They don’t get to say they’re on antivirals maintaining a non-detectable viral load and the condom the cops used as probable cause for arrest keeps them from getting the nasty shit their clients have.
You’re advocating the plan that marks performers with a SCARLET X like we’re in the days of Hester…if the industry is still marking its performers with a scarlet fucking x then how can you hope or expect society to embrace off set sex-work the world of porn is dependent on to make what society sees on the internet?
That is the FSC plan…performers pay out of their pocket to cover stakeholders asses and before the performer knows their medical test results …other people know they’ve been branded with a scarlet fucking x.
To answer your question …Yes, condoms are better than that if that’s the best system you got to balance performer safety with stakeholders bottom line and customer demand.
This post is about the linked subpoena & attachments.
Has anyone ever compiled or presented on this board how other original first-world countries (as originally defined, so let’s exclude the Eastern bloc, just for the moment) handle the issues that are at the heart of this argument right now? I’m wondering about Britain, France Germany and Italy specifically.
The discussion about whether condoms work or don’t, whether condoms should be used in conjunction with testing (yes, they should; people with infections should not work, even with testing – my guess is, that’s against the law), are great, except they’re irrelevant.
Porn already lost that battle. The condom law is the law in LA County – they county may not have any interest in enforcing it, which gives porn a pass for now – but its the law and the law has been upheld by a federal judge and upon appeal in a federal appeals court. Porns only next avenue was to appeal to the whole court and then the Supreme Court. They decided not to pursue this.
So, what they’re arguing about now are the ancillary issues around permitting and fees that were kicked back to the trial judge by the appeals court.
Porn has a lot more to be concerned about from Cameron Bay if its litigated because that is a workplace safety case that could impact all porn sets. There’s a lot more in that suit than just HIV.
Haven’t seen anything compiled or presented yet…in a nutshell
Same as here, with reality being a moving point amid the fixed lines that cross paths at the most inconvenient of times. Government says one thing….industry says another….workers spout the company line when they have to, bashing the government for not fixing it or for trying to fix what isn’t broken….so yep same as here. Two governments demanding the third give up their autonomy and declare allegiance to one side or the other 😉
Lots of talk about trying the best practices that aren’t working other places, taxation causing workers to live in one country work in another.
Mike there’s one question I would really like the answer too concerning all of this, If AHF sent a subpoena to TTS, CET and now Dr. Riggs how would they know if they were a performer or non performer. I know when my girl and I went to CET they had a file on us the paperwork asked what is our stage name. At TTS that was never on the paperwork it was up to us to put on the form if we wanted. Same at Dr Riggs. So if its not anywhere to be found how can AHF really know if were performers or not. I know there’s plenty of people out there who’s not in the industry that has reason to be concerned.
Yep…this is also a workplace suit..employer’s rights
I’m curious ….how the Jan 1, 2007 date was chosen as a start point?
Especially curious about the STI definition, BV, chlamydia, gonorrhea, viral hepatis, genial herpes, HIV/AIDs, HPV, PID, syphillis, trichomoniasis.
Why would performer test results outside the required panel be transmitted to FSC, AIM foundation, APHSS/PASS, and other “””””PERSON”””””” associated with or involved in making a film.
The people tested won’t be identified, but it seems expected the people getting the results will be.
If it was AIM foundation it makes sense tests outside the FSC panel would be shared to keep an eye on what’s happening to make panel adjustments. Same goes with FSC advisory panel.
If that’s the case I’m curious what if any other STI results were reported but never put on the radar as a performer concern.
Were providers sharing performers test results for BV, PID, etc that were never part of the panel as data like the supeona wants or were they sharing results and names too?
In 2012 syphilis wasn’t part of standard panel, got moved up (wink wink) cuz I looked and Sept 2011 was all about the HIV false positive in Florida but no press releases about September is syphillis month like AIM did before that.
2013 HepC not part of panel …were the free tests before then for data only or was it out there with names to agents, producers, co-performers and their authorized representatives?
May not find out as this suit unfolds but if we do find out these answers may set everything FSC/stakeholders put out there re 2012 syphillis & 2013 HepC in a very different light.
Good question, did they send test results on demand?
Did they send data without patient info for all STI tests to track event trends?
Did they send or make available every STI test performers asked for or bought because provider said it was needed for appropriate medical care?
BT
The 2257 had been down to record keeping which the way I’m reading it is specific to the industry but isn’t picking on them any more than the industry specific regulatory red tape foisted on all sorts of professions. There tossing some recent municipal signage ruling back and forth hoping for a prior restraint ruling.
Right now the 15 member oversight committee in LA isn’t really part of this but either way this case goes you can bet it will be. Their job is making sure the city of LA is getting their fair share of LACPH resources. If LACPH is tasked with enforcement AHF is gonna hold them accountable, and the industry is going to say doing so diverts from primary purpose …so many balls in the air…lots of talented jugglers…this is like watching a big top with ten rings.
Hi Lurking Reader, both at CET and TTS us performers received emails with our results. However at CET it was always up to us performers to show our results on set, and we HAD to be a part of PASS/APHSS. But at TTS they have the dashboard and the f-buddy system which I feel surpasses anything else out there when it comes to patient confidentiality. But hey what do I know, I’m just a performer and the FSC runs the show. When APHSS first came into affect it was great it was all we had, you know our availability to work, green check mark means you can work, red x means you can’t work for what ever reason. Now we have the TTS dashboard and the f-buddy system and no one wants to take advantage of it. I guess the FSC advisory panel does have more power then one might think. If they really did care about us performers then they’d do whats best and only use the TTS dashboard and f-buddy system, but then again where would that leave them?
LurkingReader: I think you hit the nail exactly on the head when you say “If LACPH is tasked with enforcement, AHF is gonna hold them accountable …..” At the end of the day, I think that’s AHF’s motivation. Right now, you have a situation like the enforcement of obscenity laws by the Department Of Justice. Pat Truman, who is a former high level DOJ official and head of an anti-pornography organization, will tell you that there are any number of federal obscenity laws the DOJ could pursue if they wished. And, like him or loathe him, he’s a straight shooter. I’m sure he is correct. One administration after another, going back to the first George Bush, has chosen to look the other way.
Same is happening in LA County. There’s a law on the books. You could probably fund enforcement with permitting fees if the county wished to push it. But, it has chosen not to be the condom police.
AHF is going to be the thorn in LA COunty’s side and try to push them to enforce it. And, it will keep pushing OSHA.
This is all why I think the Cameron Bay lawsuit is so dangerous to porn if it gets to trial (big if cuz its expensive) and if she wins (another big if). Kink is the extreme and not the norm – it’s the Ted Cruz of porn – and what happened to Bay on the Public Disgrace set was a disgrace even by Kink standards. But …. in that courtroom, it’s going to become emblematic of every porn set every where. It’s going to be anti-abortion activists holding up photos of dismembered babies following partial birth abortions as the rule for all abortions.
Lots of ifs, I know, but if it gets to trial, and if she wins, watch out.
BT
Lol, I’m watching ….this is like a ten ring circus with infinite acts waiting in the wings. Staying true to my creative nature I’ll mix my metaphors cuz it works…it ain’t over till the fat lady sings.
Ted Cruz extreme? I’ll ponder that one. kink is like THE tenor taking center stage at Bound In Public hits a sour note on Public Disgrace goes backstage, yanks claim to fame song from playlist. Everyone hopes its just this leg of the tour, sure it will be back next tour, five tours in the band strikes up THE-SONG… THE tenor stomps off stage WHOA? Time goes by…Sam would break his own fingers before playing IT…so who knows what tune the fat lady is gonna sing.
Meanwhile the emcee just headed over to ring four where the tigers are perched all in a row within the mesh ring and PETA is still outside doing their thing.
Lurking Reader, let’s continue here..
“Is the condom really better? Than what?”
My question is this: “Considering the current testing systems in place, considering the current processes, would dropping the and replacing it with forced condom use by safer?”
The answer, almost categorically would be no. Condoms would be less safe for a number of reasons.
How this relates to the supeona in question is that this fishing expedition (get all the data, and try to find some magic hidden correlation) is to prove that there have been infections on set.
That is fine. However, if there was not testing, but instead mandatory condom usage, would there have been more or less infections over a given sample period? Since condoms break upwards to 15% of the time (more when you use cheapy lube, when you engage in anal sex, etc), we know that the failure rate combined with potentially infected performers would like almost unavoidably to infections, to sharing of major diseases, and so on.
The current testing system does not have a 15% failure rate.
@rawalex
“The current testing system does not have a 15% failure rate.”
Prove it…which is the point of these subpoenas. Workplace safety isn’t limited to the heterosexual (straight & g/g) career ender HIV.
The subpoena includes STI reasonably expected to be encountered on the job…BV, CT, GC, Hep, genital Herpes, HPV, Syphillis, Trichomoniasis & PID and ….other STI test results shared with FSC/stakeholders. Those are the numbers you’re backing your claims on.
You say the current system success rate is over 85% …how do you know? Did you see all the data? If the current system flaws and all is 85% effective then why are FSC/stakeholders against validating their numbers?
As to major diseases HPV is the number one cause of cervical cancer but that doesn’t matter if you have a prostate. Untreated STI is the primary cause of PID…again seems inconsequential or even beneficial since it reduces the inconveinces of failed birth control and abortions.
I’m not the one advocating condoms, I advocate stakeholder paid testing via shared costing, barrier use if needed. To my way of thinking post editing expenses is like overtime to some working joe, the barrier option keeps the revenue stream flowing more smoothly than start stop without it or a new car in a stakeholders garage with the cost of performer infertility and cancer mixed into the shiny overcoat.
So prove the system you’re advocating succeeds more than 85% of the time to exclude those expected workplace hazards. While you’re at it tell me one thing in this world you’d buy as a reliable product or service because it succeeds 85/100 uses.
You are making this too easy.
You understand (as an example) that HPV is not something that can be prevented with condoms, as other forms of contact may spread it. So mentioning HPV gives the perfect example of why “condom mandatory” rule could create false security.
You read down your list, and you need to understand that the porn infection rate and the general population rates are not that much different.
“You say the current system success rate is over 85% …how do you know?”
it’s actually a pretty simple thing, really. If there was a 15% failure rate, then the average porn girl (shooting 3 scenes a day a couple of times a week) would have a new infection every Monday to enjoy. Within 10-12 weeks in the business, they would have pretty much everything you list. If their career went more than a couple of years, statistically they would be dead.
The reality proves that is not the case. There are cases of pornstars getting sick. They are so out of the norm that they are discussion for weeks / months even years.
Oh, another way to figure out that testing has a less than 15% error rate is to just compare the current production list with, say, a similar length list around the times of John Holmes. Plenty of people got sick and just said nothing. Some people died. Can you list any pornstars who have died from work related action in the last, say, 10 years?
Now, here is one other thing you need to understand: I don’t advotcate for anything that the bozos from FSC are involved in. I am not advocating their testing versus condoms. I am saying that condoms alone won’t do the job, and if the legal requirement is “you must wear a condom” then porn producers will very likely lower the bar to that legal minimum and it will be up to the talent to protect themselves. That would be an insanely sad moment and perhaps the end of porn production as we know it.
Even the current swiss cheese testing process is better than a condom.
Hi JW,
HIPAA is an agreement between a patient and their medical provider about IF, WHEN, WHERE, HOW, WHY their private medical will be shared. Email or electronic access via a patient portal allows the patient to actively participate in their medical care.
In this day and age a system like f-buddy is a great resource for sexually active people to use their protected STI medical information outside the diagnostics and treatment medical care model. Sexual partners have a tool of STI prevention without predefined limits. They are free to use or share this information with their partner(s) to negotiate what is or isn’t an acceptable risk for them or their partner(s) in the privacy of their bedrooms so to speak. Whatever the nature of their private PERSONAL relationship it’s no ones beeswax …Very Handy
What’s handy for sexually active people is a pre-requisite for professional sex-workers. Clients pay more for a sexual transaction with tested escort.
The red x in APHSS now PASS is a SCARLET X when it is posted on the screen that says TEST DATE, TEST EXPIRY, TEST PROVIDER because there is only one reason to place unavailable on this screen….the performer did not pass the industry required test panel.
This is a STI database plain and simple…are they good or bad? They are not searching PASS for any other criteria.
If a performer is willing to test where they say, at their price, buying what they want, when they say…the least they could do is limit that performer availability screen to YES cuz that’s what they need to know….are you available, till when.
WIIFM…as a producer they know who’s willing to kiss their ass do what they want when and how they want it for a paycheck …good to know SO is the paycheck in it for the performer.
So now please …somebody..anybody tell me where the FSC gets off running the company store ala days of plantation politics …painting a FUCKING SCARLET XXX on a worker willing to do all that for them before they even show up to work? I’m still waiting for a logical rationale to justify FSC using the STI information performers buy as to tool to LIMIT vs FACILITATING the performers who paid for it.
Lmao @rawalex
what am I making easy? My opinion that longstanding unresolved questions will be addressed in this lawsuit and other regulatory, legislative processes in the works?
I admire you for standing by your baby, just know it isn’t mine and from a workplace safety standpoint FSC-PASS not only doesn’t work its primary purpose is further enriching FSC/Stakeholders off the backs of performers.
You keep defending PASS as it exists today as a viable alternative to all the looming regulatory stuff in the air. I’m telling you straight up …PASS is dead!
Go look on the PASS blog…read the copy/paste letter they want performers to send to West Oaks, CET and who knows where else.
Rescinding prior HIPAA permissions will not stop this subpoena which asks for NO Protected Personal Health Information connected with the data. All that copy/paste does is stop medical providers who were sharing protected personal health information with ‘FSC, AIM Foundation, APHSS/PASS and/or other person associated with or involved in making a film’ from continuing to do so.
That’s no IF bullshit…that’s a fucking fact. Here’s some IF for you run it by Karen Tynan as a hypothetical client against a deep pocket employer …ask…IF you didn’t have a conflict would turn down the slam dunk contingency fee?
A performer living in a model house gets booked by her agent for a shoot. She HAS THE JOB contingent on passing preemployment physical.
The employer doesn’t provide the preemployment physical they want
The performer shows up 😉
Or the 1099 contracted labor has the job contingent on pre-employment fitness exam…the doc does exam and says needs a barrier for ten days…ADA, 504 oohhhhh lots of alphabet soup there.
This isn’t about individuals exercising their right to personal autonomy …it’s about balancing that autonomy within the confines of a WORK relationship. Payor/Payee ….
Let me know if you really want a comprehensive comparison of US Division of Labor workplace mortality, injury and illness. Nina Hartley did some cherry picking but I’m an equal opportunity annoyance without a stake in this game.
Still say I’m making it too easy? 🙂
BTW….It isn’t my list…it is the court approved list of defense discovery.
The plaintiffs …Vivid made claims that can only be proven or discredited with this data or the court would not have approved the subpoena.
LR, you just don’t get it.
I think FSC is somewhere between brain dead and criminal. It has long since lost it’s way and turned into something that could easily be mistaken as either totally corrupt or operated by people who just don’t get it.
It’s not my baby.
I am not defending PASS. I am saying that removing PASS (or any other current system) and replacing it with manditory condoms won’t fix the problems, won’t make people safer or healthier, and may in fact lead to more reckless behaviors combined with failures of the condoms that could have serious implications.
The current system isn’t very good – but it’s better than the proposed alternative.
So, to summarize. I don’t like FSC. It’s not my baby (even if the condom broke), and I am not defending them.
How hard is that to understand?
Lol rawalex gotta love a sense of humor…Taking you on your word FSC is not your baby …Though it might be easier if FSC/stakeholder system (progeny) didn’t resemble the direction you keep heading to.
So….lets get on the same page. Tell me…
What don’t I understand?
WHAT CURRENT SYSTEM???
if you know the current system doesn’t work….why are you defending it as superior vs offering something that addresses the obvious concerns?
1. Is porn a work relationship for pay or a personal relationship?
2. Are performers showing up to sets and signing contracts that cover their asses or stakeholders asses?
3. Are contracts negotiable or not?
4. Are contracts about clear expectations of the parties or stakeholder(s) limiting liability (aka covering their ass with a contract) …if it’s about covering stakeholder asses then they ought to be paying for testing …that is my non negotiable…see I think of performer testing as a uniform of sorts…wear your test or don’t clock in 😉
“if you know the current system doesn’t work….why are you defending it as superior vs offering something that addresses the obvious concerns?”
The problem I run into is that the current shameful system is STILL generally more effective than condoms only would be. Moreover, the marginal improvement of adding condoms to the current system is too small to make the change valid. it makes for good headlines, but doesn’t fix the problems – it actually makes them worse by encouraging reckless behavior and people who are knowingly infected shoot scenes because “the condom protects everyone”… when we know it fails way too often.
1. Porn is art, like any other video or image produced. So the acts themselves are part of producing art, not a relationship.
2. for the most part they are signing model releases which limit their income to a certain amount of the scene, prove they are of age, etc. It’s not really about ass covering, it’s basically just a contract to permit the images to be used.
3. Model releases generally are NOT negotiable. It’s a standard legal concept, the work or rights granted in return for valuable consideration (fee).
For 4, I don’t think that testing is part of the model release contract, rather it’s a requirement before you even get to the contract. It’s like the camera guy showing up without cameras. It’s a prerequisite to even get in the door, let alone paid.
@rawalex
The problem you run into is you’re all for maintaining a status quo.
Good luck with that.
Congrats, you just made my “dickwad” list. That is reserved for the very special people in the world who are unable to read what I write, and instead like to post their own version of what I say.
I am all for whatever keeps performers safe in the long run. Condoms quite simply are not the answer, and having a government agency mandate a lower protection level than the currently flawed system provides isn’t going to cut it.
Anyway, have a nice day, dickwad.
@rawalex
Dickwad? Awww gee making it personal after someone pays you the compliment of dancing around your denials, deflections and deceptions for a week is just piss poor manners.
As for special people who are unable to read what’s written and prefer to post their own version ….clearly you’re unable to read the questions asked or preferred spinning your own fantasy. Having already said fuck you to you for throwing performers from a decade ago under the bus for the failings of today’s system I saw no need to make things personal by asking if you’re a liar or talking out of your ass cuz you’ve never seen a standard performer contract.
Btw …none of the government mandates under consideration eliminate testing…in fact they all maintain the current FSC protocol as a minimum and transfer the fiscal burden to stakeholders.
So…..are you the product of a half dried dickwad short bus window licker or a piece of shit spewing the industry stakeholder partylines? Meh…either way I’m pretty proud of what mom cooked up with dad’s dickwad 😉