I didn't understand the issue until just now. So it's not only about workplace safety, it's also about discriminating against workers because of their HIV status.
^ Is it fair to say that disallowing a performer who is HIV positive from doing scenes is discrimination? That seems like a reasonable disqualification to me, not anything capricious.
^ I've seen people bring up the argument that if you have condoms and other preventative measures, there's no reason why they wouldn't be able to work on a scene. And more importantly, that from a legal perspective, there would be no reason to block them from doing a scene, and the possibility of being accused of discrimination by doing so. I don't buy that, though.
^It is the argument that Whitney Engeran-Cordova from AHF made in a letter to Cal OSHA dated May 21, 2015. It is located on page 8 of the comment section for 5193.1 proposed regulations. She says: 1. Adult industry discriminates against HIV positive performers. 2. PASS causes performers to waive their medical confidential rights and don't keep their HIV status private between themselves and their doctor. 3. Adult film employers under PASS currently exclude HIV positive performers from working, which is discriminatory. 4. The solution is to have condom and other control measures written in the proposed regulation ensure that there is no basis for discrimination against HIV positive employees. The Cal OSHA board accepted her letter as supporting the proposed regulations. What does it mean? Per AHF's view, performers should not know the health status regarding HIV and should work with anyone as long as a condom is used. The other control measures listed in the document include dental dams and eye protection, which must be used.
An employer can discriminate against a performer with HIV ( even with a condom ) in porn - on a case by case basis. There is a US Supreme Court case on the issue of legally permissible discrimination based on an ADA classified disability. Here is a link to an article I wrote about it in 2013. Its called the Direct Threat defense. http://adultbizlaw.com/direct-threat-defense-banning-hiv-hep-c-performers/ For those that dont want to read the article here are the cliff notes... Employers do have a defense discrimination if they can establish that the infected employee is a “direct threat to the health and safety” of the other performers on set. OSHA and CalOSHA require that all workplaces are safe and free from hazards for all employees. The direct threat defense is a narrow exception to the general rule that employers may not discriminate based on disability. An employer’s determination that an employee poses a direct threat cannot be based on fears, misconceptions, or stereotypes about the employee’s disability. The employer must make a reasonable medical judgment, relying on the most current medical knowledge and the best available objective evidence. This is what I think are AHFs true motivations to forcing condoms on porn... they dont like that, at least in the straight industry, HIV infected performers are ostracized and kept out of the talent pool. Hence with condoms, AHF thinks that would not be necessary and discriminatory. I dont agree. Last Wednesday I had a 6 hour meeting with a CalOSHA investigator and two of their in-house counsel and they were unaware of this case. From my discussions with them, they do not have a very good understanding of porn production. No one from CalOSHA that I am aware of as ever been on set. They were unaware of caverjet, and they even asked me about "fluffers." They have only the most rudimentary understanding of production and the lives of performers. We have people that are making and enforcing laws that dont have a true understanding of how the industry does business and how talent feel about their jobs. They simply dont understand and we have failed to help them understand. There is no doubt 5193.1 will pass on the 18th. The real problem will be the ballot measure in November. That will be a fight for the life of the industry in California. CalOSHA has little interest in proactively enforcing these regs and AHF knows that. LADPH has little interest in enforcing Measure B and AHF knows that. AHF isnt expecting what might be coming next...
Condoms are not 100 percent effective at protecting against HIV:I can see the ad now: "Michael Weinstein says that he want to protect performers against HIV/AIDS. But what he really wants is to risk peoples lives by allowing those with HIV to actually shoot porn." Obviously something a little more punchy, but you get the drift.
The typical performer is not considered an employee for the purposes of the ADA so there is no case-by-case basis to even consider. You would have to look at California discrimination law.
Actually actors/performers are employees in California. Its well founded law going back approximately 50 years. While I dont practice employment law in other states, the tests are basically the same. Its why erotic dancers have been found to be employees under other state's law as well. Its very hard to be an true independent contractor.
^^ & ^ yes, the State of California DOES consider all performers employees, yet unless one is 'red flagged' it's not likely the FTB will take you to task over this. I know because I witnessed Mike go through this and try to fight/plead his case that they were (as we all believed up to that point), independent contractors. Mike did not win and took on additional penalties for his troubles. porno is changing, and not for the betterment of the stroker/pervert. but, that's showbiz. lates, von S.
Under federal law which is the ADA, independent contractors are not employees. I understand that performers are considered employees under workplace safety laws in California but does that extend to FEHA and is there a minimum number of employees for that law to apply?
Von Swine - for the FTB someone might be a IC however for health and safety issues they could very well be considered EEs at the same time. Its two different standards. MBT - FEHA applies to employers with 5 employees. Every single performer a producer hires would be considered an employee, so if a producer did one DVD then more than likely they will meet the minimum 5 employees.
Wow, absolutely wow. There are still some intelligent people in California government. Of course, that won't stop shit stain and his AHF from trying something else.
Some of those testifying today: Julia Ann, Holly Randall, JoAnna Angel, Jiz Lee, Derrick Pierce, Abella Danger, jessica drake, Nina Hartley, Ela Darling, Veruca James, Chanel Preston, Lotus Lain, Loralei Lee, Alex Chance, Lily Cade, Ariel X, John Stagliano, and James Bartholet.
"You have sacrificed nothing and no one." 3689 Posts 8/10
Posted - Feb 19 2016 : 6:35AM
There is something about a "vote" yesterday in California not to require condom use in porn, in the MSNBC news-crawl (at the bottom of the TV screen). Suppose we'll find out what they're referring to soon enough Edited by - Goldstein on 2/19/2016 6:36:27 AM
^ Mainstream coverage of the industry often amuses me, when it doesn't infuriate me. "Pornstars showed up in clothes! But they were tight!" It's interesting that the article didn't mention a single performer testifying in favor of these regulations. Does anyone know if there were any? I'm pretty pro-worker and if this push for condoms was coming from an organic movement of workers, a performers union, I would be compelled by my principles to support it despite the fact that it's not my preference as a consumer. But honestly, the whole thing stinks of moral panic to me.
^ Some performers and directors expressed their support for mandatory condoms some time back. One was Jessie Rogers, and most people seemed to dismiss her as less than credible), and more notably Nica Noelle. There have been other performers who were not in favor of the law, exactly, but were essentially like "I wouldn't mind that." I have no idea if anyone has spoken out about it recently though.
^ And even then, she's technically arguing for condoms being optional, not mandatory. My honest opinion on the whole subject is that they should be used more than they currently are (and more importantly, performers shouldn't be basically blacklisted for asking for/requiring them), but that the way that AHF has been trying to go about it is completely wrong, and no one should be forced to use a condom if they don't want to.
Speaking in support of 5193.1 yesterday: Cameron Bay, Rod Daily, Derrick Burts, Sofia Delgado, Vanessa Blake and Ava Taylor. Jessie Rogers testified in favor of AB 332 in 2013.
Regarding the New York Times coverage: Dear NYT, by Lorelei Lee. "I’m not writing to you simply because I am angered by the mistakes of one reporter. I’m writing to you because the way journalists describe us matters. The way you talk about us has a direct impact on our ability to advocate for ourselves and on the tremendous stigma that we face every minute of our lives. When we are fighting for our bodily safety, this dismissal of our humanity by a journalist amplifies our daily risk of harm. It invites violence against our bodies by implying that we are not real, whole people. You know this. You report about frequent violent crimes against sex workers in your own paper."
Mister Fahrenheit, You might be interested in this tweet from 2014. I found it refreshing from the usual "follow the leader" mindset. FSCArmy is the Free Speech Coalition. Stoya: Actually, @FSCArmy, I don't wholly support AB 1576 OR current adult industry protocols. Both need improvement. Not signing your form letter. Edited by - pringles on 2/19/2016 3:01:59 PM
To be fair, people are expected to and usually dress conservatively at public hearings or in court. There is a decorum about these things, and people will judge you on the respect you show towards these proceedings rather than the message you are trying to convey.
^ If any of the board members acted incredulously or disrespectful to anyone testifying because of what they wore than their attire would definitely warrant a mention in the article. As far as I know that didn't happen, so why mention it all? Because, "lol, silly pornstars are trying to influence the law." It was a joke premised on mainstream views of what pornstars are like. Edited by - Mister Fahrenheit on 2/19/2016 9:45:30 PM
^ And if you pay attention, they literally only mention attire when it's a performer quoted. Jessy Dubai, they mention her clothes. Brad Armstrong, they mention his clothes. Savannah Fox, they mention her clothes. They don't mention Lily Cade's clothes, but that's probably because, knowing Lily, she didn't wear something that fits into their stereotypical view of how a porn performer should dress. Every other person quoted in the article has no mention of what they're wearing.
^ So are you really maintaining that they weren't trying to make light of the situation? Being semi-tongue in cheek? That the reason they mentioned the attire of the people testifying, and the fact that they were clothed, was because it was relevant to the story? C'mon man. Edited by - Mister Fahrenheit on 2/20/2016 1:24:27 AM
Again, what is the difference between Lily and Brad's attire and how does it fit your narrative? Yes, they mentioned attire for several of the performers. Some of the descriptions are unusual for that setting and panders to expectations. "Relax, it's just porn."
You're right I guess it is fairly typical for the New York Times. They're always going off on tangents about how Barack Obama and Mitch McConnell are "fully dressed."
I really don't understand what agenda is unraveling here... The article pretty plainly speaks of these men and women in ways that amount to "heh heh....porn people...." in order to distance "those people" from the likes of the NYT reporter. I think you would have to be adhering to your own "narrative" (nice rhetorical flourish by the way) to ignore that aspect of the article.
"You have sacrificed nothing and no one." 3689 Posts 8/10
Posted - Feb 20 2016 : 9:29AM
There's a lot of content in the NYT article. Sure, the "what they wore" thing is silly, but not unusual with mainstream coverage of the porn industry. FYI, if you go to the actual NYT article, there is a single picture of the commission -- none of the performers. But, seriously, I'm pretty impressed that the NYT is covering this atall.
^ I don't think anyone finds it unusual. In fact, Constance Penley has a whole segment of her porn studies course where they analyze mainstream coverage of porn. She calls the mocking, derisive rhetoric "the elitist maneuver."
Even more important is that there's no mention whatsoever of any college degree the speaker may held, Lily Cade and Joanna Angel for example as for Nica Noelle's position pro condoms, I discussed the matter with her here on ADT when she was active , she is pro safety and I could not disagree with her basic reasoning on the issue ,yet I'm pretty sure she won't support the use of gloves , goggles and masks nor especially produced condoms for each performer
^ I'm aware of that, I was pointing at their bias , in fact from a reader point of view there's a difference from what is said by someone with a PhD from anything said by someone described as "wearing shoes with high heels" especially if you consider that many people already think that those performing in porn are just dumb whores. Note that Brad Armstrong has been depicted as a mere muscled man in a suit whose specialty is fighting
What bias? They didn't list educational records for anyone in the article at all. It would be biased if they listed educational records for one side and not the other. And if they did list educational records they would then have to list them for everyone listed in the article. Picking and choosing who you will use them for is biased.
^ the article doesn't report any clothes about the counterpart or better no description at all Mr Cohen is mentioned as a "health consultant" presumably with some degree otherwise wouldn't be a consultant on such matter. whereas ms Dubai is described "she sashayed past the board in stiletto heels". It is a way to undermine one's position and opinion hence the bias.
You're inferring way too much about this, LCF. At a public hearing, "concerned citizens" do not have to disclose their credentials to speak. It's a bit more open ended than an expert witness testifying under oath in a court trial. I doubt the reporter interviewed anybody who spoke at the hearing afterwards considering it was five hours. I doubt he did any followup research on the people he saw speak before publishing his article.
That can not and shouldn't be inferred. A consultant doesn't mean the person has any degree or even a high school diploma. I am a trained journalist with a BA in Journalism. I can state I would never mention any degrees held by Lily Cade, Joanna Angel, or anyone else in that story for that matter. Under your belief I guess that would make me biased against the industry as well. If people were oddly dressed for the trial, I would mention that. That is story worthy, it is out of the ordinary. I can also state I am not against the adult entertainment industry so if how I would cover something is biased, as you seem to indicate, it is likely you will never find any coverage you will like.
Posted - Feb 13 2016 : 5:54PM
