An Interview With AHF Founder Michael Weinstein
By MikeSouth from MikeSouth.com
November 13th, 2012
Thank You for taking the time to answer my questions, I think there are a lot of things abut all of this that are misunderstood.
1> You have been around the adult industry for quite a while but most people in the biz only know anything of you from the whole Measure B thing so first tell me a little about who you are, where you came from, what you do, and why you do it.
Actually, I have not been around the business before I became involved in this Issue. I was a cofounder of the AIDS Hospice Foundation in 1987 which became AIDS Healthcare Foundation. We gave a dignified death to thousands before we began opening out-patient clinics in 1990. Today we care for more than 180,000 patients in 26 countries. I do what I do because it is incredibly gratifying to see the progress that has been made in the fight against AIDS and because we still have a long way to go in winning the war.
What was the motivation behind getting Measure B on the ballot? It is already a requirement under Cal-OSHA to use condoms, why wasm’t the state enforcing that?
CalOSHA will never have the capability to enforce their condom requirement. Legally they can only respond to complaints.The County has the primary responsibility for public health and disease control in Los Angeles.
We hear over and over that the industry generates between 4 and 12 billion dollars a years, why do you think they couldn’t (according to them) raise enough money to effectively fight Measure B?
It seems like everyone was expecting someone else to foot the bill and I think the industry was in denial about how much public support we had from day one.
I was opposed to Measure B but my opposition was admittedly soft, primarily for Libertarian reasons, either way it ended it took away choice for performers, I personally preferred more of a civil approach than a criminal one. My choice would have been mandatory condoms on every set but allow performers to opt out by signing a waiver. I would have provided severe civil remedies for anyone who was discriminated against based on that choice, why wasn’t something like that considered, or was it?
I had several factory jobs in my youth where I was required to wear protective gear. I didn’t have a choice and it made it very difficult to meet the production quota. Dentists must wear latex gloves; construction workers wear hard hats; machinists wear googles. Why should porn performers be different?
The industry claims that it is the most tested and safest workforce in the world, I have yet to see a single study that bears that out, quite the opposite, every study I have seen indicates that while the HIV rate is low other STIs are orders of magnitude higher. Many of the performers who talked to me off the record indicated that they were in favor of Measure B but wouldn’t risk coming out because it’s difficult enough to get work now as it is. Other performers maintained that Measure B is an encroachment on their civil liberties. What would you say to the performers.
A major aspect of AHF’s mission is promoting sexual health. AHF has a very large national STD program. B was never primarily about HIV, but all the other STDs. The No campaigns attacks on the credible scientific studies that document epidemic levels of STDs in porn damaged their credibility. Civil liberties do not trump workplace safety. Anyone can do anything they want on camera as long as they are not paid for doing it. If they are paid, workplace safety applies.
Hindsight being 20/20 and all why do you think the FSC was ineffective in getting Measure B defeated, what was their biggest problem?
I feel that the No side ran a very good campaign. They emphasized their editorial endorsements and argued the potential damage to the local economy which resonated with many voters. But, there is no argument that I can imagine that would have won in Los Angeles. We started with a huge advantage in the polls which the No side managed to reduce somewhat.
Do you think measure B will survive the legal challenges including a constitutional challenge?
I am not a lawyer but it is hard to imagine how a constitutional challenge would prevail. There are all kinds of regulation that apply to the making of mainstream films that have held up over the decades. B does not control content, only safety.
Fabian Thylmann claims that because Digital Playground is owned by Manwin Canada that DP is exempt from the condom law. Larry Flynt says he will simply shoot outside of L.A. County. Michael Fattarosi says the law is poorly written and there are many loopholes like when performers shoot for free and the money is paid to cover expenses or written as a “donation” or they can go to cities like Pasadena that have their own health departments and aren’t bound by measure b even if they are in Los Angeles County. How would you respond to these people?
The only option that the industry is not discussing is compliance with what is now state, county and city law – condoms. I have no way of knowing if they will find successful ways of evading these laws. It is the governments job to interpret and enforce the law. AHF has done what it set out to do. We have confirmed that condoms for vaginal and anal sex are the only effective way to prevent the majority of STDs. We have also established that the lives of performers are not expendable.
The biggest issue facing the industry isn’t condoms, it is piracy, what steps would you take to defeat that threat?
I don’t know enough about the piracy issue to comment.
The 1600 employees of AHF across the globe are responsible for saving hundreds of thousands of lives. While the industry may disagree with us on condoms, demonizing AHF disrespects our dedicated staff and dishonors the memory of the multitude of men, women and children we have cared for for almost three decades.
I hope this interview helps to clarify, to performers in particular, where AHF is coming from.
Im ok with you using my posts BUT
You have to source me (You did)
and
link back to my original (you didnt)
fix that
TY
“it is incredibly gratifying to see the progress that has been made in the fight against AIDS and because we still have a long way to go in winning the war.”
It’s been incredibly gratifying, he says, to bestow each death sentence based on a bogus diagnosis guestimate, confirmed by another guestimate, so to pass out dna killing drugs. Yeah, the war’s got a long way to go. They’ve been saying that for years and years. As Orwell said, the war is not meant to be won, only continued. The latest advances in one minute tests in dirty urban areas will continue the crusade for more volunteered statistics. Keep attending fund raisers so they can brainwash you with more heart string pulling propaganda. Funny how Weinstein will ignore illuminating documentaries like “House of Numbers” and like an Ostrich, pretend it doensn’t exist… since a house of numbers can make his house of cards crash. And did I forget to mention how much money is made in this war? War is not a means, it is an end in itself… an end without end.
And saving lives? Please. AIDS drugs are not even claimed to be a cure.
What a surprise — yet another AHF propaganda piece on South’s site.
Nice to see Weinstein granting an interview with an anti-porn blog in thanks for its long-time support.
Congrats Uncle peg you continually show yourself to be a clueless moron…
now call me names, threaten to do a documentary about me or something and go back to doing whatever it is idiots do in your neck of the woods.
“Anyone can do anything they want on camera as long as they are not paid for doing it. If they are paid, workplace safety applies.”
What a noob. The measure that he supported would even penalize homebased cammers and other and unpaid amateurs who distribute condom-free content!
This interview is just a bunch of poppycock, Mike. The real prize would be a discussion with AHF General Counsel Brian Chase.
edit-Assistant General Counsel…
@origen – Brian Chase is lo longer employed at AHF. If you recall, he was critical of Weinstein’s “messaging” of the ballot initiative…
Subject: Ballot Initiative Messaging
From: Brian Chase
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 3:53 PM
To: Timothy Boyd; Michael Weinstein; Michael Kahane; Tom Myers; Whitney Engeran; Dale Gluth; Philip Reh; Eileen Garcia;
Jessie Gruttadauria; Jessica Reinhart; Joseph Terrill; Azul Grasso; Sal Guillen; Denys Nazarov; Arlette Delacruz; Herbert Fisher; Jason King; Ged Kenslea; Lori Yeghiayan; Omonigho Ufomata; James Vellequette; James Driscoll; Adam Ouderkirk; Sarah Fohl; Miki Jackson; Mark McGrath
We may want to avoid saying that one of the reasons we are supporting the ballot initiative is because we believe that condom-less porn sends any sort of message (that only safe sex is hot, or that condoms are unsexy).
As a private actor AHF can argue generally that lack of safety practices in adult films sends a bad message about sex. But as proponents of a ballot initiative, anything we say can be used to determine the “intent” behind the initiative. A law whose “intent” is to require film producers to “send a message” about safer sex could violate the First Amendment.
I could likely get Chase but Weinstein I felt was a better choice. If you are smart, you read that interview and it tells you an awful lot between the lines.
There’s good info there for someone with the brains to use it.
Uh-huh… we’re all so stupid, Mike South. You tell us over and over. We’re all so fucking dumb… That may possibly be true about most of us but, well… duh, uh… mmm… is that what a good teacher tells his students, over and over, as opposed to say EXPLAINING what ever your fucking point is?
If you explained your point as many times as you’ve said how dumb people are then maybe you’ve enlightened a few more people by now. Or maybe there’s some kind of satisfaction you get telling people how dumb they are, which is more important than getting your point across?
How about suggesting that MONEY was the reason measure B wasn’t defeated?
How about ping ponging this interview a little more back and forth rather than the one question, one answer, next question format?
Condoms in porn to protect the masses? How many in porn have died of AIDS, and are you sure it was AIDS? When John Holmes was told he had AIDS he did a bunch of fucking drugs and died. But it was a retrovirus that killed him, right?
Why, REALLY did the masses allegedly vote for this? Any real porn fan (which is everyone) should’ve voted no… to seeing rubbers in porn. Any sex or boxing fan doesn’t want to see headgear, either, if they don’t have to.
There’s zero good info there; it’s the same old bullshit from the same old bullshitter.
@origen — Let’s examine Weinstein’s claim that:
“Civil liberties do not trump workplace safety. Anyone can do anything they want on camera as long as they are not paid for doing it. If they are paid, workplace safety applies.”
Once again we see that Weinstein the authoritarian proposing an absolutist, totalitarian construct.
First, there’s his tone, in which he makes pronouncements — he has the air of making it sound as if the law is being written as it’s spoken.
More importantly, however, there’s his insistence that there is no place for competing interests — you can hear it in his rhetoric: it’s “simply” a matter of workplace safety, or public health, or whatever. He will not deign to consider any counterbalancing arguments, and he brooks no dissent.
In reality, in our system of government, every issue and every controversy of public consequence is a balancing act — pro’s and con’s — between competing interests, whether it’s the public’s right to know vs. privacy… or human rights (such as bodily autonomy and sexual freedom) vs. the state’s regulatory interest.
THE STATE’S INTEREST IN REGULATION DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY TRUMP PERSONAL LIBERTIES!!!
But, when it comes to people’s rights, to constitutionally protected liberties – Weinstein doesn’t wanna hear about it. He is single-minded — as all authoritarians and fascist dictators are. He TELLS US what the problem is, and he prescribes the solution by decree.
Never mind the fact that there are legal jobs RIGHT NOW which don’t fit Weinstein’s construct — such as stunt performers, MMA fighters, other professional athletes — even reality shows/movies such as Jack-ass. Workplace safety regulations and other laws which affect the workplace (such as smoking bans in bars and restaurants) are put in place to protect workers from harms incurred on the job — harms which are EXTERNAL to the job, not the job itself. Thus a construction worker who was hired to drive rivets or weld girders wears a hardhat, but a stunt performer, whose VERY JOB is to double for a helmet-less man falling down a flight of stairs, does not.
And never mind that, as you point out, origen, the law would even penalize home-based cammers and amateurs who distribute condom-free content.
Weinstein and his stooge South need to read the constitution. This truth is also evident in South’s own solution, which on its face is an impossibility:
“a civil approach [rather] than a criminal one” which would include “mandatory condoms on every set but allow performers to opt out by signing a waiver.”
Aside from its utter disingenuousness, taken on its face this is, in a word, idiotic — for more reasons than I could possibly enumerate in a single LIB comment.
Q: Would Weinstein ever have the balls to do an interview with Whiteacre???
A: NEVER!!!!!
@Jeremy – Weinstein has made it clear that he only does “press availablilities” in non-hostile environments, such as his own press conferences. You’ll recall, he didn’t show up at the Cal-OSHA meeting last year after word got out that there might be a large adult industry turn-out.
Similarly, in the last week of the Measure B campaign, Weinstein blew off his scheduled radio debates because James Lee had taken to calling him out of things like AHF’s long pattern of double-billing and over-charging (as revealed in government audits which demonstrate actions by AHF that potentially cost taxpayers millions of dollars).
He did the interview, above, because his buddy South gave him softball questions, and the format didn’t allow South to ask follow-ups or challenge a word of what he said. As if her ever would have, anyway… This wasn’t an interview, it was free press for the AHF platform.
I also love how Weinstein dons his savior halo at the end, and trots out his familiar refrain: “employees of AHF across the globe are responsible for saving hundreds of thousands of lives.”
Maybe so — and Michael Weinstein profited off every one of them.
Thats getting to be the new way folks avoid hard questions while getting the media exposure they crave. Lindsey Lohan did it this week by cancelling an interview with Barbara Walters (to avoid being asked difficult questions) and instead going on another show and avoid the hard questions.
Jeremy I have never referred to you as dumb or anything really, I know you like to be the center of attention but in all honesty I have no opinion on you one way or t’other.
Now should you feel the need to play captain save-a-moron for Whiteacre he can surely use the help LOL
Weinstein avoiding any controversy or adversaries, and the OSHA meeting, while double billing and over-charging at the expense of us, the taxpayers. He’s simply a drop in the polluted AID$ ocean, go figure. It started with Bob Gallo, who went through two scientific misconduct trials, was saved from prison due to his political connections that his rigged science made a lot of money for,
I know you advocate testing over condoms, MW, inferring the purpose it supposedly serves, but do you really think Weinstein even “maybe” has been in any way responsible for saving hundreds of thousands of lives? Actually, he’s instrumental in just the opposite. The nobel prize winner for discovering HTLV3, Luc Montagnier (later to be called HIV by Gallo, who stole his sample, did artificial stimulation and cooked the books on it), says HIV can be solved by clean water and healthy diet. Well so much for Weinstein’s AID$ industry, pushing extremely expensive and extremely toxic “medicine”. Again, it’s no wonder they’re double billing and over-billing. AHF is one giant piece of shit just like the Big Pharm tossing them millions per year to peddle their genocidal death medicine!
LOLing at how, while my comment explaining that Chase was no longer AHF counsel was still in moderation, South wrote “I could likely get Chase but Weinstein I felt was a better choice.”
LMFAO
Yeah, Mike, I’m sure Weinstein would surely make a special exception for YOU and allow Chase to waive privilege.
What a true idiot.
@jeremy — I don’t know the full breadth of AHF’s health-related operations and associations around the globe, but I doubt the claim for the reasons you listed and others.
Yes, Karmafan, no one throws softballs at, and backs up the lies of, enemies of the adult industry quite like Mike South. After all, he’s the man who saluted Derrick Burts as a man who told the truth and couldn’t be bought.
LMFAO
Mike South, why do you think the public supposedly voted Yes on B? Were they conned into believing porn stars are a threat to the general public, and so would choose to ruin the fantasy that rubberless sex on video provides? Did AHF buy votes, perhaps? Have all the votes been counted? They sure haven’t been yet regarding Prop 37.
Jeremy i think most of the people who voted for it didn’t know anything about it until walking into the voting booth. When you read the ballot it made sense, porn studios have to have permits from the health dept, they have to complete a training course and they have to require condoms. On it’s face it sounded like a no brainer.
When you look at the areas where the vote for measure b was highest it seems to bear this out.
after doing the interview I dont see much of anything changing really and others in porn are in agreement, there’s a lot in there if you know how to read it and consider the motivations behind it. Im not going to make public what those conclusions are but it makes sense.
I expect you will see this issue die down for a while pretty quickly now and studios will wait to see what the permitting requirements are and if and how all of that plays out.
Sex with condoms in porn is a “I have no brain”er, unless you stop to think, all American porn, from this point forth is going to be shot and shown with condoms… fabulous. I keep thinking of Leslie Nielson and Priscilla Presley making love with giant condoms stretching over their entire bodies. No naked guns no more.
Btw, MS, is that retard Nick East still leaving comments on your site?
“I expect you will see this issue die down for a while pretty quickly now and studios will wait to see what the permitting requirements are and if and how all of that plays out.”
What a bold prediction… considering that this is the ANNOUNCED position of the collected adult industry.
BTW, regarding the claim that this is JUST CONDOMS, today CalOSHA published its understanding of Measure B. What a surprise — it’s not just condoms:
The report in Cal-OSHA Reporter states,
“Measure B … requires that adult film producers obtain a public health permit from the county and observe all health and safety laws, including Cal/OSHA’s bloodborne pathogens standard, General Industry Safety Orders §5193, which requires barrier protection”
§5193 requires “engineering controls” to guard against contact with: “The following human body fluids: semen, vaginal secretions, cerebrospinal fluid, synovial fluid, pleural fluid, pericardial fluid, peritoneal fluid, amniotic fluid, saliva in dental procedures, any other body fluid that is visibly contaminated with blood such as saliva or vomitus, and all body fluids in situations where it is difficult or impossible to differentiate between body fluids such as emergency response.”
As for the legally mandated “Personal Protective Equipment” (which is what the term “barrier protection” refers to): “Where occupational exposure remains after institution of engineering and work practice controls, the employer shall provide, at no cost to the employee, appropriate personal protective equipment such as, but not limited to, gloves, gowns, laboratory coats, face shields or masks and eye protection, and mouthpieces, resuscitation bags, pocket masks, or other ventilation devices. Personal protective equipment will be considered ‘appropriate’ only if it does not permit blood or OPIM to pass through to or reach the employee’s work clothes, street clothes, undergarments, skin, eyes, mouth, or other mucous membranes under normal conditions of use and for the duration of time which the protective equipment will be used.”
Looks like the wild, wild west isn’t so wild anymore… just crazy.
Facials on women wearing masks… new fetish, anyone?
So does this mean no more oral sex performed on men without condoms and vice versa on women without the use of dental dams?
What is going on with Europorn? Business in Europe is not as huge as it used to be. Shooting content in Europe would be a good ad hoc solution to the Measure B fallout. What is the situation there after the syphilis outbreak?
Honestly, there should be base-rate for all performers in the industry and that rate needs to be reasonable. The Industry will NEVER attract any talented performers if they cannot compete with escorting rates.
Another reason for collective bargaining…
LOL porn producers are cheap. I think they would never pay to fly the talent over there and shoot their porn over in europe.
If the talent had to pay for their own airfare and lodging it would cost more then they would make for working.
They would be better off tryingto shoot in NH where porn isn’t illegal.
I get tired of people bringing up NH. No offense Karmafan, you are right on every other point, but I don’t think the people of NH will tolerate large-scale pornographic shooting. Any leeway given by judicial precedent could easily be overturned by lawmakers.
It’s like saying San Diego is a good place to set up shop. Not gonna happen. A few get away with it but it will never become the center of an Industry hub.
And for the record, Karmafan, I was mostly talking about using European talent…
Why talk to South? On the other hand, South is a lot sharper than Dingle Kernes or most other porn journos. I would have like to seen Weinstein talk to Cindi or even Gene, hell since Gene is in California, Weinstein could have bought him a nice sandwich and a screwdriver with real Vodka. Is Weinstein a New York City Jewish guy? If he is, then he is a real pussy for not debating Mr Whiteacre.
Weinstein will not defend or debate his position — he will only talk to people who allow him to make pronouncements. I’ve been interviewed by documentarians regarding AHF’s campaign, and those who got to speak to Weinstein confirm this: he brooks no dissent, and refuses to even consider any counter-arguments. He says it, therefore it’s so.
AHF has refused to provide interviews to writers and sites it considers adversarial. There are emails which attest to this fact. Obviously AHF sees South, the operator of an anti-FSC, anti-APHSS, anti-AIM website who hates porn people, as a friend in its crusade against the adult industry.
@origen & Karmafan — The whole “we can only shoot in CA & NH” thing is utter baloney. There are porn production companies which have been granted businesses licenses in other places, such as Nevada. I’m talking about adult studio facilities that were known to be shooting porn to the government entities who issued the licenses.
There is NO law on the books in any of the states where the industry might migrate outlawing adult production or defining it as prostitution, and prosecutions (by DA’s trying to make a name for themselves) have ultimately been dismissed against adult producers. Off-duty police regularly attend (and in some cases, do security for) adults shoots in some areas. I have seen this with my own eyes.
origen writes:
“I don’t think the people of NH will tolerate large-scale pornographic shooting. Any leeway given by judicial precedent could easily be overturned by lawmakers.”
No, origen. The precedent is based on the constitution.
I just used NH as an example to show they can shoot elsewhere other then porn valley. Some folks shoot in Vegas and bangbros does a lot in Miami so there are alternatives.
Is it cheaper to fly porners to other states or will they all be riding in one big porno bus?
MW says “I’ve been interviewed by documentarians regarding AHF’s campaign, and those who got to speak to Weinstein confirm this: he brooks no dissent, and refuses to even consider any counter-arguments. He says it, therefore it’s so.”
The whole AID$ industry is like that, even with the likes of Gallo admitting HIV needs co-factors to cause AIDS and Montagnier saying HIV can be cured with clean water.
And Weinstein, along with his mega-rich AID$ industry, would never have the balls or integrity to answer these essential questions about “Gallo, the father of science by press release”, either.
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/pdhunting.htm
Some of plead for some truth while he and his cohorts plead the fucking 5th!
@Karmafan — Exactly right.
@jeremy — Fraud and fascism are not limited to AID$ Inc., sadly. There will always be authoritarians, liars and shameless opportunists.
In the past, the adult industry had only attracted really stupid, small-time ones, such as Mike South. Weinstein has taken the game up a notch, but in the end he will be humiliated. The financial cost will be great — to the industry, to ancillary businesses and to taxpayers — but he will be defeated. This book has already been written.
Michael,
I live in Collin County Texas–one of the reddest counties in the country. There is one pornographic studio (whose name is a nod to the Freeman decision) that is incorporated here and well known to authorities. But you better believe that the district attorney would declare a “war on porn” and prosecute producers under any applicable statute if porn companies decided the county was a good place to set up shop.
Many lawyers (see even Picconelli and Fattorosi at Adult Biz Law) do not advise people to move production outside of California. You allude to the Theirault decision securing the rights NH producers to be free from pandering prosecution but they could just as easily be open to indecency and/or obscenity prosecution.
Meanwhile, Whine$tein and Assholesheeits are pushing One Minute HIV tests, while the porn industry learned long ago the dubious veracity of those tests. It’s too bad we can’t throw our weight around more, gained from the wealth of knowledge on testing, based on our collective experience.
And the con goes on…
… Don’t you see (perhaps you do), Weinstein created a scare about the porn industry endangering the general population, while AHF is simultaneously pushing testing on the general population with these free one minute tests which have at least over 70 known false positives (stress, pregnancy, flu, drug use, receptive anal sex itself, absent of any virus, etc, etc, etc.), in order to bestow a bogus diagnosis to as many suckers as possible, kill off more people with deadly drugs, to keep the big money racket rolling. And don’t forget to donate more money to these scumbags to help pay for the bullshit propaganda, while wearing your red ribbons to show you care! To me, however, ignorance is a sure sign that one really doesn’t give a shit about AIDS victims, because the truth is out there!
Origen — No, they would not be open to indecency prosecution because, under the widely-accepted/frequently cited) Freeman (and Theirault) line of cases, the use of criminal prosecution as an end-run around the First Amendment and state obscenity laws is prohibited. You’d also have to look at the individual state’s constitutional protections for speech / expression. If a court ruling is based on the state constitution (which often has more liberal terms than the US Constitution), there’s no Federal appeal.
The Freeman case is not an isolated one — it’s part of a school of legal reasoning which is accepted far and wide and used in various types of cases, even those relating to live nude performances for the paying public. The application of the pandering laws, laws regarding “living in a house of ill-repute,” or indecency statutes to the hiring of actors to perform in the production of a non-obscene motion picture would impinge unconstitutionally upon First Amendment values. That’s what the authorities in Southern California use to pull for years and years (I know that old timers like Margold were arrested for everything from pandering to “oral copulation”) and now that’s over and done with.
So, yeah, likely there will always be harassment in small towns and the little fiefdoms of local bosses and czars, but you simply don’t see prosecutors trying to make their name by bringing such cases — the only cases we see are the occasional obscenity prosecutions, which generally concern sale/distribution.
The following is from Mr. Randazza’s blog: “Imagine if prosecutor Cletus P. Dinkweeder decided to bring a Freeman type prosecution and his state supreme court followed the Freeman analysis in Kansas. Now Kansas becomes a “porn producers are protected” zone. Worse yet, what if the U.S. Supreme Court finally got a chance to affirm Freeman? Do you think Mr. Dinkweeder will win his next bid for re-election? Not a chance. He’d be lucky not to be tarred, feathered, and set on fire by his local congregation.”
But, still, the answer is not to move to Kansas; the answer is to kick Weinstein’s ass in court again. AHF and Cal/OSHA have lost every single court case against the adult industry, AIM Healthcare, LA County, et al, in this wild crusade. Ernest Greene has ben saying it for years, I’ve been saying it — this is ultimately going to be decided in the courts.
You guys do realize that calosha.com is NOT Cal-OSHA’s official site right?
its a news article that has about as much basis in reality as Kernes article does.
Good God people.
Right, Mike, because the actual TEXT of a law isn’t as important to its construction as the press announcements of Michael Weinstein.
It’s funny how the piece in Cal-OSHA Reporter, a source completely removed from the adult industry, reached the same conclusion as all the adult industry attorneys who reviewed Measure B, and the commentators around the country who argued against B. By its own terms, Measure B mandates compliance with Title 8 §5193.
Of course Mike has never been involved with the Cal-OSHA process, but if he were, and if he weren’t a dissembling ignoramus, he’d recognize that the focus of the Cal-OSHA Standards Board’s many hearings, meetings and consultations has been §5193, because it forms the heart of the regulations being (idiotically) imposed on the adult industry in California. This is not a matter of opinion, it’s a simple matter of fact.
The plain text of Measure B requires producers to observe and ensure compliance with §5193. Period. The terms of §5193 explicitly include (but are no limited to) gloves, gowns, laboratory coats, face shields or masks and eye protection, and mouthpieces / pocket masks / other ventilation devices to prevent OPIM to pass through to or reach performers clothes, undergarments, skin, eyes, mouth, or other mucous membranes.
Weinstein, on the other hand, says it’s just condoms — well, he wouldn’t lie to voters, would he?
Let’s see…
He assured LA voters that local governments (such as the city and county of LA) had the power to enforce state OSHA regs. But, the day after the vote, he announced that he was going to Sacramento to try to get a law necessary to EMPOWER local governments to do just that.
This constitutes an explicit acknowledgement that the law Weinstein created, Measure B – which L.A. County government did not want, and must now defend in court at taxpayer expense — is pre-empted by state law, insofar as local public health departments are currently NOT empowered to enforce state laws concerning condom use on porn sets.
Weinstein says he hopes to find backing in Sacramento now that a majority of voters in L.A. County were tricked into voting for the unconstitutional law he presented them — at great potential cost to those very taxpaying voters.
But hey, South – who also heralds Derrick “Rentboy” Burts as a man who tells the truth — finds Weinstein more reliable than Kernes, so it must be true….
If Butt Hurts Burts is such a truth teller, why does he have to get paid for it and read fucking cue cards to get messages across?
Shit, if I really believe in the message I’d work for free!
I have never had a commercial agent because commercial acting is a form of prostitution. You pay someone they’ll act like the happiest fuck in the universe using the product and we’re supposed to believe they’re the objective authority on it.
@Jeremy – That’s the nature of endorsements in a celebrity culture.
My problem with Burts is that his original story, as presented under the auspices of AHF, was that he was a basically straight guy who only had sex off-camera with his beautiful blonde al-American girlfriend, and who only had sex with men (in gay porn) because he was lured by the evil greedy porn industry. He claimed that he relied upon the promises of the industry’s testing program to keep him safe — yet he immediately booked a bunch of gay shoots OUTSIDE the AIM system, working with non-tested talent (or talent whose test results were unknown to him). Then there’s his ever-chenging theory of his HIV infection, and his attempt to re-write polygraph questions to his liking…
Everyone now knows that his entire story is a tissue of distortions and outright fabrications. Everyone but Mike South, that is.
That wasn’t an “interview,” it was a setup for a bunch of Weinstein’s talking points. He said nothing of substance, and gave zero insight. Wasted space.
This law, as written, will NEVER be fully enacted. It was flawed from the get-go, bullied upon the voters, few of whom understood it or grasped the financial burden of its implementation. Cal-OSHA has little will to police porn, and the City/County has no money to do their part. Everybody’s pissing money away on this when there are SO many other areas desperately in need. Same old shit….
yeah this was like one off those porn star promo “interviews” by a fawning fan whos wants to get lucky with the interviewee
One the subject of the criminal liability of shooting in states other than CA and NH… here’s a piece on Arizona, from AVN of November 16th:
Word that “two adult-entertainment filmmaking operations within the Town of Paradise Valley” were taking place is about a year old at this point in time. According to Arizona Newszap, a councilperson reported her suspicions to the police.
“I gave Chief (John) Bennett a couple of addresses that were running businesses (out of a home),” said Paradise Valley Councilwoman Lisa Trueblood. “He reported back to me that it was not criminal activity, so there wasn’t anything they could do.”
Actually, two different law enforcement officials told her there was nothing to be done, because neither of the locations at private homes was an official business.
Newszap spoke with Paradise Valley Police Chief John Bennett, who told them the First Amendment was in play. “For things like this, we really don’t get involved. As far as this goes there is no criminal activity—it is more of a civil matter.
The current impasse may not hold. Spurred by the news of local production and Councilwoman Trueblood’s insistence to do something about the situation, the town council will probably look into the matter to see if it can gain greater control over what sort of content can be produced within city limits. But first they have to wrap their heads around the subject, which seems to have taken some of them by surprise.
“We just don’t know about them,” said Paradise Valley Councilman Dan Schweiker when asked about explicit filmmaking in Paradise Valley. “I don’t even know what the options are. It is obviously something that we are going to look into.”
Stricter production regulations and new permit requirements may be needed, he added. “We need to get a handle on that kind of stuff. I am a believer that if you have rules and regulations, either don’t have them in the book or enforce them.”
The First Amendment did present a problem for the town, he added, but admitted he wasn’t so sure to what extent. “I don’t know if we know how much we would differentiate between the types of filming—to prohibit any pornographic productions. I don’t know what the limits of free speech are. I just don’t know what our legal parameters are. What we can and cannot prohibit.”
At least he’s honest enough to admit he doesn’t know!
I think the biggest issue with shooting porn in California is when they shoot in backyards outside, right next to neighbors who can hear and, especially if they make any inquisitive effort, see them. I’ve performed for many a peeping Tom or Tammy, but never got any tips. They could’ve at least thrown a dollar bill over the wooden fence or through the hole.
Another thing is shooting in hotels and the front desk people are looking at you and it seems they know who you are and what you’re doing there.
One time after I finished a scene for Pocahotass 3 with this dumb lady who head butted my chin twice while I was involved in D.P.ing her, the cops came in and raided the place as apparently they didn’t close the living room curtains and the wife (probably not the husband) across the street had a problem with it. I walked into the kitchen and pretending I was just the P.A. putting food away.
O I C that comment with link finally showed up about 14 comments back. I hope you had a nice weekend, Cindi!
And on the subject of Mike South taking his cues from AHF…
I was going to mention this last night, after South made one of his patented “I’m a know-it-all and you’re all idiots” comments in this thread:
“You guys do realize that calosha.com is NOT Cal-OSHA’s official site right? its [sic] a news article… Good God people.”
Instead, here’s Mark Kernes’ addendum to his Cal-OSHA story in AVN:
UPDATE: The following tweet was posted by the “Yes On B” campaign: “@AdultVideoNews is dazed and confused: @markkernes mistakes news article for official Cal/OSHA statements. Carelessness or jingoism? #YESonB ”
First of all, the “news article” AHF is referencing is the one … which appeared in an official CalOSHA publication, and was linked to in the Cal-OSHA Reporter … so it’s reasonable to assume that what’s written there is the official position of CalOSHA. We’re guessing that, like most other government publications, some editor checks his/her reporters’ articles for, among other things, accuracy.
But let’s assume for a moment that whoever wrote the (non-bylined) CalOSHA article actually doesn’t understand the difference between “condoms” and “barrier protections”—a reasonable assumption, considering that the two terms are not the same: “Barrier protections” is a far more inclusive term than simply “condoms.”
So what the “Yes On B” tweet is really saying is that even though Measure B clearly states that any adult producer which does not adhere to all of the requirements of the “General Industry Safety Orders §5193” (aka California Code of Regulations Title 8 Sec. 5193) can have its public health permit revoked, and will not get that permit back until it does comply with all of the Sec. 5193 requirements, it’s AHF’s position—even though it wrote the entire text of Measure B—that adult producers really don’t have to follow that law; that all they have to do is use condoms in sex scenes, and all the other legally required “personal protective equipment”—the rubber gloves, the face shields, the goggles, the latex vaginal coverings (aka “dental dams”)—can just be ignored.
That seems a strange position for AHF to take—but of course, it’s just one more example of how that organization is continuing to attempt to fool the voting public into thinking that Measure B is just about condoms, when it knows full well that it isn’t.
Fortunately, not everyone is as stupid (and/or illiterate) as AHF apparently thinks they are.
So AHF is advocating breaking the law by using condoms, aren’t they, Michael?
Weinstein’s a wimp. When I was 17 I was debating other students in college. And my position has always been you can not know what’s true, or have a platform to stand on, unless you hear more than one side, and can argue and counter argue an opponent’s points (investigation and knowledge of those points is implicit in an effective argument). In fact, how the fuck is anyone supposed to know what’s true unless they have an open hearing and thoroughly study more than one side? I bet Weinstein got really agitated and nervous when South said he kind of disagrees but not whole-heartedly. That was probably the most heat the disingenuous, money-grubbing wimp has ever taken in a forum.
Well, he’s selling his attack on the industry as a “FAIR” and “reasonable” measure which will not be overly burdensome to the rights of performers and producers, nor to their businesses. AHF wrote Measure B, and they know full well what is in it.
Weinstein doesn’t debate — he’s a dictator — and he didn’t give a shit when South (seemingly) expressed his view — he doesn’t care about the people who read porn blogs, nor does he care about South.
The leaked AHF emails illustrate what they think of people outside their clique, particularly those in the adult industry. South, Lubben, Burts, Desi Foxx, Tim Tritch — to Weinstein they’re all icky unseemly people who all had their use and are all similarly disposable.
And again, who the fuck is he to decide what’s fair or safe? If he didn’t want to be overly burdensome why they fuck did he push his shit against the interests and rights of the industry, itself? I’m sure you’ll answer sooner, MW, then he ever will.
Come on, OSHA-dummies. Be consistent. Demand protective measures as what is stated in your manuals. It may not be erotic, but that would definitely be adult entertainment to see googles, dental jams, etc… and make sure the whole body is covered in case there’s yet another nasty staph infection going around. CONSISTENCY, OSHA! CONSISTENCY!
And yeah, using sicky, icky people like a bathhouse junkie on 20 club different drugs, anti-biotics and poppers for pooper sex, and then just leaving them on the floor once they’re done using them. A proud man he must be.
goggles, whoops
Please keep in mind it was not Weinstein who put this
measure into law. It was the people of California. believe me it will be held up. Just like rest. workers must wash their hands after going to bathroom, construction workers must wear hard hat and other equipment, drivers must wear seat belts, and have insurance coverage etc.
in any event porn right now is not a lucrative industry for performers. I don’t see how they make any living off filming.
Where to begin? Driving is a privilege, not a right. Working in a restaurant or at a construction site does not impact the same rights and liberties as 1) working in the field of creating expressive works, or 2) having sex.
Your body is your own personal property. Adults have the right to make choices with their bodies, even dangerous ones or ones with which you or I may not approve. The idea that rights or liberties are suddenly subject to government restriction as soon as they are exercised for a commercial purpose is ridiculous and easily disposed of. A journalist or a novelist does not lose his right to free speech once he does it for pay. A film producer does not lose his free expression rights as soon as he charges the public to see his film. And an adult does not lose his/her right and liberties as soon as he/she exercises them for pay.
Mike W:
you make passionate arguments, but legally they will not hold up. But again you make sense. It is a privilege to get a permit in California to shoot porn, and if not the county of los Angeles, and state of California has the vested right to make regulations. Measure B is a protective measure to wear condoms. Condoms are not perfect and have been proven not to protect 100%. With that said it does protect where is it is statistically relevant. Therefore there is a rational basis for mandatory condom use. Now your body is your own personal property, and at one time it was illegal to have abortions, but since row v. wade not. Measure B at some time may be overturned by courts, but it is my strong belief not anytime soon. It fits perfectly into the innate power of government to regulate.
Adults are free to have consensual sex in homes, without condoms, just not when it becomes a business then the government can and does not tax, and regulates. Now the performers don’t have to wear condoms under measure B and they will take the risk of getting court, and being fined, as will the companies. Now I keep hearing talk from the same lawyer on here and elsewhere about enforcement .That is not the porn industries concern it will be enforced by the government and I am sure they will not catch everyone.
Please cindi don’t edit this, because is important the industry has turned out to be mainly an industry of escorting and using films to promote said performer to johns. This is a fact. I can mention names and cite to websites, with now the performer personally advertising and picking up phone. Big names. I have also been privileged to learn about UTR escorts you would be shocked to see the contract girls involved. anyone can get infected by these girls because they are having sex with total strangers. The authorities in new York are cracking down very hard on this, please see new York post todays edition. A ring was just broken up.
Law enforcement is very much aware of the porn talent doing it for big dollars so it has caught it’s eye and unfortunately you will see arrests. Some talent is now going UTR, because they now of the investigations mainly in ny, as these performers are crossing state lines. It is too late for them because they have been doing it for so long and already have been tracked. watch.
Commonsense, you tell the truth. But the solution is a strong union for performers which assures proper working conditions and that they can earn a decent living without resorting to risky and illegal activities. Measure B doesn’t make things better…
honestly, I believe you. Many will be arrested. It’s gonna be a bad year for the porn industry….
The government may regulate BUT there is a balancing act to be done. A regulation which destroys an industry is, by definition, not an industry-appropriate regulation.
Until the government has the power to FORCE all stunt performers to wear helmets even where it ruins the shot, or to PREVENT the guys from Jackass from guzzling animal urine or semen, of from stapling their scrotums to their thighs, or to FORCE boxers and MMA fighters to weat helmets and latex suits, it has NO justification to prevent producers of (and performers in) adult fantasy entertainment from portraying sex without a condoms and other ‘barrier protections.’
This measure will not destroy industry. wicked is not destroyed. But yes origen you are right people enjoy to view porn without condoms. Mike W it was the people of California that voted for it. The government did not pass it. That is the misconception. when I hear someone like performer Jessica Drake speak on her playboy radio show about being tested @ least 14 days prior to filming. That is just ignorant what if the many performers who escort please see Pamela peaks, Bridgette adair, lita chase, my platinum provider, the luxury companion, see a john after they are tested, and become infected. It disgusts me. This is serious and that is why it has caught the eye of law enforcement now. Besides the tax dollars. Again I don’t understand a lawyer like fattorosi who advertises on his website his clients who actively escort. please see los angeles and new York escort eros. How he can be against measure B for the safety factor. forget about choice. Mike W your arguments are specious, and will fall on court deaf ears.
here is Jessica drake’s comment from CNN
“We are tested every 14 to 28 days as performers,” Drake said. “We are tested for HIV, Chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis, and I have been very comfortable with the testing protocols that we have had in effect.”
You don’t understand testing, you don’t understand porn, you don’t understand the law, and you don’t understand government.
Voters, just like elected bodies, vote for illegal laws all the time. And those laws face court challenge. An illegal law is not more valid because the largely uninformed public at large voted for it — in this case, with the majority of yes votes coming from the communities 1) far flung from the adult industry, and 2) with the poorest education level averages.
Asserting that someone’s “arguments are specious” does not prove them so, it only proves your inability to reason or debate, or to appreciate concepts such as fundamental liberties and human rights. You’re simply a broken record.
Mike:
please don’t tell me what I understand. That is rude. What does it matter where it comes from and it is quite arrogant to put down the voter with the poorest education levels. extending your logic, there is no doubt that porn talent has the lowest educational level combined based on my interactions psychiatric problems, and you think judgment is any better. First of all as of today the law is not illegal, and I believe strongly it will be held up with some tweaks to it. The industry is a cesspool. there should be unions for performers, psychological evaluations on a periodic basis. It takes a lot psychologically for someone to have sex on camera, with someone they don’t know, for long periods of time. The talent has problems, they are in no mental state to debate this. for Jessica drake to think 14 days is adequate time to test, this is bizarre.
“But yes origen you are right people enjoy to view porn without condoms.”
I did not say this.
Incidentally, I do blame the consumer for their lack of understanding and empathy. I also blame us for the astonishing level of piracy that is self-evident on the internet.
But I also blame producers who have cut corners and shown little consideration for performer welfare. Adult performers should be wealthy for what they do. (But they must share the blame when it comes from their astonishing lack of prudence, ethics, or enterprise) Performers are the centerpiece of any adult video production. Allowing scene rates to decline and showing little concern for injuries or diseases is what is causing the talent pool to contract and the value of the product to further decrease.
Porn can still sell with condoms but condoms or not the corrosive dynamic is still the same and the decline will continue until it changes–and Measure B doesn’t change it.
BTW, Wicked only went completely condom-only for a brief period…
the performers do not make a decent living because there is always someone to replace them. this is the rationale of the producers. no union like SAG. but these performers are very troubled people. the business breeds emotionally disturbed people.
Michael,
I just heard a rumor that if Measure B becomes ratified as is, unpermitted producers could be prosecuted and labeled as sex offenders. Is this true?
“the performers do not make a decent living because there is always someone to replace them.”
I don’t buy that. The reason there is no union for performers is that no one really tried to organize one.
Oh believe me since the inception of porn and now 2012 someone has had these ideas, and would have done it if they could. The porn talent comes, because there is someone right behind them. does not take much talent to suck a dick and have intercourse. And now more than ever are there people coming to the industry for economic reasons. Although there is no pot of gold left. Unless you are Tori black, or a few others you ain’t filming more than 5 scenes a month. Tori black gets only 1500 per scene imagine what the others get.
That being said this is the reason these actresses do escorting. I am not saying tori does it in fact I hear she does not. But I could mention with immunity many that do BiG Names in porn. The industry now could never provide an independent living for the talent. Feature dancers, get paid only $500 per show, some get more or less, and hardly sell any items such as DVD’s or photos. Again main problem too much talent now where producers are getting away paying only $750 per scene to most female talent.
I would like to amend previous comment please. when I said $500 per show, they must be contracted for minimum three shows. so one night they can do all three shows or do three days, any combo there of. then they pay an agent fee, responsible for traveling, and only do it once in a while because most clubs are not offering feature dancers because they say it is not worth it. does not bring in extra business to justify cost. There are numerous feature dancers so they spread it around. Hence one performer if fortunate to get booked only rarely gets booked. If you notice te girls have become attached to LV bags, expensive perfumes, expensive makeup, clothing, even houses some talent buy house worth over 500,000 dollar, and they are under 25 years old. This comes from the income from escorting not porn. Now the federal government has caught on. Remember the movie goodfellas where after they performed the heist Robert deniro became enranged when his gang started to buy expensive things because it brings attention. That is what is exactly now. a couple of girls have bought very expensive things and it does not coincide with porn salary, and escorting it does, but where are the taxes.That is where the girls slipped up on. I know one in particular but can’t mention. although this one talent was recently mentioned in the Hollywood article on agents. there were several mentioned but one them is being heavily investigated.
“Oh believe me since the inception of porn and now 2012 someone has had these ideas, and would have done it if they could. The porn talent comes, because there is someone right behind them. does not take much talent to suck a dick and have intercourse. ”
Someone has had these ideas but no one has ever tried to implement them. Bill Marigold talked about unionization but he mostly just ran his mouth and is too unstable to start anything.
I’m kinda confused by your second assertion. It doesn’t take much talent to suck dick? Is that all you reduce the worth of a porn performer to? You sound like the very misogynist people that you despise. Performers are the very definition of
“irreplaceable”. Like mainstream actors, they are desired for their individuality. This is why some performers get more work than others. Mariah Milano has never had to escort. You even mentioned that Tori Black doesn’t escort and she makes a great name for herself. How are (‘were’ in the case of Mariah Milano) some performers able to get so much work if “there is someone right behind them” and it “does not take much talent to suck a dick and have intercourse”?
It just seems to me that you have a fundamental problem with pornography and would like to see it prohibited completely. You should just be honest and talk about your opposition to porn rather than hiding behind Measure B. When you are honest, then we can debate more fundamental issues.
And you don’t have to continue with the escorting gossip. Prostitution is a dangerous and illegal industry in the US. No one should be involved in it…
Some of what commonsense says is right tho. Back in the day many porn actors could also act and they worked off of scripts just like a Hollywood movie. Its not like that any more. Todays porn is all gonzo/parody and takes no talent. Its pretty much bring any girl or guy in off the street and get to the fucking.
As far as escorting gossip… its pretty common known that the vast majority of porn girls use porn to become famous to then turn that fame into the real money in escorting.