Porn Panic 2012: The "Weinstein-Lubben Model" Expanded To Homemade Webcammers; Plus, AHF Volunteers To Become The Official "Condom Nazis"

Just in case you thought that it couldn't get any worse, it gets much worse.

Mark Kernes has now posted at AVN.com his recounting of yesterday's meeting of the LA City Council committee involved in enforcing the condom mandate law, and it confirms two disturbing developments that I first mentioned on my update to my original post.

First off...there is this exchange that is documented between Immoral Productions chief "Porno Dan" Leal and  FilmLA VP Todd Lindren regarding the scope of the new law regarding personal webcamming.  Remember that Leal's company was paid a surprise visit by LAPD Vice the night before, and cited for not having a valid permit under the new law.

The first speaker was Immoral Productions owner Dan "Porno Dan" Leal, who informed the Group that one of his independent contractors had been given a citation by one of the eight members of LAPD's Vice Division who arrived at the location, for shooting a live webcam show without a permit. Leal explained that since the citation has been issued because the show, which was not yet under way when the police arrived, was being done for commercial profit or gain, he surmised that every webcam performer in the city would not be required to get a permit from FilmLA, and asked the FilmLA representatives if that was correct?

"It has been consistent that any commercial production, including webcasts, needs a permit," responded FilmLA's Lindgren.

"So any webcam show shot by anyone in the city of Los Angeles will now need a permit, is that correct?" Leal asked.

"Has always needed a permit, right," Lindgren corrected him.

"Ergo, any married couple shooting in their house, who's shooting a webcam show for profit or gain, which by definition would be every single person that shoots webcam, would now need a permit, is that correct?" Leal pressed.

"Under the city ordinance, if it's for commercial purpose, it needs a permit," Lindgren stated.

"And therefore, they would need condoms under the new regulation, is that correct, that logic?" Leal continued.

"We're in the process of developing that specific—and I can't answer that question," Lindgren responded.

At that point, Santana cut Leal off, stating that the comment period wasn't supposed to include a question-and-answer dialog with Group members, leaving Leal to finish by stating, "We will be happy to comply with whatever the city decides to do."

In other words, it isn't just about intimidating the big studios into wrapping up anymore; it's about forcing condoms on everyone who does any form of adult sexual media for profit.

Indeed, it isn't even about condoms, come to think of it...since the new law now extends the requirement of a permit to include even homemade adult webcamming -- and remember, the new Cal-OSHA regs could potentially require "barrier protection" (read, dental dams and gloves) for girl-girl and even solo scenes) as a means of "protection" -- that means that ANYONE who does an adult webcam in the city of LA is now liable to be required to apply for a permit, or face stiff fines and even jail time.

Now, whether or not the city has the means or the will to enforce this equally on all is a legitimate issue, but the fact remains that the city now has that hammer with which they can stomp anyone not meeting Mike Weinstein's or Cal-OSHA's rigid standards of "protection".

And then, there is the real issue with the collection of such information in the filing and handling of permits. What about the risk of a potential permitter having their information exposed and used as blackmail against them, or exploited by antiporn groups wanting to banish them "for the sake of the children"?? And, what about the very real threat of public exposure of private cammers as a means of shaming them, or outing them to their families?

Anyone who doesn't see the potential mass violation of basic privacy and sexual liberties inherent in this law is either dense or blind. But, hey, they're all just ignorant sluts, and this is for their own good and protection, so who cares??

Of course, the folks who put forth this law in the first place will always complain that even that is not enough, and will volunteer their services to drop the hammer down that much stronger. Witness the testimony of the only AHF representative at this meeting, Mark McGrath, as documented by Kernes:

AIDS Healthcare Foundation's (AHF) Mark Roy McGrath spoke next, and began by claiming that during the investigation of the  2010 Derrick Burts HIV infection, the LA County Department of Public Health had no problem identifying "all the production companies, all the secondary producers... in quick, short order," charging that those companies "continue to violate California law, they continue to act as outlaw entities, and we feel that... it's time that this industry act with legal responsibility and show a modicum of corporate citizenship."

McGrath claimed that the law "does not distinguish between content, but on acts," adding that, "they can create any content they want that's simulated. This law is specifically looking at infectious disease transmission and exposure." (Of course, most adult content fans won't buy simulated sex, but that's not something that worries McGrath.)

While noting that neither he nor AHF is "happy with the draft language," he asked, "How is it going to be logged? How are we going to conduct these investigations? If the fire department and police camn't do it, where are we going to do a Request for Proposal?"

Of course, several prominent adult industry members have suspected all along that part of the reason AHF got the new ordinance put on the books was to eventually offer its services to the city as the only official "condom inspectors," so it will be interesting to see which entities respond to McGrath's suggested RFP.

First off...I thought that the 2010 outbreak featuring Derrick Burts took place in Florida, right?? And that there was really no investigation by either FilmLA or Cal-OSHA, but from the LA County Department of Public Health, which AHF had already dismissed as "stonewalling" to begin with??  (And, dare I mention that even Burts admitted that he was infected in a shoot where condoms were already used??)

And of course, McGrath would say that it's only about acts and that if producers wanted to show authenticity, then they could always rely on simulated sex. Yeah, right...like everyone's going to move over to late night Showtime or Cinemax to get their fix of losing bareback sex.

But, it's the last sentence that is the most important: since AHF obviously doesn't trust the LA Vice squad to enforce their condom mandate the way they want, they wouldn't mind getting paid by the city to do the enforcement themselves.

WOW...outsourcing the enforcement of a public law to a private for-profit entity....that'll go well, and won't be abused. Like bloody hell, it won't. Ask the victims of the original Porn Wikileaks.

To put it simply, this is the Swedish Model for sex work applied to porn, shifted a tad, and then jacked up to heights unknown. Julie Bindel and Gail Dines would proudly support this...and I'm sure that Gail will give her blessings next chance she gets to post a CounterPunch essay. Only thing missing is the "Real Men Don't Buy Bareback Porn" ads and celeb endorsements.

Neoliberal antisex censorship. Just like right-wing fundamentalist antisex censorship....but neoliberal.

Seriously, we have GOT to fight this. To the fucking WALL.

Condom Mandate Now Officially Law In LA: Revelations And Repercussions

[Updated -- scroll to bottom.]

I know that this page should be blank today in solidarity with the ongoing protest against the Stop Online Piracy Act (and it's only slightly less noxious cousin, the Protect IP Act. But fuck it...this is too damn important not to comment on.

Yesterday, the LA City Council completed their collusion deal with the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and the Cal-OSHA bureaucrats and finally passed into law the condom mandate legislation.

This was done mostly to ward off the "threat" of an initiative vote that would have taken place this coming June, but mostly, it was done so that a legal industry and its talent could be abused and used as free cannon fodder and a cash cow for the profits of Michael Weinstein, the condom companies, and the Religious Right.

Naturally, Weinstein and his allies in this are now crowing loud about how this new legislation will be the ultimate push in "protecting" porn talent from dangerous and deadly diseases, and that rumors that the industry will simply pick up their roots and leave LA are simply overblown...and besides that, as he so abruptly put it: "Wherever they go, we will find them."

And just as naturally, certain liberal elitist "sex positive" intellectuals and avant garde pornographers are also hailing this ruling as a victory for "common sense", because merely jamming condoms and dental dams down the throats of performers is merely, according to them, the equivalent of forcing motorcycle riders to wear helmets or automobile drivers to wear safety belts..in short, just a necessary and slightly uncomfortable intervention to save lives.

(And yes, that "liberal elitist sex positive" smack is coming from a even more leftist sex positive, so don't assume stuff.)

So, once again, a community of sexual dissidents are used as a stepping stone and a disposable rack by supposedly well meaning "liberals" and "communitarians" to line their pockets with cash and puff up their paternalistic and maternalistic credentials...and the targets and guinea pigs are treated as less than human and unable to even think enough for themselves to be asked their opinion on the "benelovent" ones who used trumpted up scandals and faked "panics" to seal their power grab.

But do they really think that this condom mandate will really work to meet their "objectives" of "role modeling" porn consumers to use condoms more?? Really??

If decades of condom advocacy in the general society as well as free and inexpensive access to condoms in the civilian world has not done much to increase its usage, then how in the hell do these fools think that mandating every porn scene with them will succeed any better?

If it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt time and time again that porn consumers will fundamentally reject sex scenes with condoms because they prefer unwrapped sex, then how in the hell will this legislation, if enforced, lead to anything other than legal businesses being forced out of business, and the tube site/bitTorrent underground of illegal porn piracy getting new leases on life? (Especially with the new XXX domain available for the looting??)

If it is proven that FilmLA, the permitting agency for movie shoots in LA, is simply not fitted to enforce this cockamamey scheme, then who exactly will??  The LAPD, via raids like they had in the pre-Freeman days?? A special "condom squad" of Shelley Lubben's ex-sluts or disaffected and paid AHF agents, squawking around every porn venue for any signs of unwrapped dick or undammed lesbian 69?? Cal-OSHA?? (A state agency enforcing a local city ordinance?? Bureaucracy creep much??) Or, maybe, AHF can simply use that $50-per-year fee now imposed on porn producers and talent to pay their own snitches to monitor grown adults to enforce the condom mandate?? (Course, the idea of relying on the very people you are driving out to pay for driving them out might seem a bit contradictory, but moral sex panics aren't known mostly for their deep thought of consequences.

If most porn production has already been outsourced out of LA to other venues, or, even more important, transferred to mostly homemade porn sites out of private homes, then what's to prevent the new Safe Sex Commisars from attempting to extend their reign of "protection" to private homes? Will we see the LAPD now invade Streamate or Cam Central camshows in order to embarrass performers into compliance with the mandate?

And what about the testing regime for STD's that has been crafted first by AIM and now by APHSS, which will now be essentially torched in favor of the "condoms first, don't ask questions later" policy. (And remember, because California law does not allow employers or employees to force anyone to reveal their HIV status, there can be no more testing along with condoms, so a condom breakage is the only thing standing between porn performers and a major HIV outbreak.  But never fear, because you can trust AHF to provide nothing but the utmost care for those now at even greater risks.)

I'm pretty sure that the lawsuits are already being prepared to overturn this law, and that actions are already being taken by the companies and the talent to either fight this full scale or begin the process of pulling up shop. But, one thing is definitely for certain; this new "Weinstein Model" of porn "protection" will work about as well in really representing porn talent as the Swedish Model of sex work regulation is doing for prostitutes.  And by "about as well" I really mean "not bloody well".

Congratulations are in store though, Mr. Weinstein. You pulled your political punches well. So, what will you do when the next real HIV porn panic resulting from acts like your boy Derrick Burts screwing off camera and removing his condom??  Or, from girls like Desi Foxx contracting HIV from side escorting and still being allowed to do porn work..and subsequenly infecting others because the condom broke??

From this day forward, Mikey, you can't blame AIM, or Larry Flynt. Anyone gets infected, it's all on your ass. You built the house of straw, now live in it and take the consequences.

Update: If nothing else scares you absolutely shitless about this new law, this comment by prominent porn attorney Michael Fattorosi (aka "Pornlaw") absolutely should. Quoted from this latest article from XBiz.com:

Attorney Michael Fattorosi, who represents numerous adult industry clients, said the ruling raises the possibility that a designated vice squad could be reassembled to investigate adult shoots.


“I fear that LAPD may be directed to resurrect a dormant unit of the Valley Vice Squad,” Fattorosi said. “Several years ago LAPD Vice had a unit devoted to investigating non-permitted adult film shoots. 

Many of the more popular shoot locations were well known to the unit. The undercover officers would often gain entry to sets posing as a driver and female talent by knocking and stating at the door they were there for the next scene.
 
“They were often let into the set by one of the crew or other performers not realizing they were undercover officers. On rare occasions, uniformed officers would even jump fences and enter the shoot location through unlocked rear doors. Once in, they showed their badges and started to take the names of everyone on set and even confiscate tapes and hard drives as evidence.”

That would be the same LAPD that was used to harrass porn producers during the bad old days before the Freeman decision liberated porn production in California. The very same vice squad that used to terrorize performers and producers alike.

And the very same squad that busted gay porn with even more enthusiasm.  You know, the very same gay porn that uses condoms. The very same gay male porn whose standards of no-testing and dependence on condoms will now be imposed on the "straight" porn industry. Using...the very same damn people who wanted to shut down porn entirely, not just enforce condoms.

Protect performers??  MY ASS!!!

(Aside note: that reference to Desi Foxx was meant to be only an example of a fictional scenario.  As far as I know, she's NOT HIV+.)