And didn't a judge say that the OSHA requirements were unenforceable? So what will come of bringing these complaints?
Edited by - Mister Fahrenheit on 9/14/2015 7:14:40 PM
[Link]
Hazel Heart Interview| Author | Post |
|---|---|
Mister Fahrenheit  All-Star Member Meh 4655 Posts 10/13 |  Posted - Sep 14 2015 : 7:12PMAnd didn't a judge say that the OSHA requirements were unenforceable? So what will come of bringing these complaints? Edited by - Mister Fahrenheit on 9/14/2015 7:14:40 PM [Link] |
| AggieGuy Member 357 Posts 7/15 | Posted - Sep 14 2015 : 7:20PM He is on a mission to eliminate heterosexual porn on the US. [Link] |
| killbillvol69 All-Star Member ^Lucy Pinder 18634 Posts 4/08 | Posted - Sep 14 2015 : 11:10PM Insanity? Thy name is Weinstein. [Link] |
| Mister Fahrenheit All-Star Member Meh 4655 Posts 10/13 | Posted - Sep 15 2015 : 1:24AM [Link] |
| whatsatelephonebill Senior Member 2935 Posts 10/11 | Posted - Sep 15 2015 : 1:50AM They're not necessarily bringing up lawsuit, just basically filing claims of safety violations. So to use your example, while you can't sue the employer for your friend, you can file a report with OSHA that his place of work practices unsafe conditions, and they can choose to investigate that claim. It'd be like you reporting to the county board of health that a restaurant doesn't have a working sink for employees to wash their hands. Edited by - whatsatelephonebill on 9/15/2015 1:51:54 AM [Link] |
| Mister Fahrenheit All-Star Member Meh 4655 Posts 10/13 | Posted - Sep 15 2015 : 1:58AM [Link] |
| pringles All-Star Member 1351 Posts 2/08 | Posted - Oct 15 2015 : 8:04PM Cal/OSHA just published all those comments along with the news below. There's about 50 pages of comments and Cal/OSHA's responses but less than ten comments came from performers in opposition to 5193.1. I don't see any from directors or producers with the exception of James Deen. Cal/OSHA Keeps Proposed New Bloodborne Pathogens Law Intact (Xbiz Oct 15, 2015) SACRAMENTO, Calif. — The rulemaking body of Cal/OSHA has kept intact all of the proposed amendments to California Code of Regulations Title 8 § 5193, the current bloodborne pathogens law for adult entertainment productions. Yesterday, Cal/OSHA’s Standards Board released a slightly modified version of the proposed Section 5193.1, which would mandate barrier protection, including condoms, to shield performers from contact with bloodborne pathogens, or other potentially infectious material during the production of films. Modifications to the last draft of Section 5193.1 appear negligible and the proposed law still has the same teeth as it did in 2014. Cal/OSHA’s Standards Board plans to make a final determination over the proposed new statute at a future business meeting. [Link] |
| AggieGuy Member 357 Posts 7/15 | Posted - Oct 15 2015 : 8:10PM [Link] |
| pringles All-Star Member 1351 Posts 2/08 | Posted - Oct 15 2015 : 9:13PM Treasure Island Media, Factory Video and Jake Cruise Media were all fined by Cal/OSHA in recent years and at least two of those were initiated by complaints from AHF. [Link] |
| AggieGuy Member 357 Posts 7/15 | Posted - Oct 15 2015 : 9:45PM That said, this will end up before the federal courts sooner or later. [Link] |
| killbillvol69 All-Star Member ^Lucy Pinder 18634 Posts 4/08 | Posted - Nov 4 2015 : 9:39PM A new ballot initiative that would force mandatory condoms into adult film is expected to qualify for the 2016 ballot this afternoon, the Free Speech Coalition said. If enacted, the measure would allow any California citizen to sue a performer if they did not wear a condom while shooting adult film. Diane Duke, CEO of Free Speech Coalition, said the initiative would hurt the very people it claims to protect and that it is widely opposed by performers Calling it “extremely dangerous,” Duke said that the proposal, if passed, would result in the widespread harassment of adult performers. “Adult performers would immediately be targeted by stalkers and profiteers, who would use the initiatives’ sue-a-performer provision to harass and extort adult performers,” Duke said. “This is an unconscionable initiative that would take a legal and safe industry and push its performers into the shadows. “Unfortunately, the proponent of the bill, Michael Weinstein, is more concerned with his personal moral crusade than the real-life concerns of adult performers,” she said. “It does not seem to matter to him that this initiative endangers performer’s lives, nor does it matter that his previous attempts to force condoms on porn stars have been opposed by legislators, HIV activists, editorial boards and the performers themselves. “We once again call on Weinstein to listen to the performers he claims to be “protecting” and pull this extremely dangerous initiative.” The proposed initiative mandates that all performers in adult films wear condoms, and permits any private resident of California to file a civil lawsuit against performers, producers and any other entity with a financial interest in a film that doesn’t use condoms. Duke noted that performers, who are currently tested every 14 days, have long protested mandatory condom legislation, expressing that they are unnecessary given the extensive testing regimen. Duke reiterated that there has not been an on-set transmission of HIV in the regulated adult industry since 2004. “Weinstein’s AIDS Healthcare Foundation has also initiated new Cal/OSHA regulations that would require that barriers including goggles, glove, dental dams and condoms while shooting adult film,” she said. “Those regulations are expected to come to a vote in 2016 as well.” Late today, the AHF called out the FSC in a press release disseminated yesterday, saying that the adult industry trade group is continuing “misleading and fear mongering claims about what the updated Cal/OSHA regulations actually entail.” The AHF, citing Dr. Jeffrey Klausner of UCLA’s Medicine and Public Health unit, said that “goggles” is not mentioned in the proposed Cal/OSHA standard, Section 5193.1. “Industry claims about goggles are as ridiculous and implausible as industry film plots in which the pizza delivery man or tow truck operator have sex with beautiful women customers,” the AHF said in a release today. The AHF said that only the current standard, Section 5193, cites goggles as a type of personal protective equipment because the language covers all type of industry workers in California. [Link] |
| pringles All-Star Member 1351 Posts 2/08 | Posted - Nov 30 2015 : 3:10PM WOODLAND HILLS, Calif. — The Free Speech Coalition’s longtime CEO, Diane Duke, has decided to resign from the adult entertainment trade group. Duke, who joined the FSC as its executive director in November 2006, will step down at the end of December. FSC Chairman of the Board Jeffrey Douglas will act as interim head until a replacement has been found. more at the link above [Link] |
| pringles All-Star Member 1351 Posts 2/08 | Posted - Jan 26 2016 : 6:55PM LOS ANGELES — A settlement has been reached in Vivid Entertainment’s federal lawsuit over Los Angeles County’s Measure B. On Thursday, Vivid attorneys and counsel for intervenors in the suit, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, told a magistrate judge that they have reached a deal to end their long-running legal battle over porn production requirements. Details of the Measure B settlement have not been publicly revealed; however terms of the agreement will be subject to approval by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. A hearing date for approval hasn’t yet been made. more at the link above [Link] |
| kinguntermensch Senior Member 1260 Posts 7/14 | Posted - Feb 3 2016 : 8:05PM [Link] |
| AggieGuy Member 357 Posts 7/15 | Posted - Feb 3 2016 : 8:10PM Hopefully the Euros will at least tell him to fuck off. [Link] |
| kinguntermensch Senior Member 1260 Posts 7/14 | Posted - Feb 4 2016 : 11:11AM And if he bans it in Cali, porn will just move to some other part of the country [Link] |
| pringles All-Star Member 1351 Posts 2/08 | Posted - Feb 4 2016 : 1:02PM Regardless of what happens with the AHF/Measure B settlement, Cal/OSHA is proceeding with adding 5193.1 (bloodborne pathogens in the adult industry) to the state's workplace safety regulations. Cal/OSHA says testing isn't prevention. Performers in California are employees so bloodborne pathogen regulations apply to producers. The industry can run to other states, but once 5193.1 is adopted other states can adopt it as well. Porn doesn't have the same protections in other states as it does in California. The Cal/OSHA Standards Board will be voting on this on February 18th. It's been years in the making. [Link] |
| AggieGuy Member 357 Posts 7/15 | Posted - Feb 4 2016 : 6:28PM It's funny, the person who will kill porn in the US is a homosexual, radical, hardcore leftist. Forever all we've heard is that it is the political right who was going to ban porn. [Link] |
| whatsatelephonebill Senior Member 2935 Posts 10/11 | Posted - Feb 4 2016 : 9:21PM Honestly, though, I don't see how they're going to be able to do this without loopholes that you'll be able to drive a truck through. Because the only way for that not to happen is for them to basically say that if a camera is present, then it's professional and needs to follow workplace regulations. And I don't see how they can get that to work and be legal. [Link] |
| Philly30 Member 54 Posts 8/04 | Posted - Feb 4 2016 : 11:28PM "Both a U.S. district court and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Vivid's argument that the condom law violates the First Amendment. "We agree with the district court," wrote appeals Judge Susan P. Graber in December 2014, that "whatever unique message plaintiffs might intend to convey by depicting condomless sex, it is unlikely that viewers of adult films will understand that message." But the decision wasn't all bad news. Graber affirmed the lower court's decision to enjoin several key provisions of Measure B, including stipulations that noncompliant production companies could have their permits taken away and a provision related to searches and seizures. "Given that adult filming could occur almost anywhere, Measure B would seem to authorize a health officer to enter and search any part of a private home in the middle of the night, because he suspects violations are occurring," District Judge Dean Pregerson had written in his decision. "This is unconstitutional because it is akin to a general warrant." So what does that mean for the measure? While "the condom requirement is still there, there's no mechanism there to either grant or take away a permit or whatever," explained Cambria during a January 20 panel discussion at the 2016 AVN Adult Entertainment Expo. "It's a stalemate" on enforcement at this point." Edited by - philly30 on 2/4/2016 11:34:27 PM [Link] |
| kinguntermensch Senior Member 1260 Posts 7/14 | Posted - Feb 6 2016 : 2:18PM [Link] |
| Flash Golden Age Classic 11018 Posts 5/01 | Posted - Feb 6 2016 : 2:28PM [Link] |
| kinguntermensch Senior Member 1260 Posts 7/14 | Posted - Feb 6 2016 : 4:07PM [Link] |
| pringles All-Star Member 1351 Posts 2/08 | Posted - Feb 6 2016 : 5:23PM I think a reminder is needed that there are currently three separate situations taking place in the adult industry: 1) Measure B lawsuit (Los Angeles County, with AHF as intervenors in the suit) 2) Ballot initiative in California (statewide) 3) Cal/OSHA adding 5193.1 to the state's bloodborne pathogens regulations (5193) (statewide) I think a reminder is also needed that mandatory condoms is already the law in California and has been since shortly after the Darren James situation in 2004. This is when CalOSHA took ownership of the issue and made it known that 5193 applied to the adult industry. Performers were deemed to be employees, giving CalOSHA jurisdiction. CalOSHA has a complaint-based system and limited resources for enforcement so the industry has just taken the risk during that time that they wouldn't be the one that gets caught and fined. It has happened though, many times since 2004 (gay and straight). Often times the fines get reduced. The industry argued that 5193 was intended and written for hospitals. CalOSHA is fixing that with the addition of 5193.1, which is specifically for the adult industry. 5193.1 is going to be adopted. What difference will it make? I think most companies will continue to do business as usual just as they have since 2004. They'll take that chance. 5193.1 tightens things up a bit though - especially with the final draft that was released late last year which took a dramatic turn from the earlier versions. You can say there's limited resources and desire on the part of CalOSHA to enforce, but don't forget other issues a performer can bring involving workers comp and other civil actions. Performers aren't supposed to be paying for their own testing. That is made clear under 5193.1. We're waiting for details on the Measure B settlement and I don't know what's going to happen with the ballot initiative. We have to wait and see. The ballot initiative is even more drastic than 5193.1. Out of time. Hope this helps. [Link] |
 | |
| kinguntermensch Senior Member 1260 Posts 7/14 | Posted - Feb 7 2016 : 1:11PM And what do you think would happen to this industry if nobody takes the chance to do porn without condoms anymore? How many people would stop caring about porn? How many would switch to European porn? [Link] |
| Flash Golden Age Classic 11018 Posts 5/01 | Posted - Feb 7 2016 : 3:10PM [Link] |
| Goldstein All-Star Member "You have sacrificed nothing and no one." 3689 Posts 8/10 | Posted - Feb 8 2016 : 8:57AM If you take away bare cock blowjobs, facial cumshots and/or visible ejaculations, what's really left? Could the girl even give a handjob without wearing gloves (e.g. she might have a cut "somewhere") anymore? I'm very concerned about where all this is headed  [Link] |
| cubbiefanoc Member 474 Posts 4/15 | Posted - Feb 8 2016 : 11:29AM [Link] |
| valo Senior Member 1854 Posts 9/07 | Posted - Feb 8 2016 : 12:13PM [Link] |
| Flash Golden Age Classic 11018 Posts 5/01 | Posted - Feb 8 2016 : 1:24PM [Link] |
| AggieGuy Member 357 Posts 7/15 | Posted - Feb 8 2016 : 6:48PM [Link] |
| Philly30 Member 54 Posts 8/04 | Posted - Feb 8 2016 : 11:42PM Edited by - philly30 on 2/8/2016 11:42:48 PM Edited by - philly30 on 2/8/2016 11:43:50 PM [Link] |
| pornlaw Member 578 Posts 10/05 | Posted - Feb 12 2016 : 10:33AM The CDC even talks about porn being produced in other states and on a global basis... This case study isnt even from California - its from Nevada. I have a hard time believing at this point that NV OSHA will do nothing. If CalOSHA approves the new regs (5193.1 - which I expect to happen) and the ballot measure passes (which is likely to happen at this point) it will be difficult for the industry to fight against the CDC's findings. They have no political agenda on this issue. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/wr/pdfs/mm6505a3.pdf [Link] |
| kinguntermensch Senior Member 1260 Posts 7/14 | Posted - Feb 12 2016 : 1:46PM [Link] |
| cubbiefanoc Member 474 Posts 4/15 | Posted - Feb 12 2016 : 2:03PM The CDC (Center for Disease Control and Prevention) is the most important health organization in the US government. When the Ebola crisis hit, they were the lead investigators on the outbreak and arranged for the care of the US nurses infected by the virus that were treated at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. Edited by - cubbiefanoc on 2/12/2016 2:07:45 PM [Link] |
| pringles All-Star Member 1351 Posts 2/08 | Posted - Feb 12 2016 : 3:22PM Occupational HIV Transmission Among Adult Film Performers - Multiple States, 2014 [Link] |
| Mister Fahrenheit All-Star Member Meh 4655 Posts 10/13 | Posted - Feb 12 2016 : 4:29PM [Link] |
| AggieGuy Member 357 Posts 7/15 | Posted - Feb 12 2016 : 7:32PM I might get lambasted for it, but oh well. It seems most if not all of the cases involve gay porn (likely from the lowest end studios who don't test their models) that features unprotected anal sex. As for the CDC, they have no authority outside of the US. What other countries do is up to them. IIRC, the shit stain blames gay porn for someone close to him getting HIV. [Link] |
| whatsatelephonebill Senior Member 2935 Posts 10/11 | Posted - Feb 12 2016 : 9:21PM The important part of that isn't that it was a gay shoot. The important part is that he tested negative and then gave the disease to someone else within that 2 week period. That can happen whether the scene was gay or straight. And I think one of the interesting things in that paper is that they highlight how good the use of Truvada would be among adult performers, which is what makes me so angry when AHF (and specifically Weinstein) just flat out dismiss it. [Link] |
| kinguntermensch Senior Member 1260 Posts 7/14 | Posted - Feb 13 2016 : 6:40AM [Link] |
| Gore Gore Girl Doctor of the Erotic Arts 7238 Posts 1/09 | Posted - Feb 13 2016 : 9:00AM [Link] |
| CummingLinguist All-Star Member 5908 Posts 11/11 | Posted - Feb 13 2016 : 9:52AM Patient A had a negative HIV-1 RNA qualitative nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) 10 days before symptom onset. Of course, it is possible that the "studios" didn't require testing. But the model in question had been tested less than two weeks before the outbreak began. It's OK to say how things seem to you, but if you expect to be lambasted, it might help to read the first paragraph of the article before stating your impressions.I don't remember the details, but a couple of years ago, there was a scare involving a male model who had sex with several female performers. I don't think there were any actual transmissions. I understand that the rate of transmission is higher with anal sex than with vaginal or oral sex. But unprotected anal sex is quite common in straight porn, and I imagine that a lot of gay porn scenes don't include anal. Depending on the differences in transmission rate, I could imagine passing requiring condoms for anal scenes as a second line defense in addition to testing, but treating gay and straight sex differently doesn't make any sense to me. Does anyone know anything about HIV preexposure prophylaxis? What exact drugs are involved? What are the side effects? How effective is it compared to condoms? etc. etc. [Link] |
| pringles All-Star Member 1351 Posts 2/08 | Posted - Feb 13 2016 : 2:09PM [Link] |
| whatsatelephonebill Senior Member 2935 Posts 10/11 | Posted - Feb 13 2016 : 2:28PM Second, Truvada is basically a drug that is used to treat HIV positive people, but it's been found that it can also be taken as a preventative measure. As in, people who engage in high-risk sexual activity that take it have been shown to be less likely to contract HIV than those that engage in the same activities that don't take it. I don't think it means that you can't contract it, but it does make it less likely that you do. Edit: And there's a reason that this is more likely to happen on a gay set than straight, and it's tied to why anal creampies are generally rightfully considered the most dangerous act in porn. All of the transmissions of HIV on straight porn sets during the past 20 years or so have been anal creampies, and passing HIV to an unprotected partner isn't just a little more likely during anal sex than vaginal, it's a lot more likely. Like, 17 times more likely according to the CDC themselves. Edited by - whatsatelephonebill on 2/13/2016 2:37:06 PM [Link] |
| Gore Gore Girl Doctor of the Erotic Arts 7238 Posts 1/09 | Posted - Feb 13 2016 : 2:40PM [Link] |
| pringles All-Star Member 1351 Posts 2/08 | Posted - Feb 13 2016 : 2:59PM 5193.1 requires an opportunity for the performer to discuss PrEP with their doctor. If they agree the performer can benefit from it and the performer elects to do so, producers are required to provide for it at their cost. Cal/OSHA on why they won't allow it as an alternative to condoms: "PrEP, as in the case of Truvada/HIV PrEP is also not an alternative to condom use as it does not reduce the risk of transmission of any other STD aside from HIV and this only when employees take the medication regularly as directed, even during periods in which they are not employed." [Link] |
| whatsatelephonebill Senior Member 2935 Posts 10/11 | Posted - Feb 13 2016 : 4:04PM Though the truth is that none of those necessarily means that condoms would be ineffective on straight sets, as one of the traps we get into with the conversation is pretending that HIV is the only STI that we should worry about. [Link] |
| Gore Gore Girl Doctor of the Erotic Arts 7238 Posts 1/09 | Posted - Feb 13 2016 : 4:40PM Edited to add that I was under the impression all HIV outbreaks stemmed from off-set sexual interaction. This makes things vastly more complicated. Edited by - Gore Gore Girl on 2/13/2016 4:42:03 PM [Link] |
| whatsatelephonebill Senior Member 2935 Posts 10/11 | Posted - Feb 13 2016 : 5:30PM Honestly, I don't pay enough attention to gay porn to make that assessment, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was a higher number of straight anal non-condom scenes than gay simply because there's a much higher number of scenes shot in straight porn than gay. But I do get the impression that the number of bareback gay scenes is not insignificant. Also, the CDC report says that the guy contracted it off set, gave it to one on-set partner, and also gave it to another off-set partner. Also, it says that a couple of the people he worked with actually already had/have HIV, but that their viral loads were undetectable (and that they were oral-only scenes). The basic timeline is he had sex with an HIV positive person, 6 days later he tested negative, 9 days after that he shot oral scenes for one production (no one infected), 10 days after the test started exhibiting symptoms, 11 days after the test he shot 3 oral-only and three oral/anal scenes (one person infected), and then infected someone in his personal life about a week after the last shoot (but before he knew of his status). Edited by - whatsatelephonebill on 2/15/2016 12:26:36 AM [Link] |
| Mister Fahrenheit All-Star Member Meh 4655 Posts 10/13 | Posted - Feb 13 2016 : 5:36PM [Link] |
| Use the code below to link to this topic or a specific post. |
| URL of this thread |
| Link to this post with HTML |
| Link to this post with Forum Code |