Second reason its important is that it sets the stage – if Vivid or the county loses and is willing to pursue the case further – for the potential of a SCOTUS review. It would not be to whether the content itself is protected, but whether pornographers have carte blanche First Amendment rights to film anything, regardless of the health and safety of talent.

You want to keep your eye on the ruling coming out of that case. A potential Kink libel case is fun, but it is a distraction.

The whole Kink/AHF/Weinstein thing has occurred in the shadow of a political campaign related to the condom bill, but Kink was not a candidate, so I don’t know if a ruling would be directly applicable if it overturned the Ohio law and SCOTUS says: Yeah, sure in a political campaign, its OK to lie.

The other point – I don’t think even if overturned, the law would give you cover to libel someone who was not running for office because they were aligned with someone who was. But, its an interesting question.

What is clear here is that if Kink does indeed file a lawsuit – a big if – Kink will have to clear the public figure hurdle. For example, one test of a public figure is whether you have knowingly thrust yourself into the middle of a public issue. In other words, someone who is photographed walking down the street in front of a bank when a robbery takes place and is misidentified as the bank robber by the media is not a public figure – they’re just minding their own business and the media put them in the spotlight. Someone walking down the street who then goes up to a reporter and says: Hey, I saw the whole thing if you want to interview me. Here’s my home number has thrust themselves into the spotlight.

When it comes to the issue of HIV/STDs/condoms and porn, Kink has thrust itself into the middle of the issue. It’s on the board of the porn association fighting the bill; Ackworth has given news interviews on the issue; he’s made public statements about Kink’s safety records; he’s made public statements about the infamous Cameron Bay shoot; he’s been a notorious figure in the news because of gun and drug busts – although that may be carved out of a lawsuit as irrelevant to STDs; and he’s made statements about his financial position, stating that it would make more financial sense to move his business to Las Vegas and turn the Armory into a commercial development as a direct result of condom regulation. Finally, he’s embroiled in a todo with OSHA regarding his safety record.

In short ….. he’s not only public, he’s public about his safety record and his finances. He’s opened the door to a huge fishing expedition into how he operates.

No one welcomes a lawsuit because of the expense associated with just getting rid of it, but if you’re AHF, you probably don’t shy away from this fight should it come. You file as many requests for discovery as possible as quickly as possible and hope that Kink turns over records before its all over. Those records potentially become part of the public record for anyone to pore over.

Keep your eye out for the Ohio politician case that SCOTUS is going to hear. It centers on knowingly making false or intentionally misleading statements with malice to gain an advantage over a political opponent…the higher threshold public figure that BT laid out nicely above.

It may have come across as snark because porn used pending Measure B appellate litigation to try and stave off AB1586 but it’s more about the things laid out above as well as use war chest & judicial resources wisely.

With five years of mounting porn friendly media attacking Weinstein and AHF the depositions alone would read like a ShoTime weekly drama. Reporters can shield their sources but that’s a hard defense when deposed under oath re named & quoted sources. Once those depositions are done it gets really fun with AHF trying to depose Tynan who will claim client privilege and fall into a nice can of worms….stay tuned to as porn vs the big bad wolf continues.

First, I’m not sure that a company can claim that it has been libeled. Mr. Ackworth certainly can. But, let’s assume that Kink can sue. A couple of things: Remember that Kink has made notoriety and outrageousness a part of its business plan. It operates a dungeon. It publishes video clips designed to outrage, inflame, engorge, disgust, and excite the public. It does not fly under the radar. In that regard, its tough to argue that its OK for Kink to be outrageous in its business, but not to say something outrageous about its business. But, hey, I’m not an attorney.

So, it is, in essence, a public figure. What then does a public figure have to prove?

First, it has to prove that AHF and/or Weinstein knew or should have known that the allegations it made against Kink were false.

Second, it has to prove that AHF and/or Weinstein made the allegations against Kink even though it knew they were false – they were made with a reckless disregard of the truth.

Third, it has to prove that AHF and/or Weinstein not only made them knowing they were false – they did so with the sole intent of damaging Kink and Ackworth. That’s called malicious intent.

Finally, and this is key, even if the allegations are false; even if they were made with reckless disregard for the truth to get ’em, Kink has to demonstrate that it has suffered demonstrable and quantifiable economic harm as a result of AHF’s/Weinstein’s allegations. There has to be economic damage directly tied to the allegations. There has to be a cause and effect. That’s the law.

Public figures – and public companies – almost never win libel suits. The bar is incredibly high. So, good luck with that one.

And, Mike, you are correct about discovery. If Kink is going to file suit, then Kink will have to cooperate with discovery. It will have to open its books to financial scrutiny to prove economic harm. And, it will have to open all of its records related to performers, injuries on set, diseases, etc.

Even if it wins, its likely to be a phyric victory from a financial standpoint and could very well lead to other regulatory actions against Kink.

Be careful what you ask for, Mr. Ackworth. You just might get it.

the porn industry’s track record of how they treat performers who test positive for HIV is well documented. Thrown out like yestedays garbage, and mercilessly attacked in the industry press. But these performers do have ONE thing in common, the AHF is there to pick up the tab. Exactly what did TTBoy do for the three people for whom it was proven beyond ALL doubt were infected on his set?

If the powers that run porn had taken a different road instead of denial and taken care of their performers that were unfortunate enough to get the disease I doubt they would be in the position they are now (OSHA and AHF all up in their business).

2014 marks ten years that Cal/OSHA has had a page on their site dedicated to adult film performers. Coincidently it also marks the decade that porn loves to bandy about…no onset transmissions.

A kink.com spokesperson shows up here in comments and trashes what an independent producer is doing because he has no proof of his safety record. Lmao…kink.com nor FSC is a regulatory body and they can’t prove their safety record either.

Loved the latest spin by Acworth …performers are tested…all that kink.com MSM content must be made with figments of our imagination then…cus they aren’t tested.

Bottom line…the industry had 18 years to tailor the 1992 BBP to their needs and didn’t. Five years after the Freeman decision BBP came along without an exemption for porn. In the absence of industry created non-discriminatory effective policy OSHA responded to complaints with a ten year cat & mouse game with FSC and porn stakeholders that got very ugly five years ago.

BTW…the 1998 Onset HIV case took ten years to make its way thru the courts.

As for Tynan’s cease & desist letter to Weinstein for Acworth…she might want to hold off until SCOTUS hears and rules on the pending OHIO case re political lies during an election process, aka public figure slander and libel. SMH and wondering if Weinstein is gonna call their bluff and file first.

Shalom