Condoms in Porn... Measure B/Bill AB 1576/Prop 60 (page 13)

Author	Post
fanofman Senior Member 2053 Posts 9/15	Posted - Sep 2 2016 : 4:12PM ^Thanks for providing links that present both sides of the issue. [Link]
AggieGuy Member 357 Posts 7/15	Posted - Sep 2 2016 : 5:03PM pringles wrote: --- [invalid URL removed]PolitiFact California examines whether Prop 60 will expose adult film workers to lawsuits. --- Despite fears, condom law will not result in 'bonanza' of lawsuits (Los Angeles Daily Journal PDF) Op-ed by Los Angeles attorney Bradley W. Hertz. He's a partner at the San Francisco-based Sutton Law Firm and drafted Prop 60 for the AHF. The Daily Journal is the Los Angeles legal community's newspaper of record. Click to expand I wouldn't trust a lawyer (who will probably be the one filing the lawsuits for the AHF and making big $$$) as far as I could throw an aircraft carrier. [Link]
pringles All-Star Member 1351 Posts 2/08	Posted - Sep 2 2016 : 5:06PM ^^ You're welcome. --- San Francisco Chronicle editorial: A condom requirement for porn actors doesn't make sense --- Make It Trend: #NoProp60 Twitter Blitz Underway Today (AVN) A grassroots campaign among industryites who have been actively battling Prop 60 resulted in today being staked out as "#NoProp60 Day" on Twitter, with the aim of having enough people include said hashtag in all their tweets throughout the day to make it a "trending" topic. --- Adult Superstar Julia Ann Leads The Fight Against Prop 60 (AVN) "Adult superstar Julia Ann is taking the fight against Prop. 60 online, creating hundreds of avatars for adult industry personalities and their fans to show their opposition to an upcoming ballot measure targeting adult workers." more at the links above [Link]
Quorrl Senior Member 2835 Posts 3/11	Posted - Sep 4 2016 : 7:31PM Tim Von Swine's very personal opinion on why Prop 60 will only hurt the people who deserve it and could/will actually be a good thing for the true pornographers: You Still Don't Get It! [Link]

whatsatelephonebill Senior Member 2935 Posts 10/11	Posted - Sep 4 2016 : 9:11PM ^ That is a very, very, very angry man, and his basic reasoning for Prop 60 is just revenge. Not only revenge against Mindgeek (which is whom he's obviously talking about when he says internet companies), but revenge against everyone who, in his mind, refused to stand up to them, from talent to competing production companies. Edited by - whatsatelephonebill on 9/5/2016 8:42:56 PM [Link]
shalalin Senior Member 1737 Posts 11/07	Posted - Sep 5 2016 : 8:39PM From the von Swine rant: Now how in the world can any of this be changed? Well, I think it can be changed by Prop 60. If that passes then ALL of those thieving, internet losers have to pull up stake and now porno goes back into the hands of the risk takers. Click to expand I'm sorry, but that may well be the most deluded bit I've ever read from an industry person. Porn industry person, anyway - I've seen exactly the same nonsense from people whenever a music style or an art form or a niche sport goes mainstream/professional. It's the few people who made good money treating their hobby as a job, railing against the many newcomers who simply consider it a job, period. Edited by - shalalin on 9/5/2016 8:40:14 PM [Link]
Anna de Ville Member I represent to you all the sins you never had the courage to commit. 18 Posts 4/16	Posted - Sep 9 2016 : 5:17AM I wrote this on my Facebook, and sadly I cannot copy and paste it but anyone interested in reading my thoughts on Prop 60 can follow this link https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1645696325721555&id=1570990419858813 🙂 Edited by - anna de ville on 9/9/2016 6:26:19 AM [Link]
pringles All-Star Member 1351 Posts 2/08	Posted - Sep 9 2016 : 3:26PM ^ Anna's facebook link. --- Actor Wil Wheaton (Star Trek: TNG, Stand By Me) tweets: #NoProp60 because it has nothing to do with performer safety and everything to do with shutting down an industry. --- ESPLER Project Joins Opposition to Prop 60 (esplerp.org) The Erotic Service Providers Legal, Education and Research Project (ESPLERP) is a diverse community-based coalition advancing sexual privacy rights through litigation, education, and research. [Link]
killbillvol69 All-Star Member ^Lucy Pinder 18634 Posts 4/08	Posted - Sep 11 2016 : 12:49PM Here's a short vid released by the Law College at University of California-Hastings that explains Prop 60. Because of its brevity it misses a lot of points that both the pro and con sides have made. [Link]
JoshD Member 43 Posts 10/03	Posted - Sep 12 2016 : 1:31PM Like most things, this is all about the money. If the measure is passed it will become like Prop 65, the CA labeling law. There will be a group of lawyers who sue over every adult production to extract settlements. They'll "charge" 50% or so of what it would cost in legal fees to defend. Here is an article discussing Prop 65 http://www.thompsoncoburn.com/insights/blogs/the-ground-floor/post/2015-10-29/can-the-california-a-g-limit-those-incessant-prop-65-lawsuits. [Link]
pringles All-Star Member 1351 Posts 2/08	Posted - Sep 12 2016 : 3:20PM Sacramento Bee editorial board: Prop. 60: How hardcore do we want to get in policing porn? In short, they oppose Prop 60 but say the industry needs to do more for performers. [Link]
pringles All-Star Member 1351 Posts 2/08	Posted - Sep 13 2016 : 9:12PM The Bakersfield Californian editorial board: Protect actors, punish violators; vote Yes on Prop. 60 The San Diego Union-Tribune editorial board: Prop. 60: Don't overregulate adult-film industry [Link]
cubbiefanoc Member 474 Posts 4/15	Posted - Sep 15 2016 : 3:27AM LA Times Prop 60 Poll: 55% Yes, 32% No, 13% Undecided [Link]
whatsatelephonebill Senior Member 2935 Posts 10/11	Posted - Sep 15 2016 : 4:04AM ^ Yup, they're screwed. Again. [Link]

pringles All-Star Member 1351 Posts 2/08	Posted - Sep 15 2016 : 10:31AM ^^ The financial data was outdated as soon as that article went up. Contributions to the No on Prop 60 (FSC) PAC are now up to $270,561. Among the latest monetary contributions: $39,999 John Stagliano $25,000 MultiMedia LLC $18,211 Cybernet Entertainment (Kink.com) $15,000 Global Personals *** $15,000 Wealthymen.com LLC * $10,000 Philip Harvey (Adam & Eve) $10,000 Dime Systems LLC * $10,000 Pro Data Tech LLC * $10,000 Web Data Solutions LLC * $10,000 Worldwide Connect Partners LLC * $ 7,200 FSC (money from fundraisers?) $ 5,000 Vivid $ 5,000 Rocket305 LLC (ChatStar.com) * $ 1,000 Penthouse Global Media $ 1,000 SARJ LLC $ 1,000 Tasha Reign *** AHF has filed a complaint with the Fair Political Practices Commission again alleging that the No on Prop 60 (FSC) PAC is taking money from foreign companies. FSC's Measure B campaign was fined for this when Manwin (now MindGeek) made similiar contributions. Here They Go Again! Anti-Prop. 60 Money Traced to Foreign Source (BusinessWire/AHF press release) A complaint has been filed against the porn industry-funded anti-Prop. 60 campaign alleging it failed to properly report $75,000 in contributions from seven interconnected businesses led by a firm based in the United Kingdom. The complaint against Eric Paul Leue, the head of the coalition of porn companies fighting Prop. 60, was filed with the state's Fair Political Practices Commission by Whitney Engeran-Cordova, a public health advocate. In a sworn complaint, Engeran-Cordova alleged the seven companies made seven separate contributions to the anti-Prop. 60 campaign totaling $75,000. All contributions were made on Sept. 2. All the companies have ties to Global Personals, LLC, which business records show is based in the UK, and all are involved in the adult entertainment industry. Six of the seven companies also failed to report their contributions in a timely manner required by law. more at the link above [Link]
Goldstein All-Star Member "You have sacrificed nothing and no one." 3689 Posts 8/10	Posted - Sep 15 2016 : 12:16PM ^ Glad to see Stagliano at the top of the list. I, and many others, sent him donations for his defense when his back was up against the wall, and I'm gratified to see him being a stand-up guy and paying it forward now [Link]
Goldstein All-Star Member "You have sacrificed nothing and no one." 3689 Posts 8/10	Posted - Sep 15 2016 : 12:24PM Six of the seven companies also failed to report their contributions in a timely manner required by law. Click to expand Since when is it the responsibility of a contributor/donor to report their contributions? I would think that it is the responsibility of the organization receiving the contributions to file the necessary reports? Of course, our "laws" are deliberately written to defy logic, and punish the innocent [Link]
pringles All-Star Member 1351 Posts 2/08	Posted - Sep 15 2016 : 1:36PM --- The No on 60 PAC also made a sizeable $82,500 contribution to the California Democratic Party a few days ago. They made a previous $800 donation in June, less than two weeks before the California Democratic Party endorsed No on Prop 60. That's a big chunk of change for the campaign. --- The Courage Campaign "fights for a more progressive California and country" with a focus on "Economic Justice, Human Rights and Corporate and Political Accountability." Courage Campaign opposes Prop 60 Staff Recommendation (OPPOSE): Prop 60 takes the complex regulation of a unique industry and locks it into a rigid structure that could only be adjusted by a subsequent initiative. It also puts the $9 billion adult film industry in the hands of one person -- Michael Weinstein -- the backer of this initiative. Performers, who often use screen names, could have their identities and addresses made public, a feature that invades privacy and could lead to harm from stalkers. Courage Campaign staff recommends our members to oppose the initiative. [Link]
whatsatelephonebill Senior Member 2935 Posts 10/11	Posted - Sep 15 2016 : 6:47PM ^ To me, the issue right now is that while they have more than enough people/quotes/"sound bytes" opposed to the Prop that it could have a serious effect (I mean, the fact that the Democratic and Republican party in California are against the law would be a nice thing to tell people by itself), they're doing a shit job of letting people know that. Social media is not going to get it done, no matter how much they want it to. They're going to have to run ads IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, at the very least radio ads and if they could afford them, TV ads would be a huge help. But I haven't heard about them doing anything besides recording a PSA that I think is going up on Youtube? Performers informing their followers is not only preaching to the choir, the vast majority of the people they're reaching don't live in California. Edited by - whatsatelephonebill on 9/15/2016 6:49:53 PM [Link]
4theheart Senior Member pornologist 3102 Posts 8/01	Posted - Sep 16 2016 : 8:08PM It looks like it's going to be up to the courts again to bring some sanity to the results of these referendums [Link]
AggieGuy Member 357 Posts 7/15	Posted - Sep 16 2016 : 8:10PM ^ All the courts have done lately is create even more insanity. [Link]
pringles All-Star Member 1351 Posts 2/08	Posted - Sep 17 2016 : 11:38AM pringles wrote: Sacramento Bee editorial board: Prop. 60: How hardcore do we want to get in policing porn? Click to expand Derrick Burts rebuttal: Prop 60 provides stronger enforcement of porn industry condom rule (Sacramento Bee) Here They Go Again! Anti-Prop. 60 Money Traced to Foreign Source (BusinessWire/AHF press release) Click to expand FSC responds: AHF Claims Over Donations 'Unwarranted,' FSC Says (Xbiz) "Florida-based Global Personals LLC is a completely unrelated company from Global Personals Ltd. (U.K.)," Eric Paul Leue, the FSC's executive director, said. "While they share a similar name, they are separately owned and operated entities with no relationship, corporate or otherwise." cubbiefanoc wrote: LA Times Prop 60 Poll: 55% Yes, 32% No, 13% Undecided Click to expand FSC responds: Support for Prop 60 Faltering Among Likely Voters (Globe Newswire) Support for Proposition 60, the adult film initiative, has fallen dramatically from several months ago, according to a new USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times/poll of statewide voters. Only 55% percent of voters said they would support the measure, down from over 70% when the measure was introduced. Eric Paul Leue, Executive Director of the Free Speech Coalition, says that this puts the No on 60 campaign, and the thousands of adult performers opposing the measure, on track to defeat the controversial initiative in November. Leue notes that the poll was conducted before major editorial boards including the San Francisco Chronicle, the Sacramento Bee, the San Jose Mercury News, the San Diego Union-Tribune and other major papers came out strongly against the measure. more at the links above [Link]
whatsatelephonebill Senior Member 2935 Posts 10/11	Posted - Sep 17 2016 : 7:28PM pringles wrote: cubbiefanoc wrote: LA Times Prop 60 Poll: 55% Yes, 32% No, 13% Undecided Click to expand FSC responds: Support for Prop 60 Faltering Among Likely Voters (Globe Newswire) Support for Proposition 60, the adult film initiative, has fallen dramatically from several months ago, according to a new USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times/poll of statewide voters. Only 55% percent of voters said they would support the measure, down from over 70% when the measure was introduced. Eric Paul Leue, Executive Director of the Free Speech Coalition, says that this puts the No on 60 campaign, and the thousands of adult performers opposing the measure, on track to defeat the controversial initiative in November. Leue notes that the poll was conducted before major editorial boards including the San Francisco Chronicle, the Sacramento Bee, the San Jose Mercury News, the San Diego Union-Tribune and other major papers came out strongly against the measure. more at the links above Click to expand Looking at their link, it looks like the 70% poll was taken in the fall of 2014, probably about when they got the signatures ready. So in reality it's fallen 15% in 2 years. [Link]
pringles All-Star Member 1351 Posts 2/08	Posted - Sep 17 2016 : 8:37PM ^ Yup. The online polling was conducted in September 2014. They announced what would become Prop 60 in early November. [Link]

pringles All-Star Member 1351 Posts 2/08	Posted - Sep 20 2016 : 11:10AM Here's a few more contributions to the FSC PAC to fight Prop 60: $25,000 PHE, Inc. (Adam & Eve) $10,000 Scott Taylor (New Sensations) $ 1,000 Joel Kaminsky (FSC board member) $ 1,000 Licensed Adult Talent Agents Trade Association (LATATA) [Link]
pringles All-Star Member 1351 Posts 2/08	Posted - Sep 21 2016 : 11:49AM --- A few more contributions to the No on Prop 60 PAC: $5,000 California Exotic Novelties $2,925 Cybernet Entertainment (Kink.com) --- Los Angeles County Democratic Party opposes Prop 60 (FSC/Globe Newswire) The Los Angeles County Democratic Party, the largest local Democratic Party in the United States, has officially opposed Proposition 60, a statewide ballot initiative that would allow any resident of California to sue adult performers who make films where a condom isn't visible. Goldstein wrote: Since when is it the responsibility of a contributor/donor to report their contributions? I would think that it is the responsibility of the organization receiving the contributions Click to expand I looked into this. It looks like California's Political Reform Act has filing requirements for both parties. It's a system of checks and balances. [Link]
Goldstein All-Star Member "You have sacrificed nothing and no one." 3689 Posts 8/10	Posted - Sep 21 2016 : 7:42PM ^ Surely, there's a threshold? If I donate $27, am I obligated to report it? What if you're making a donation from or to a state other than California? For example, I made political contributions to a candidate in 2016, but kept my combined total less than $200 (so that they were not required to collect personal information from me. Seattle is tops for per capita Bernie Sanders donations By law, donations of $200 or more are required to have name, occupation, ZIP code and other information. Nearly three-quarters of Sanders' $94 million in individual contributions fall below that threshold. Small individual donations that total $200 in a campaign cycle also must be itemized. Click to expand [Link]
pringles All-Star Member 1351 Posts 2/08	Posted - Sep 22 2016 : 2:11PM ^ I'm sure there's a threshold. I didn't look into what it was. --- Here's the latest contribution totals from the Secretary of State: $1,975,809 AHF's Yes on 60 $ 315,485 FSC's No on 60 --- Tweets of interest: Jenna Haze: Please vote NO on Prop 60 here in California. Even though I am retired, I care about the rights of my former industry. Abella Danger: If prop 60 passes, I'm retiring. So vote #NoProp60 in the #2016 election. Keisha Grey: @Abella_Danger #same Janice Griffith: seriously though if prop 60 passes, I'll probably retire from adult film. keep me making porno and vote #noprop60 [Link]
kinguntermensch Senior Member 1260 Posts 7/14	Posted - Sep 23 2016 : 3:56PM If Prop 60 wins, is Porn in California dead? Or are they gonna stay there and use condoms instead of leaving for another state? [Link]
Mister Fahrenheit All-Star Member Meh 4655 Posts 10/13	Posted - Sep 23 2016 : 4:03PM ^ If it passes there will be a court battle over it's enforcement with lots of appeals. So the effect might not be immediate. [Link]
whatsatelephonebill Senior Member 2935 Posts 10/11	Posted - Sep 23 2016 : 7:50PM ^ Even with that, what you will see in the meantime is a bunch more reports to Cal-OSHA for not using condoms, which will result in more fines for companies still shooting in Cali, even if the ruling doesn't go into effect for a while. Like pringles said earlier, the whole point of this is to make Cal-OSHA be more pro-active when it comes to doling out punishment for breaking the rules that are already in place. I might argue that what AHF actually wants is more fines doled out by Cal-OSHA as opposed to active lawsuits against producers/performers. [Link]
Maxxx Stirner Deactivated User 319 Posts 11/14	Posted - Sep 23 2016 : 11:29PM This is going to sound left fieldish to many but I would argue that what porn needs to do is undermine the very idea of condoms and 'protection'. I'm not saying there is nothing to condoms obviously but there is an entire belief related to condoms based on an inherently flawed germ theory of disease. Weinstein's entire foundation is based on a virus and disease that is built on a house of cards. The porn industry would be well to go after it. Also, stop taking part in those fucking aids walks. That's where the real support comes from [Link]
pringles All-Star Member 1351 Posts 2/08	Posted - Sep 24 2016 : 2:30PM Edited by - pringles on 9/24/2016 4:45:17 PM [Link]
Melvyn Senior Member 2797 Posts 12/12	Posted - Sep 25 2016 : 12:46AM Aha. I was looking for this topic. I caught a tweet recently saying this is likely to pass, and the consequence is the end of porn industry as we know it. Not the first time I've seen this issue present this threat, but I guess it's more real now? Ruh-roh. [Link]

Melvyn Senior Member 2797 Posts 12/12	Posted - Sep 25 2016 : 12:49AM Quorrl wrote: Tim Von Swine's very personal opinion on why Prop 60 will only hurt the people who deserve it and could/will actually be a good thing for the true pornographers: You Still Don't Get It! Click to expand Not sure how persuasive his argument may be when the 2nd sentence addresses "internet fags" with contempt. But I'm going to try and give his article an objective look. [Link]
Melvyn Senior Member 2797 Posts 12/12	Posted - Sep 25 2016 : 1:13AM whatsatelephonebill wrote: ^ That is a very, very, very angry man, and his basic reasoning for Prop 60 is just revenge. Not only revenge against Mindgeek (which is whom he's obviously talking about when he says internet companies), but revenge against everyone who, in his mind, refused to stand up to them, from talent to competing production companies. Edited by - whatsatelephonebill on 9/5/2016 8:42:56 PM Click to expand Yeah that is the impression I am getting. But is it not understandable why anyone could be angry at having their work stolen and profited off of? I can certainly sympathize, although I would contend with his prospective assessment. He thinks it will hurt the tube sites, and it will - marginally. But they are the best insulated from this because of the rise of popularity in homemade sex tapes which won't be affected. Couples don't have to use condoms and they can freely submit their sex tapes. A lot of these become very popular. It's a real shame too, because just as Mindgeek seems to have approached a somewhat equitable compromise with porn industry producers, in which their flagship sites like Pornhub will actively scrub the stolen content of said producers which now almost all have channels on Pornhub where they put up extended previews, now this prop comes along to drive the dagger into the porn industry. I care about Jules Jordan and many others in the biz. I hope this doesn't pass, and if it does, that JJ and Mason and Mimefreak and other quality entrepreneurs can get around it somehow. These people are job creators and by all accounts good and decent folks. Von Swine sounds very bitter, understandable to an extent. But he wants the whole world to burn now. Not a very sympathetic outlook. [Link]
Melvyn Senior Member 2797 Posts 12/12	Posted - Sep 25 2016 : 1:19AM whatsatelephonebill wrote: ^ To me, the issue right now is that while they have more than enough people/quotes/"sound bytes" opposed to the Prop that it could have a serious effect (I mean, the fact that the Democratic and Republican party in California are against the law would be a nice thing to tell people by itself), they're doing a shit job of letting people know that. Social media is not going to get it done, no matter how much they want it to. They're going to have to run ads IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, at the very least radio ads and if they could afford them, TV ads would be a huge help. But I haven't heard about them doing anything besides recording a PSA that I think is going up on Youtube? Performers informing their followers is not only preaching to the choir, the vast majority of the people they're reaching don't live in California. Edited by - whatsatelephonebill on 9/15/2016 6:49:53 PM Click to expand Wait what? Both Dem and Rep are opposed to this bill? I guess despite that, it's no surprise no prominent political figures want to let this issue become associated with their platform. There's gotta be some leaders with nuts though right? It's a huge multi-billion dollar business, which means it must affect how many people directly economically? At least 10s of thousands right? [Link]
whatsatelephonebill Senior Member 2935 Posts 10/11	Posted - Sep 25 2016 : 1:21AM ^^ Homemade tapes, as long as they're filmed in the state of California, would have to adhere to the same rules. In other words, if people expect to shoot videos and make money off of them (i.e. uploading or Pornhub or, AFAIK, selling through MFC or one of the many clip sites out there) would have to wear condoms too. Which reminds me of the other thing about this law. Remember that it means people can report someone just off watching a video. And because especially with homemade there's no telling where the scene was shot, you're going to get a lot of those reported, and then the performers are going to have to go through each time and prove they don't even live in California. Even in the best case scenario it's a pain in the ass for amateur performers looking to shoot homemade videos and make money. Edited by - whatsatelephonebill on 9/25/2016 1:50:20 AM [Link]
Melvyn Senior Member 2797 Posts 12/12	Posted - Sep 25 2016 : 1:25AM whatsatelephonebill wrote: ^ Actually, we already have an example of a tube site catering their site to a certain state to oppose a specific legislation (for those who don't want to click on the link, xHamster [one of the few large tube sites not owned by Mindgeek] blocked access to IPs from North Carolina after they passed HB2). But there's still a bunch of problems with that idea. The first is that even if I actually did think there were hundreds of thousands of people in California who visit Pornhub (and I'm not sure I do), how many of them are registered voters (or even old enough to vote), and how many would actually even see whatever ad they put on the site, let alone click on it to find out what it was actually about. The second is that the person likely to be on Pornhub and care enough to click whatever ad/link they do put up is more likely to be someone that was already going to vote their way anyway. And third is that I don't think that amount is enough to actually sway a statewide ballot in a state that has 40 million people in it, and about 18 million registered voters (17.7 as of last year is what I've found so far). I mean, every little bit helps and all, but I just don't see this being a particularly big deal. ^^ And if I'm AHF, as soon as the prop goes on the books I file so many complaints that there's no way that CalOSHA can respond to them all in time unless they automate it and fine everyone. Thinking about it, is the actual time limit already set in the language of the Prop, or is that something that'll be determined after it passes? Edited by - whatsatelephonebill on 8/15/2016 1:38:52 AM Click to expand Interesting. I didn't know Xhamster was outside the Mindgeek tentacles. Good for them cuz fuck a monopoly. I've always liked Xhamster - mainly cuz of the amateurs. But what do you mean you doubt hundreds of thousands of people in California visit Pornhub? I would wager millions of Californians visit it. Isn't there almost 40 million ppl in Cali? 99% of society watches porn. On a per month basis, I'm sure they get millions of Californians, and that's still a low estimate. [Link]
whatsatelephonebill Senior Member 2935 Posts 10/11	Posted - Sep 25 2016 : 1:48AM ^ Ignoring the fact that 99% is, just, no, first you exclude from that anyone that isn't of voting age (because remember, tube sites don't have any real age checks). Then you remove all unregistered voters. Then you remember that while a ton of people may watch/like porn, many (I might even argue most) of them don't visit Pornhub to do so for any number of reasons. I really don't think Pornhub specifically has the reach you think it does. [Link]
pringles All-Star Member 1351 Posts 2/08	Posted - Sep 25 2016 : 11:39AM Melvyn wrote: There's gotta be some leaders with nuts though right? Click to expand The two highest elected officials for or against Prop 60 on their own are State Senator Mark Leno and San Francisco Supervisor Scott Weiner. Both are Democrats. Leno represents San Francisco and urged the California Democratic Party to oppose Prop 60 back in June. Weiner is running for State Senate and will be speaking out against Prop 60 at the Folsom Street Fair this afternoon. He's a former Chairman of the San Francisco Democratic Party. [Link]
Melvyn Senior Member 2797 Posts 12/12	Posted - Sep 25 2016 : 12:57PM whatsatelephonebill wrote: ^ Ignoring the fact that 99% is, just, no, first you exclude from that anyone that isn't of voting age (because remember, tube sites don't have any real age checks). Then you remove all unregistered voters. Then you remember that while a ton of people may watch/like porn, many (I might even argue most) of them don't visit Pornhub to do so for any number of reasons. I really don't think Pornhub specifically has the reach you think it does. Click to expand Pornhub is one of the most visited sites on the whole internet. They get hundreds of millions of visitors per month. To be in the top 100 websites in the world you're getting billions of visits on a monthly basis. Pornhub is like in the top 50. That puts them in league with Netflix. Also, the 99% thing is from a study. I don't have it bookmarked, but it was academic researched report. I mean why would people admit to looking at porn if they didn't? I believe the parameters of the report were rather broad, rather than a specific age range. It was simply asking people if they had seen porn. So maybe that 99% isn't regular porn watching, but it's pretty much a given virtually everyone who has access to porn has watched it, and a substantial amount, e.g. somewhere from 1 in 4 to half of all people, if not most, do actively search for it on at least a monthly basis. Even if it's only to visit one explicit site, nearly the majority of people do this on a regular basis. And pretty much the only people excluded from this are those who cannot access it, which is becoming a smaller and smaller minority of the world as technology becomes more and more viable throughout the world. I guarantee you the number of Californians visiting Pornhub is over 1 million, if not on a monthly basis, certainly on an annual basis. That's just 1 in 38 Californians who visit Pornhub just once a year. That doesn't seem unlikely to me at all. Edited by - Melvyn on 9/25/2016 12:58:38 PM [Link]
whatsatelephonebill Senior Member 2935 Posts 10/11	Posted - Sep 25 2016 : 7:16PM ^ Top 50 by data, hits, or unique visitors? Because each of those would mean something totally different. And until you provide proof, I'm not going to believe that 99% thing, if for no other reason than the fact that you don't even have 99% of the American population having internet access, and print magazines and DVD stores are basically dead at this point. [Link]
killbillvol69 All-Star Member ^Lucy Pinder 18634 Posts 4/08	Posted - Sep 25 2016 : 10:20PM OK back on topic, here's another anti-Prop 60 piece appearing in a mainstream source (fusion.net): What's at stake for porn performers on Election Day? [Link]
pringles All-Star Member 1351 Posts 2/08	Posted - Sep 26 2016 : 6:10PM This is a smart move. Prop. 60 Campaign Buys TV During Presidential Debate (Yes on Prop 60 PDF) Two 30-second TV ads featuring former adult film performers urging voters to support Proposition 60, the so-called condom initiative, will air tomorrow on cable news channels in four California TV markets during coverage of the presidential debate. "Our Monday ad buy will be a preview of a larger run that will be up throughtout October," said Rick Taylor, chief strategist for the Yes on Prop. 60 campaign. "We're excited about the Monday buy. A presidential debate is always the Super Bowl of politics. But this one is expected to be a blockbuster. We expect our Prop. 60 ads will reach a record number of viewers who are also likely voters." The ads will feature strong testimonials for Prop. 60 from former adult film performers Derrick Burts and Cameron Adams, both of whom became HIV positive while appearing in porn films. The ads will run in the Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego and Sacramento markets. [Link]
whatsatelephonebill Senior Member 2935 Posts 10/11	Posted - Sep 26 2016 : 6:49PM ^ And this is why they're going to lose. I wish I could say I don't how they (the industry in general and the FSC in particular) keep getting completely outclassed when it comes to campaigning, but I do. [Link]
kinguntermensch Senior Member 1260 Posts 7/14	Posted - Sep 27 2016 : 9:30AM Is this just for California? So does this have nothing to do with all the other states? [Link]
pringles All-Star Member 1351 Posts 2/08	Posted - Sep 27 2016 : 11:34AM ^ Prop 60 is just for California. It's a ballot initiative that voters need to approve. Cal/OSHA is also working on amending their Bloodborne Pathogens Standard (5193) to include a section (5193.1) specifically for the adult industry. If adopted and approved by federal OSHA, it could be adopted by other states. [Link]
kinguntermensch Senior Member 1260 Posts 7/14	Posted - Sep 27 2016 : 11:48AM Is it possible that the porn industry moves to another state? Or euro porn gets a breakthrough? [Link]
pringles All-Star Member 1351 Posts 2/08	Posted - Sep 27 2016 : 12:02PM This press release also covers union drama with IEAU. That should be discussed in this thread. APAG Officials Vote To Oppose Prop 60 (APAG) The Adult Performers Actors Guild (APAG) has voted to help defend California's adult industry by joining the fight against the Proposition 60 initiative, the so-called 'condom law', which would likely force many adult producers and their tax dollars out of state, just as Measure B caused an industry exodus from Los Angeles County. more at the link above [Link]