Comments on: Porn Agency Targeted By DIR

By: origen01

origen01 — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 09:06:57 +0000

In reply to jilted. But the bill says that even unpaid relationships could constitute an employer/employee relationship. What is up with that?

By: origen01

origen01 — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 09:04:56 +0000

In reply to Nick East. I don't like that shit (no pun intended) but some people like to do it on film...

By: jilted

jilted — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 20:40:18 +0000

In reply to BT. There must exist an employee/employer relationship at the time the action takes place for OSHA to have any jurisdiction. Creating a commercial product after the fact, such a a boyfriend putting a tape on the internet, does not create an e/e relatinship. Employees get paid.

By: BT

BT — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 18:43:16 +0000

For a private sexual encounter to be commercially distributed after the fact, you’ll still have to have signed releases and the paperwork that goes along with any other adult production. Otherwise, one party could sue the other party – and potentially anyone who distributes the release – for a violation of privacy. You may get away with not having condoms in that kind of setting – once. But if a production company repeatedly put out tapes that involved private sexual encounters that were later released commercially, they’re now in the business.

By: origen01

origen01 — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 13:46:06 +0000

In reply to BT. Interesting explanation, BT, but I wasn't really thinking about camming. I was thinking about a private sexual encounter, which just happened to be video taped, and footage was commercially distributed after the fact...

By: BT

BT — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 10:53:23 +0000

Let’s just make sure we have the right distinctions. You mentioned free speach and the right to privacy. There is no right to privacy if you are camming – streaming the event as it happens – unless you are streaming one on one. I have a camera on my computer. You have a camera on your computer. I’m your friend. You’re my friend. We want to share this intimate moment. It’s a private exchange in the privacy of my own home. Let’s say in that same setting, I invite a friend to join in so you can share that experience as well, but it’s still three friends. There would be no OSHA requirement for me to have a condom. However, if that third person is in my home, he or she could still potentially sue me if he or she is injured. I could still face personal liability, especially if, ala Mr. Marcus, I knew I had an STD and deliberately passed it on. HIV patients, for instance, have been prosecuted for having unprotected sex with the intent of infecting someone.

If you are camming on a public website, one where any Tom, Dick or Harry can view by joining the website, you have given up the right to privacy. If I decide to film my encounter with our friend and publicly distribute the video, I have given up the right to privacy. For instance, if the encounter involves that third person, I cannot distribute it without a signed release. It’s now a commercial venture even if I don’t make money on it, even if I lose money on it – commercial businesses lose money all the time. They still have to abide by OSHA regulations to provide a safe work environment in a money-losing venture. For instance, a soup kitchen that gives food away – there is no profit – still has to have a safe working environment for its volunteers, who are making no money. The soup kitchen still has to meet public health standards. The food must be fit to eat.

The other analogy might be that there is a 2nd amendment right to bear arms. That doesn’t mean that a gun range gets a pass on making certain that people handle fire arms in a safe manner while they’re shooting. If someone is injured a gun range because the guns weren’t properly maintained or stored or there weren’t sufficient safeguards, the gun owner couldn’t say that he wasn’t liable for the injury because the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to bear arms.

Every right comes with responsibility.

By: Nick East

Nick East — Sat, 09 Mar 2013 23:08:22 +0000

In reply to origen01. Oh my efing God!!! Really, origen01? Overbearing and imposing!!! All because you like to see ass-to-mouth!!! How sick are you? Wow!

By: Nick East

Nick East — Sat, 09 Mar 2013 23:01:33 +0000

In reply to rawalex.

rawalex? I was ASTONISHED by the adult film companies response to the condom issue! Imagine if you will… When I started in porn back in 1990, things were different. There were story lines in porn, no internet, no playboy tv even! Now you have extremes that were never even considered due to legal issues back then! Creampies and other gross shit that does unfortunately appeal to SOME perverts out there so they produce it and IT SELLS!!! Grosser still is that there is an actual audience for porn where they get to think that the girl is getting a skanky STD or even worse!!! They get off on it! It’s what she deserves! Gross gross gross! Those pics of mr. marcus with his syphillis infected penis in a girls mouth GETS SOME PEOPLE OFF! How much worse does it have to get before someone does something about it?
And yes, I personally feel that the people railing against condoms in porn are as skanky as can be and I hope they rot in Hell! There, I’ve said it! Steve Hirsch can ef off for putting profit ahead of worker safety! And I challenge James Deen to a lie detector test about his lie about never getting an STD since he got into porn! IMPOSSIBLE!!!!
Hey rawalex,,, imagine if you got a job and AFTER THE FACT all safety measures were sent askew.
Now on to the conspiracy theories you pro STD guys love to espouse.
Really? The AHF is trying to end porn all together!!!! Oh!!!! And I bet that 9/11 was an inside job too, right? Why did you stop with the haz/mat suit ridiculousness? Dental dams? Come on, guys, if you’re going to scare us with bullshit don’t stop shy of armegeddon!
Porn is out of control and you guys are part of the problem!
Stop it!
Untreatable Gonnorhea IS on it’s way, and when it hits the industry there are going to be alot of VERY unhappy performers, and the company owners WON’T GIVE A SHIT!

By: origen01

origen01 — Sat, 09 Mar 2013 21:33:11 +0000

In reply to BT. I strongly disagree and let's forget the issue of my argument. Consensual sex where no participant is paid should not constitute a workplace environment under any circumstances--even if there are profits EVENTUAL accrued from commercial distribution.

By: BT

BT — Sat, 09 Mar 2013 21:22:28 +0000

Origen: I’m not sure why porn should be treated any differently than mainstream? Privacy has to do with the right to privacy in your own home. There is no right to privacy in the workplace – it’s the reason that an employer is allowed to read your emails and monitor what you do on the web during company time with company assets. Similarly, a mainstream actor or actress simulating sex in a mainstream feature would be covered by OSHA rules. It doesn’t make sense to say that pornography should be afforded a different standard because the sex is real versus simulated.