Two developments today in The Great Condom Mandate War, and both of them not so good for the good guys.
First off: Michael Fattorosi has just tweeted at his @Pornlaw Twitter stream that AHF has now announced that they now has achieved enough signatures to have their condom mandate initiative sent to the voters of that county later this year.
The group has more than 300,000 signatures, more than 30 boxes worth, that it will haul to the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder's office in Norwalk Friday morning, said another AHF official.
That means ... ... that you will likely be voting on the matter in November, because the group only needs about 232,153 valid, registered voters to sign on: The Registrar-Recorder still needs to validate the signatures and approve the measure for ballot placement.
The other news actually happened yesterday, when the LA City Council basically decided what they were going to do to enforce their new condom mandate law after the Adult Working Group committee which was supposed to draft new rules of enforcement tapped out without any resolution.
Their solution: kick it to another committee, this one featuring their own!!
CANOGA PARK, Calif. – Free Speech Coalition (FSC) was notified today by the L.A. City Administrator’s Office that the L.A. City Council has referred development of enforcement strategy for the city condom ordinance to the Arts, Parks, Health & Aging Committee.
Until recently, the development of an implementation and enforcement strategy had been charged to the City Administrator-appointed Working Group on the City of Los Angeles Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Ordinance. At the last meeting of the working group on May 11, the group postponed submitting the results of a report that would have recommended protocols for enforcing condom use on adult productions.
A few days later, it was widely reported that the working group had requested a 90-day extension of presenting the results of the report.
It is unclear why the issue has been referred to the Arts, Parks, Health & Aging Committee. That committee is made up of three L.A. City Council members, including Councilmen Richard Alarcon (7th District), Tom LaBonge (4th District) and Ed P. Reyes (1st District).
I'd say that it's because the council doesn't trust anyone else to voluntary enforce the law, so they want to railroad the process through.
It does mean that there probably will be that 90-day delay in implementation until the new committee reaches a consensus.
That previously mentioned LA Weekly article also noted that Weinstein had said that contrary to other reports, he would not seek a Request For Proposal (RFP) for AHF to bid for becoming the enforcers of the law, rather allowing the committee to resolve the issue. That probably means the committee will browbeat the LA Vice department and FilmLA to do the dirty bidding of being the "condom police". Weinstein also said that he would be willing to accept a 90-day delay; which conflicts with the POV of his legal counsel, Mark McGrath, who wasn't too happy of the "stonewalling" at the meeting today.
The bottom line remains the same: the battle isn't over; it's only just begun. The lawsuits are about to hit the fan the way Hurricane Katrina hit the Ninth Ward levees. Buckle up, Clones.
You know, Clones, momentum is a strange thing. One day you have it like you think you will move the world on your little finger; the next morning, it slips though your hands.
I'm sure that before this morning, the folks over at the AIDS Healthcare Foundation were feeling mighty good about themselves, since they had browbeaten the LA City Council into passing their condom mandate law, and were just theeeees close to getting the hammer they needed to smash the LA porn industry into submission.
Problem was, reality got in the way of their mission...and now they will have to defer their celebration for an indefinite spell. At least, for 90 more days.
Today was supposed to be the day that the advisory committee setting the rules for enforcing the condom mandate law would issue their final report regarding the details of how they were going to enforce said law. The report was a prerequisite of the 120-day grace period between the passage of the law in January and the supposed enforcement of the law, which was scheduled to take hold on June 1st.
Unfortunately, like I said, reality got in the way. Well, that, and the heavyweights of the porn industry finally getting together to fight the law.
First, the news that the final meeting of the "Adult Film Industry Working Group" was canned and delayed until further notice, via XBiz.com:
LOS ANGELES — The Adult Film Industry Working Group's fourth and final meeting slated for this week has been postponed.
The panel has been charged with crafting policies to implement Los Angeles' porn-condom ordinance and planned to schedule a final meeting sometime this week before they release findings in a report to City Council.
But Los Angeles city analyst Eva Bitar told XBIZ that the meeting has been postponed for this week and that no new date has been set for next week.
City officials last week said they were hoping to release findings to City Council by May 23 in accordance with a 120-day rule when ordinances must be enacted after approved by City Council and the mayor.
The porn-condom ordinance was passed by City Council in January while a ballot-initiative effort by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation was in full swing; council members decided for the ordinance after weighing legal and ballot-initiative costs.
The ordinance currently isn't being enforced in the city, but later this month the ordinance could be put in effect.
At the last meeting on Friday at City Hall, the 11 working group members heard public comments from Immoral Productions' Dan Leal, Free Speech Coalition Executive Director Diane Duke and adult industry attorneys Michael Fattorosi and Allan Gelbard, as well as the AIDS Healthcare Foundation's Mark Roy McGrath.
Now, keep in mind that this process was supposed to be completed TODAY, with a final report sent to the full LA City Council by May 23rd -- that would be this coming MONDAY, Clones -- so that they could rubberstamp their final approval and officially begin the process of blowing the LA porn industry to bits....errrrrrrrrrrrr, improving protection for porn performers.
It's looking more and more like that's just not going to happen now, so what the "Working Group" will send to the Council at its scheduled meeting on Wednesday will not be "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!!" but rather "Give us a bit more time, and we will get this done. Maybe. Probably. Hopefully." Again, from XBiz:
LOS ANGELES — The city administrative officer has asked for a 90-day extension to report back to City Council and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa over rules implementing the new condom ordinance targeting adult performers.
The request, made in a memo obtained by XBIZ, cited "complexities of this issue" and asks the City Council and mayor to give the Adult Film Industry Working Group additional time needed to complete the report.
The request effectively puts enforcement of the ordinance, which makes condoms mandatory for performers at on-location adult film productions within city limits, on hold until at least late summer.
The Adult Film Industry Working Group has met three times already to craft policies to implement the ordinance; the panel, composing of city, county and state officials, had planned to schedule a final meeting sometime this week before reporting to City Council, but that meeting ended up postponed.
The panel had been pressured to create a master plan for the ordinance within 120 days of the law being passed by City Council and signed by the mayor. The condom ordinance was passed by City Council in mid January after threats of litigations from the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which was successful in getting a ballot initiative pushed through.
In recent weeks the Adult Film Industry Working Group panel has heard from a contingent of vocal adult entertainment industry officials who say the ordinance is faulty and unneeded.
Two weeks ago, Free Speech Coalition Executive Director Diane Duke and FSC Board Chair Jeffrey Douglas met separately with the city administrative officer, Miguel Santana, and his staff to discuss specific complications inherent to the ordinance's implementation and enforcement.
And last week's meeting at City Hall produced a strong turnout for the adult entertainment biz and included public comments from Immoral Productions' Dan Leal, Duke and adult industry attorneys Michael Fattorosi and Allan Gelbard.
Gelbard, who spelled out problematic legal consequences associated with the ordinance at the meeting, told XBIZ today that the 90-day extension may give the panel more time to logically think things through.
"Perhaps, if they take a more thorough look at the constitutional issues involved in attempting enforcement, they will realize what a mistake passing this ordinance truly was," Gelbard said.
"I would hope the working group advises the city that the chance of this ordinance surviving a legal challenge is all but nonexistent, and that the city — in this time of fiscal uncertainty — can ill afford the cost of defending this clearly unconstitutional statute in court, not to mention the significant additional financial exposure of having to pay an attorneys fees award when it is finally struck down."
Fattorossi told XBIZ that because of the industry's comments and analysis at the meetings, the working group is now well aware of problems that enforcement of the law will place on the city's services.
"The act is unconstitutional and it is encouraging to see the city finally recognizing how it is fatally flawed," he said. "It was apparent from my attendance at the meetings that the members of the working group had not considered how far reaching and overly broad the act is.
"I have a feeling they may need even more than 90 days."
XBiz has also posted a copy of the Working Group's official request for an extension, you can read it here. (Warning, PDF document requiring Adobe Reader)
This coming Wednesday's LA City Council meeting just got a lot more interesting.
I'm sure that Mike Weinstein and Brian Chase are going to be mad enough to be spitting bricks and chewing nails (and I don't mean fingernails), and they are going to have some real choice words to the council. And, I'm doubly sure that they will also have their Request For Proposal paperwork in their hands, screaming that if the LA City Council won't do its duty and choke the XXX industry to death with their condoms and dental dams, then perhaps they should simply outsource the job to those who will...namely, AHF and their allies. How that will fly in the wake of the expected wave of budget cutting due to the state of California being too broke and in debt, we'll just have to see.
Considering that AHF has already agreed to foot the bill for any and all legal costs for defending the law, you can probably understand their zeal.
This isn't to say that LA porn purveyors should declare victory and get out by any means.....there's still Cal-OSHA and their proposed "barrier protection" regulations that not only could supersede any actions by the LA City Council, but could be imposed statewide. Not to mention, nationwide, since the federal branch of OSHA has their own interest in this. (Those are the ones, remember, that would impose "barrier protections" -- meaning condoms for men and dental dams for women, and possibly even gloves, goggles, and other personal protection devices -- for any act of penetrative sex (oral, anal, or vaginal).) Plus, one should never underestimate the ability of AHF to simply throw tons of money to bribe their favored politicians into compliance.
This battle is far from over, and will be a marathon fight to the finish. Even past 90 days.
As the day rapidly approaches that the LA condom mandate law takes full effect, the speculation has already began on whether the porn industry either fights the law or takes flight for more secure surroundings.
Some have been talking Las Vegas as a possible target replacement, while others have focused on Florida, where production has already been at full strength for quite a while.
However, the latest speculation is that the metro area of Phoenix, Arizona would be the prime candidate for porn production should there be a mass exodus of the San Fernando Valley.
This has been further strengthened by a story that originally aired on the ABC-TV local Tempe affiliate, then reposted to TheRealPornWikileaks, in which there is a discussion on whether or not the industry moving to the Phoenix area would be a good idea.
The article used two familiar faces for the "debate"; for the pro side, performer Taryn Thomas:
Taryn Thomas tells ABC15 Arizona could see an increase in adult films being made here because of a new regulation in Los Angeles.
The Los Angeles City Council recently passed an ordinance requiring condom use on porn sets.
Filming pornography is actually legal in California but that’s not the case in Arizona, here it’s considered pandering.
But Thomas tells ABC15 pornography is shot in Arizona anyway.
In fact, Thomas says the Valley is a breeding ground for adult film stars like her.
Thomas says with porn being a multi-billion dollar industry, Arizona should be happy to have it.
“Ultimately it’s going to bring revenue if it does come here,” said Thomas.
“Arizona should be thankful and begging us to come here because our state is in such a budget deficit.”
Needless to say, there is a contrarian view....and no surprise who ABC15 tapped to present it.
But Shelley Lubben, President of the Pink Cross Foundation, believes talk of the porn industry moving to Arizona is simply a bluff to get the ordinance changed.
If the industry does move to Arizona, Lubben says Arizona will be worse off for it. “You don’t want this in Arizona because they’re bringing prostitution,” said Lubben. “They’re bringing illegal drugs. They’re having unprotected sex so those sexually transmitted diseases go into the general public. You don’t want this.”
Right, Ministress....because crystal meth labs don't already exist in Arizona, and people aren't already engaging in "unprotected sex".
Actually, probably fitting that the article pits Shelley against Taryn...a few years ago, Lubben had made an attempt to recruit Thomas into her PCF flock, taking advantage of a couple of low days Taryn had. When Thomas politely denied Shelley, the latter went apepoop, threatening to out Taryn for allegedly engaging in "dangerous sex" and using drugs, among other sins. Taryn simply flipped Shelley off and moved on. (A abridged synopsis of the matter can be found here.)
Interestingly enough, there may already be some "casing" going on, since Taryn Thomas hosted one of the first ever porn conventions in Arizona, the Pornstar Ball. I'm sure that a good time was had by all...just check Taryn's Twitter page for updates.
Update: WOW...Taryn Thomas just tweeted that apparently ABC15 is tiring of the clown act of Shelley Lubben, because in this morning's coverage of their "porn coming to Arizona" story, they purged all of her "testimony" from their segment. Ouch...even I felt that one.
A very illuminating debate on the LA condom mandate law took place last week.
Representing the pro-mandate side was Wendy Murphy, crusading prosecuting attorney and long-time TV trial analyst, well known for high-profile prosecutions...and apparently, waist-deep in Gail Dines' antiporn ideology. (Yeah, like Gloria Allred and Marcia Clark and Nancy Grace and other high-profile female prosecutors aren't???)
Repping the anti-side?? Porn performer and Digital Playground contract starlet Kayden Kross, who also knows how to spin a phrase or a thousand, having wrote plenty of pieces for Mike South's blog, and whom was a major contributor to Michael Whiteacre's still-in-the-works expose/documentary on Shelley Lubben.
The venue?? The FOX Business Channel's "The John Stossel Show".
Now, if you weren't aware of Kayden's gift of the tongue, you'd think that she would be mincemeat for the much more seasoned Murphy. Heck, Murphy basically looks like she could be Kayden's mother...and as we shall see, Murphy probably acts like she wants to be Kross' mother, too. After all, the prevailing conventional wisdom is that unless her name happens to be Nina Hartley, porn girls are so obsessed with their boob implants and what/how many dicks they can jam into their vaginas and mouths and buttholes that they aren't really that bright enough to defend their profession.
That day, though, Kayden busted that stereotype and crashed it into a million pieces. To put it simply, she kicked ass.
This was an especially gratifying boat race because apparently Wendy Murphy had gotten the memo from her antiporn colleagues that it was perfectly OK to slut-bait and personally embarrass Kayden for being such an advocate for intelligent porn women...up to and including bringing Kross' parents into the debate and dissing K2's arguments as "the dumbest thing I've ever heard". That K2 handled such an ambush with her usual public grace and class is not too surprising..though, I'm sure that her inner voice had some much...ummmm....earthier phrasing.
But aside from the personalities involved, the most important discussion point of the debate was the conflict between using the law for the purpose of "public safety and protection" -- the main justification used by proponents of the condom mandate law -- and the protection of individual liberty and freedom from unnecessary government intervention...which happens to be Stossel's main theme as a right-wing libertarian.
I should preface this with my own disclaimer: I am not a fan of John Stossel or of any network associated with Roger Ailes's "Political Crackhouse"....errrrrrrrrr, FOX political propaganda outlet, and I fundamentally reject his base view of libertarian capitalism totally freed of useful regulation and affirmative government as a referee insuring a level playing field. I may be pro-porn and sex positive, but I'm still also very much a Lefty. Refer all objections to my new Twitter page, @AJK_DontGiveAFuck. (Please don't..it doesn't exist..but you get my drift.)
However, there are times when I do think that libertarians do have a point or two...and this is one of them.
Allow me to quote from Marv Montag, an adult reviewer who posted at his blog his own review of the FBC's debate.
To start, it should be noted that I have no problem with condoms in my adult films, and I fairly regularly review the one (?) company that I know of that consistently uses them--Wicked Pictures. I also review the releases of a number of companies that don't. I'm neutral on the whole issue from the "aesthetics" perspective.
That said, I do have a problem with the unnecessary intrusion of laws on personal freedoms--particularly those dealing with freedom of expression. In her rebuttals, Ms. Murphy noted that it was the job of the government to protect people. On the surface, this is a laudable goal and has a good deal of truth to it. What is lost in her espoused application of this idea, however, is the fact--and it's one fundamental to our nation's very core--that it's as much, or more so, the government's job to protect our liberties. In watching various shows on television and reading various news articles, I have found that certain prosecutors seem to have a tendency to forget this fact...or at least put it aside when they so choose or when it's most convenient. Indeed, sometimes the best way for a government to do its job--and to protect its peoples' liberties--is to do nothing at all. (Thoreau, anyone?)
Now, one argument that invariably arises in this debate is the notion that workplace safety is regularly regulated by law and governmental agencies, etc. and that this should be no different. It is certainly true that workplace safety is regulated. As someone who deals with this firsthand in "real life", one might even say that it's regulated too much. That said, the overall effect--in general--is a positive one. But, what this argument fails to account for is that those instances most thought of in terms of workplace safety regulation do not deal heavily with inherently-speech-related items. In the state of California--where this is all going down--the production of adult films falls fully under constitutionally-protected freedom of expression (ref.: the Freeman decision). By forcing adult performers to wear condoms in their scenes--because the government presumes to know "what's best for them"--the art itself is being changed...the expression itself is being substantively and meaningfully altered. This--to me and as one who holds dear all of our personal liberties--is enough to call this new law a "bad" one.
Further, it does--as Kayden noted--have serious ramifications in the area of personal choice...sexual choice, which is also a form of personal liberty. One could envision any myriad of things that could be "regulated" out of existence in the interest of "protecting people against themselves". Indeed, if given enough leeway, a good many of our rights could be squelched by these same types of arguments.
Mr. Montag's point about prosecutors taking liberties with their power to convict people by appealing to the meme of "Those criminals are really guilty, they're just using their 'Constitutional rights' to trial by jury to game the system and get over from justice!!" is very much a germane and excellent point...especially given my point that most female high-profile prosecutors tend also to be more than a bit biased towards the antiporn crusader position of "rescuing girls from their abusers". That mentality does tend to support more coercive and blunderbuss regulation of public behavior, under the notion that going after the "source" and the "roots" of violent and dangerous behavior will curb the negative impacts of such behavior. That describes the condom mandate proponents down to the crossed T and dotted I.
My main focus, though, is on the notion that because the government has a role in workplace safety because private business simply can't be trusted to self-regulate themselves, that automatically justifies laws like the condom mandate. Even though I support the use of government in ensuring government safety, I always have qualified that support with the condition that such regulation be limited to the harm that is being mitigated, that such regulation not be excessive as to harm those who are not directly responsible for that harm, and that those who will suffer the full weight of that regulation have some flexibility and some input into how such a regulation should be enforced. In other words, an effective regulation should be focused on the immediate harm, not be used as a wedge to impose even more restrictions on those not directly affected.
I also agree with Marv's position on how the condom mandate would essentially destroy free sexual expression in porn by reducing such expression to a narrow political/"health protection" spectrum. It's one thing for government officials to give rewards to groups who do endorse proper health care goals such as reducing STI's or promoting condom usage broadly as one of many means of prevention. It's quite another to insist that ALL porn performers should be forced to wear condoms and dental dams, and that any portrayal of sexual expression lacking such should be sanctioned, punished, or even censored. The former is proper progressive activism; the latter is what is more common with fascists and Nazis. Art and expression should only be regulated to the point that free and consenting adults are given full rights to engage in such with maximum protection from abuse or coercion. When government or monopolistic business abuses their power to micromanage adult people's sex lives or viewing habits, then we have lost any legitimacy as a representative democracy or a humanist state.
However...my main objections to the condom mandate remain the same as they always were: the law simply addresses a phantom pandemic that simply doesn't exist and never existed; it destroys and scapegoats a community (porn performers) who actually had a system of prescreening and testing that actually DID work well in containing STD's; and it is essentially a Ponzi scheme for the gross profits of shakedown artists like AHF's Michael Weinstein, BS propagandists like "Christian" activists Shelley Lubben and Monica Foster, and ultimately, a drive to regulate porn out of existence in California, and do an end-around over the Freeman decision that legalized porn production.
That "liberals" like Wendy Murphy and Gail Dines and Mike Weinstein can ally with "conservatives" like Pat Trueman and Shelley Lubben in boosting this law says a lot.
A few more eloquent voices like Kayden Kross would do a lot of good. And, I don't even mind the red hair. In fact..it kinda rocks.
Keep kicking 'em, K2.
Update: Sean over at TheRealPornWikileaks.com has just posted a followup interview with Kayden Kross, where she elaborates on her adventure with Stossel and Murphy and restates her views on the condom mandate's impact. Just go there and read up on it...Kayden's looking better by the second. As if she didn't look damn HOT already.
