LA Daily Breeze Comes Out Against Ballot Measure B !!

This is the first newspaper I am aware of that has taken a position against Ballot Measure B ! The Daily Breeze is also part of the LA.com network of sites. From the Daily Breeze;

“The real question is whether the threat of disease posed by the porn industry is serious enough to warrant the effort and expense called for by Measure B. The newspaper’s editorial board does not believe the proponents of the so-called Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act have proven that case. We urge a “no” vote on Nov. 6.”

“Everybody wants to protect health. The question is whether the adult-film industry is a big enough threat to warrant Measure B’s solutions. The editorial board is not convinced, and we recommend the measure’s defeat.”

Read the entire Editorial Endorsement here -> http://www.dailybreeze.com/opinions/ci_21795793/endorsement-no-b-measure-force-condoms-porn-films

 

Advertisements

9th Circuit Court Rules City Imposed Permits Unconstitutional Restraint of Free Speech

Seattle, WA – The First Amendment protects yellow pages phone books, the 9th Circuit ruled Monday, rejecting a Seattle law that sought to limit distribution of the often thick and immediately recycled book. Under the 2010 ordinance, the phone book publisher had to pay a fee and obtain a permit for each directory it distributed in the city, and create a list through which residents could decline to receive the yellow pages. During hearings on the new law, numerous citizens testified that distribution of the book violated their privacy and created waste.

Read More at Courthouse News – http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/10/15/51283.htm

This is an interesting case in regards to Ballot Measure B. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that phone books are entitled to full protection under the First Amendment and therefore the “strict scrutiny” test had to be applied to the permit law. The City of Seattle argued that only the “intermediate scrutiny” test had to be applied and thus the permits helped served to reduce waste, protect the privacy of its citizens and helped the city recover the costs of disposal of the unwanted phone books. As in Ballot Measure B, the City of Seattle wanted the phone book publisher to pay a permit fee to enforce the law.

While this case is obviously not about porn it is an important case in the 9th Circuit and could be used to argue that if passed and enforced, Ballot Measure B is unconstitutional. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision turned on the issue of whether a phone book is commercial or non-commercial speech. The Court held that even though a phone book contains ads in the yellow pages section, it is non-commercial speech and entitled to the full protection of the First Amendment. The same would hold true of pornography.

I had authored an article discussing the constitutionality of Ballot Measure B on in which I though that the law may be reviewed under the “intermediate scrutiny” test in regards to permits ( Please see: http://adultbizlaw.com/condoms-the-first-amendment/ ). However, based on the ruling in this matter it is apparent that any court reviewing Ballot Measure B on constitutional grounds would be required to use the “strict scrutiny” test. In the phone book case the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals stated;

“Crudely violent video games, tawdry TV shows, and cheap novels and magazines are no less forms of speech than The Divine Comedy, and restrictions upon them must survive strict scrutiny.”). The First Amendment protects Hustler Magazine, too. See Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988).”

If Hustler Magazine would be entitled to full protection, Hustler movies and any other studios’ movies would also be entitled to the fullest extent of protection under the First Amendment.

To read the full decision of DEX MEDIA WEST, INC. v. SEATTLE you can download the decision here;

DexMediaWestvSeattle

 

Do Not Restrict The Right To Choose!

On October 11, 2012 the following article was posted on one of the largest gay dating websites with millions of members through-out the world and tens of thousands of members in Los Angeles County (NSFW http://blog.adam4adam.com/2012/10/health-will-l-a-producers-be-forced-to-wrap-it-up/ ). It was also emailed to more than 700 public health experts in the United States including physicians at the CDC, National Institutes of Health and various county health agencies.

Do Not Restrict Our Right To Choose!

 

On November 6th the voters of Los Angeles County are going to be asked to decide a ballot measure as to the sexual rights of a small inclusive community within its boarders.

A community that is often misunderstood and rarely given a voice. A community that is publicly shunned and privately enjoyed. A community that has fought for its existence through years of struggles, court battles and legislation.

Those that make up this community only want one thing – the right to choose for themselves how to live and work.

The principle force behind this ballot measure is special interest. A large powerful organization is trying to impose their will on a smaller group that does not want it. This organization does not like the example this community sets for others in the world, especially young people.

You might assume that I am referring to a proposition about gay rights but I am not.

I am referring to Michael Weinstein and AIDS Healthcare Foundation’s attempts to force porn performers in the County of Los Angeles to wear condoms. He wants the Los Angeles County Health Department to enforce a California employee safety law that would require the use of condoms, dental dams and latex gloves for vaginal, anal and oral sex.

Michael Weinstein wants the voters to believe the adult industry in Los Angeles is a cesspool of HIV and sexually transmitted diseases. He is playing the fear mongering card that some how if not stopped, the porn industry will infected the rest of Los Angeles. This should be a familiar argument to the gay community.

To compound the misinformation, AHF’s spokesperson on this Ballot Measure is Derrick Burts. Burts claims he contracted HIV while working in the adult entertainment industry. However, he did not contract HIV on-set in Los Angeles. He most likely contracted it on a gay set in Florida where condoms were used or off screen in his private life. AHF is not telling the voters that.

AHF is also not telling the voters that violating Ballot Measure B can land a person in jail for up to 6 months (per incident) and result in thousands of dollars in fines and legal fees.

AHF is also not telling the voters that this law even applies to couples not in the porn industry. The law is so broadly written that even private individuals performing on web cam together will be required to use condoms during their shows.

The industry has regular testing protocols that have keep us safe for the past eight years. There has not been a on-set transmission of HIV since 2004 when five performers were infected by Darren James. Recently, the industry has moved from a 30 day testing cycle to a 14 day testing cycle to further improve performer safety. They have also adopted the Aptima test, highly regarded as one of the most sensitive for HIV detection purposes.

But yet that is not enough for Michael Weinstein, who regards testing as nothing more than surveillance. He wants to use the industry and their product to send a message. He wants to use porn for nothing more than product placement. That message and that product are condoms. Yet, he calls it a worker safety measure.

Instead of government representatives, work place safety experts, physicians and the industry representatives working together to develop a comprehensive plan to protect performers without infringing on the performers and producers’ First Amendment rights, Mr. Weinstein is asking the voters of Los Angeles County to decide worker safety laws. This is unprecedented in California. The public does not vote on the height of scaffolds or the guards on chainsaws.

This is not the first time AHF and Michael Weinstein have pushed for a ballot measure involving mandatory condoms. In 2000, he tried to force West Hollywood to purchase 500,000 condoms and have all the bars and restaurants within the city hand them out to their patrons. AHF’s ballot measure was soundly defeated within his own community.

We as an industry only want the right to decide this issue for ourselves and not have it forced on us. Performers should have the right to choose. They want their sexual rights.

James Deen, male pornstar, might have said it best;

“I endorse safe sex.  I endorse condoms.  I endorse condom use while getting regularly tested with your partners.  This is the entertainment industry.  We choose to create a product that is fantasy driven.  Some of us choose to perform without condoms. These are our choices.  Do not restrict my right as an American, or a human being, to choose.  Please vote no on Measure B.”

We ask those of you living in Los Angeles County to Vote No on Ballot Measure B on November 6th. We ask those with friends in Los Angeles County to call them and ask them to Vote No! Let us have the right to choose!

To learn more about Ballot Measure B please visit;

http://noongovernmentwaste.com/

http://performersforchoice.com/

http://yesonb.info/

http://www.aidshealth.org/archives/14731

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Los_Angeles_Porn_Actors_Required_to_Wear_Condoms_Act,_Measure_B_%28November_2012%29

To download a copy of the ballot measure language click here -> http://adultbizlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/condoms-in-porn-proposed-los-angeles-county-1.pdf

Michael W. Fattorosi is an adult industry attorney located in Los Angeles, California. He has represented straight, transsexual and gay performers in the industry. He has been called the industry’s “Top Porn Attorney” by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. You can read more of his articles on Ballot Measure B at http://www.AdultBizLaw.com or you can follow him on twitter at http://www.twitter.com/pornlaw He welcomes all feedback.

James Deen is an eight year veteran male performer and mainstream actor. You can see him in “The Canyons” co-starring with Lindsay Lohan to be released in 2013. You can read more about him at his website at http://www.JamesDeenBlog.com and follow him on twitter at http://www.twitter.com/jamesdeen

More Facts on Condoms in Porn: Voter Guide Language Updated

On October 5, 2012 I posted an article about Ballot Measure B, including the language of the arguments for and against condoms in porn that will be included in the voter guide sent to millions of voters in Los Angeles County ( Please see: http://adultbizlaw.com/ballot-measure-b-get-the-facts-the-proposed-law-ballot-language-and-voter-guide/ ). After receiving numerous questions as to who wrote the “against” position I posted another article on who the authors were ( Please see: http://adultbizlaw.com/who-wrote-the-argument-against-condoms-in-porn-for-the-voter-guide/ ). At the time, I did not know what, if any, connection those authors had to the adult entertainment industry. However, now it appears from the rebuttals that the original authors were selected by the “No on Government Waste Committee.”

This morning rebuttals to the for and against arguments have been posted on SmartVoter.org ( Please see: http://www.smartvoter.org/2012/11/06/ca/la/meas/B/ ).

Here is the rebuttal against the argument for condoms in porn. The authors of the rebuttal are Diane Duke of FSC, Dr. Peter Miao of Cutting Edge Testing, Stuart Waldman of VICA and again Pamela Brown Phd and Dr. Randall Weissbuch ( Ms. Brown and Dr. Weissbuch were both authors of the first argument against Ballot Measure B);

Here is the rebuttal written by AIDS Healthcare Foundation and their supporters as to why people should vote for condoms in porn;

 

Weinstein, AHF and Misinformation about Condoms in Nevada Brothels

Michael Weinstein often cites the stellar track record that the brothels have in Nevada in regards to stopping the transmission of HIV since they began mandatory condom use in 1987. Since then there has not been one recorded transmission of HIV in a brothel. However, Mr. Weinstein is being disingenuous with his statement since there is actually no way to actually know that.

In Nevada, customers are NEVER tested for STIs or HIV. Therefore, if clients are not tested there is no actual way of knowing if an HIV transmission has occurred in a brothel in Nevada. That would require testing 100% of the sex workers and clients.

Weinstein is also not telling the voters that a woman with herpes and vaginal warts can legally work in the brothels in Nevada Please see: NevadaDeptHealthMeeting ). The brothels only test for HIV, syphilis, chlamydia and gonorrhea. Therefore, there is also no way to know how many cases of herpes and vaginal warts that have been transmitted between sex workers and customers in Nevada’s legal brothels since condoms are not very effective at preventing herpes/warts transmission depending on were on the body the sores are located.

Weinstein is also comparing apples to oranges when comparing adult production to commercial sex work in brothels. In 2006, Rick Reich, Communicable Disease / AIDS Services Supervisor for Nevada’s Clark County Health Department, said;

“[W]e test these people so often, it’s almost like we over-test them. That doesn’t stop the infections from coming into the brothels by the customers.  That’s where the mandatory condom use comes in.”

(Please see: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/02/09/resisting-sex-panic-sex-workers-struggle-evidencebased-regulation-nevada )

Condoms are being used to protect the sex workers from clients not from themselves or each other.

Dr. Randall Todd, Director of the Division of Epidemiology for Washoe County District Health Department in Nevada, echoed the fact that it is the public/husbands/boyfriends that transmitted an STI to a brothel sex worker;

[…]99 percent of the time, a legal prostitute likely got the STD from a husband or boyfriend, through ‘extracurricular’ sex, outside the brothel.”

( Please see: http://prostitution.procon.org/view.source.php?sourceID=000618 )

However, according to Weinstein any porn performer that tests positive for any STIs must have contracted it on set from a co-star. There is little to no proof as to where a performer contracted an STI with any certainty. The transmission could have been on set or it could have come from a husband, wife, boyfriend or girlfriend as suggested by Dr. Todd in regards to brothel workers.

Further, the adult entertainment industry is not open to the public despite all the claims that Weinstein makes to the possibility of performer’s escorting on the side in addition to shooting scenes. Performers do not need to be protected from the general public on a porn set.

What Weinstein also isn’t telling the voters is that the sex-workers themselves pushed for mandatory condoms in the Nevada’s brothels. Condoms were not forced upon them by the government and special interest. According to a 2009 article authored by Melissa Gira Grant on RHRealityCheck.org;

The one existing Nevada brothel regulation that effectively keeps sex workers safe was pushed for by workers themselves — a statewide mandatory condom policy.  Sex workers had been demanding that condom use be made mandatory across the brothel system in order to make uniform the safety practices they already knew worked best[…]

(Please see: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/02/09/resisting-sex-panic-sex-workers-struggle-evidencebased-regulation-nevada )

It appears that the brothel owners themselves welcomed mandatory condoms since their business had declined by up to 40% after the HIV/AIDs scare in the early to mid-1980s. They wanted to keep a competitive advantage so they agreed to condoms ( Please see: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/02/09/resisting-sex-panic-sex-workers-struggle-evidencebased-regulation-nevada ).

In the adult industry condoms could cause just the opposite, it could kill off all production in California.

Obviously. there are few parallels between the brothels in Nevada and porn production industry in California when it comes to condoms and testing. Weinstein and AHF continue to cite the excellent track record of condom use in brothels when discussing condoms in porn but there is little scientific evidence to back up their position.

Ballot Measure B – Get The Facts: The Proposed Law, Ballot Language and Voter Guide

I have received a lot of questions about the actual language of Ballot Measure B as well as how will the question be asked on the actual ballot on November 6th and what will be the official “for” and “against” arguments people will see in their voter’s guide. Here is the information that the general public will see and receive in regards to making a decision about “condoms in porn.”

This is how Ballot Measure B will actually look on the voting ballot on November 6th;

Here is a link so that you can download the PDF of the actual language of the law that will be adopted if this ballot measure is approved by the voters on November 6th;

condoms-in-porn-proposed-los-angeles-county-1

Here are the arguments for and against Ballot Measure B that does/will appear in the Los Angeles County Voter Guide;

Here are the arguments against Ballot Measure B;

And here is a link to download a copy of Los Angeles County Attorney John Krattli’s impartial analysis of the law that will also be in the voter guide;

condoms-in-porn-proposed-los-angeles-county-1