Companies fined for not using condoms

[RawAlex]

Hmmm...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...&type=printable

This might finally be the type of actions that drive the business out of California. Not because the industry wants to shoot without condoms (except for a few, oh well) but that this is a government agency peeping in on the productions... and possibly creating havoc for companies.

It's strange days indeed.

Alex

PS: Americans, vote for Kerry. he might be an ass, but Bush is, well, dangerous.

[Bishop]

Thats nuts.. when I heard that this morning I thought it was a joke.

[Peaches]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Sep 17 2004, 10:50 AM
PS: Americans, vote for Kerry. he might be an ass, but Bush is, well, dangerous.

This is a STATE issue, not federal

[Cleo]

Yeah Bush has nothing to do with California's laws but I do agree he is dangerous and anyone would be better doing his job then he is.

States have some messed up ideas,

Here in Florida if they suspect a woman is soliciting for prostitution the deciding factor is if she is carrying condoms.

Florida is just plain fucked up… bestiality is legal as long as the animal consents.

Sodomy is illegal in Florida so I guess if you want to fuck a goat she has to stump three times for yes and it can only be vaginal sex. Nor sure what happens if the goat is found to have been carrying condoms.

[RawAlex]

Peaches, I know very well that this is a state of California thing, but I am sure and certain that the current "anti-porn" tide helps them decide to take the issue on a little more clearly. The source of the anti-porn wind is the Bush team, very specifically Minister Ashcroft (He is a lay minister, did you know that? That is right, no seperation of church and state there!).

Alex

[Peaches]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Sep 18 2004, 11:45 AM
Peaches, I know very well that this is a state of California thing, but I am sure and certain that the current "anti-porn" tide helps them decide to take the issue on a little more clearly. The source of the anti-porn wind is the Bush team, very specifically Minister Ashcroft (He is a lay minister, did you know that? That is right, no seperation of church and state there!).

Alex

OK, for YEARS I've been reading about how adult video companies have said the government will crack down on condom use if the companies don't self police themselves. This was said LONG before Bush was in office.

And since when is wanting condom use, i.e. safe working environments, "anti-porn"? California is by far one of the most liberal state governments in the country (if not THE most liberal) and you're finding fault with them? Interesting.

Now to your "Separation of church and state" comment. Here's the amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Please explain how Ashcroft's being a lay minister (which I believe Lance and Ynot Bob are also) has had any effect on that amendment being ignored? Not what you THINK he MIGHT do, but what he's actually done in the last 4 years.

[LadyLaw]

It was clever of California to use their exisiting employment laws, which protect employees from hazardous exposure to known toxins, chemicals, etc., rather than draft a new law specifically targetting the porn industry.

When an adult indutry employee complained about possible exposure to blood-borne pathogens (HIV and Hep.C) without adequate protection, this opened the door for the California Health Department to legitimately investigate and levy hefty fines for violations.

California will argue until the cows come home there is no discrimination against the porn industry, just a health and safety issue handled routinely under exisiting law.

[JR]

the AID's scare, the people now dying from unprotected sex on porn sets, the faked documents, as well as the irresponsibility of most people in this biz was all the fault of Bush and Ashcroft.

[SykkBoy]

Originally posted by Peaches@Sep 18 2004, 11:15 AM
Please explain how Ashcroft's being a lay minister (which I believe Lance and Ynot Bob are also)

I only got my credentials so I could perform gay weddings and marry my athiest/agnostic/satanic/non-religious friends..........

[RawAlex]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

peaches, read carefully: "abridging the freedom of speech" - let's go a little further into extremes to make this easier: imagine Ashcroft was a devout muslim. He pushed laws to stop women from going outside without a headscarf. Now, is that TRULY any different from "stop making porn because it offends me the christian"?

In the end, it is the same thing, just in the christian oriented western world, we wouldn't notice it.

Would you tolerate a priest as president? As a member of congress? Can you not see where their pledge to god is a higher calling for them than the pledge to the people?

Ashcroft is a religious man, a minister, and he chooses, on a daily basis, what situations are important and which ones are not. His being a minister colors what he sees as right and wrong, and he works from THAT, not from the constitution (see the number of things he has put forth that have been slapped down on a constituional level).

Even though this discussion is about a state law, trust me, the power behind it comes from the federal level (wasn't that AAAAAAAAArnold at the RNC?)

Alex

[RawAlex]

JR, no, the adult industry brought this on themselves. That isn't the point - the point is that there are people at the federal level looking to attack the adult industry any way they can, I am sure that Ashcroft has discussed this issue with the AG for California, to find ways to put pressure on.

Ladylaw: It is a beautiful application of laws to achieve a desired result, even one that is not intended. Sort of like using zoning laws to restrict adult businesses.

Alex

[Peaches]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Sep 18 2004, 12:28 PM

peaches, read carefully: "abridging the freedom of speech" - let's go a little further into extremes to make this easier: imagine Ashcroft was a devout muslim. He pushed laws to stop women from going outside without a headscarf. Now, is that TRULY any different from "stop making porn because it offends me the christian"?

In the end, it is the same thing, just in the christian oriented western world, we wouldn't notice it.

Would you tolerate a priest as president? As a member of congress? Can you not see where their pledge to god is a higher calling for them than the pledge to the people?

Ashcroft is a religious man, a minister, and he chooses, on a daily basis, what situations are important and which ones are not. His being a minister colors what he sees as right and wrong, and he works from THAT, not from the constitution (see the number of things he has put forth that have been slapped down on a constituional level).

Even though this discussion is about a state law, trust me, the power behind it comes from the federal level (wasn't that AAAAAAAAArnold at the RNC?)

Alex

Again, Alex, where are the facts? What laws has Ashcroft had passed that you think were only passed because of his religious beliefs?

Even better, what makes you think Kerry is going to be elected and the California condom issue will magically disappear?

[JR]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Sep 18 2004, 08:31 AM
JR, no, the adult industry brought this on themselves. That isn't the point - the point is that there are people at the federal level looking to attack the adult industry any way they can, I am sure that Ashcroft has discussed this issue with the AG for California, to find ways to put pressure on.

Ladylaw: It is a beautiful application of laws to achieve a desired result, even one that is not intended. Sort of like using zoning laws to restrict adult businesses.

Alex

you often confuse your own opinion with fact. i understand bush, ashcroft etc are against porn... but what the state of california would or would not be doing, who said what, what order came from where etc... is just a guess or assumption on your part that you put forth as fact... and the single truth in this whole conversation is that you do not know the facts. you are just guessing.

it also seems perfectly logical to assume that when an AID's outbreak happens due to unprotected sex (this is not the first time) that people would be pressuring the state to monitor what they are doing. regardless of political orientation.. the truth is that just as you agreed, the industry brought it on themselves... so it makes little sense for you to then try to characterize it as a republican witch hunt.

using your logic, we would all have to assume that democrats don't care about the safety and health of 18/19 year old girls that go to california and are now dying as a result of a porn shoot (as is the case with the first girl).. since taking any action to control the porn business and enforce safety issues is somehow a violation of the constitution in your eyes.. and we know how blaspemous suggesting that democrats might do such a thing is. its much better to just let those 18 year old kids die and avoid the real issues.

if there was a democrat for president and this happened, you would be arguing the absurdity of people trying to point out that it came from the President... because your arguments are about political polarization and "us against them" (a little weird considering you are not even a US voter) than proveable fact.

they are enforcing existing state law and that is something has absolutely nothing to do with Ashcrofts religion and you certainly can't prove that it all came from the white house as much as you would like to be able to.

[RawAlex]

JR, as usual, you take what I say and twist in in circles.

The adult industry should always use condoms. SHame on them for not using it. They brought this on themselves. California is using existing laws to come down on the porn industry.

It isn't a "witch hunt", I never said it was. However, we all know that Ashcroft has met with all AGs from the states a couple of times and specifically on the agenda was using local, state, and federal laws against the "digusting purveyors of porn". That doesn't mean just using the COPA style laws, but rather to apply any law possible in order to restrain, contrain, and obstruct the adult industry from doing what is their legal right in the US to do. Legal rights are not important when your bible says it is wrong.

As I noted, it is similar to using zoning laws to effectively make it illegal to have an adult business in a community. You know, not within 5000 feet of a school, church, hospital, seniors residence, other adult businesses, bus terminals, day care centers, or other... to the point where there is in fact NO place within city limits that is acceptable.

Yes, the industry brought this on themselves, but Ashcroft's zeal to get after the adult industry helps the state's AGs willingness to apply these laws in these circumstances. These are the types of prosecutions that might not stand up in court, but can sure slow the industry down and add expenses to the bottom line.

Again, note that I did not say that the state of California is wrong to apply these laws, I just think that they are applying them in this manner because the feds will "back them up" on it.

Alex

[RawAlex]

oh, and, NO, I don't think Ashcroft got on the phone to the California AG and said "Use this law to fuck them up over condoms".... it isn't that direct. It is creating an atmosphere and a tacit support for such actions that is in play here. There might not be the same reaction had this happened 5 years ago, example.

Alex

[JR]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Sep 18 2004, 09:00 AM

It isn't a "witch hunt", I never said it was. However, we all know that Ashcroft has met with all AGs from the states a couple of times and specifically on the agenda was using local, state, and federal laws against the "digusting purveyors of porn". That doesn't mean just using the COPA style laws, but rather to apply any law possible in order to restrain, contrain, and obstruct the adult industry from doing what is their legal right in the US to do. Legal rights are not important when your bible says it is wrong.

a crisis happened and it was one of many. this time it was feared that dozens of people would be killed.

the state enforced existing laws that are on the books that are designed for this exact thing. it is not the legal right of porn companies to kill young girls and guys. it is not the right of porn companies to break the law.

furthermore, NO ONE is obstructing companies from making movies. (which is their legal right as you correctly stated)

my opinion is that you are stretching things very far to characterize this as a Bush conspiracy while ignoring the obvious possibility - people are dying as a result of violating california state law and it was decided to enforce it. why is that such an outrageous impossibility?

again... the horrible implication of yours is that no action whatsoever should be taken. thats a pretty weird stance considering people are dying. what do you think should happen when people fail to police themselves, break the law and kill people?

[RawAlex]

JR, it is up to individual performers, actors, actresses, and each person involved in the industry to know and understand the risks before they get involved in the industry. It is no different than picking someone up at a bar and having unsafe sex. That happens all the time, and literally hundreds of thousands of people have died in the US as a result of that.

The 4 people who got sick as a result of the HIV situation this year were performers in a high risk business, and they CHOSE to take the additional risk of unprotected anal sex. The men chose to give, the girl chose to receive, etc.

Yes, the producers bear some responsiblity for filming (and potentially encouraging) these dangerous acts, but none of the performers was "forced" (except by their desire to make money by fucking on camera) to participate.

If they are looking for a criminal, they should look at the actor who had unprotected sex with multiple untested partners (while in South American) and, knowing the risks involved, chose to do scenes in the US immediately after that involved risky behavior.

Yes, California is smart for using existing laws (rather than attempting to write new ones) to cover this situation, but it is a fairly large hammer to solve what in effect is a minor issue compared to the overall AIDS epidemic.

IMHO, the AGotUS has put into the minds of each and every state AG the desire to get at the porn industry, and I feel it quite likely that he (or his department) were consulted on this issue. I would NOT be surprised to have seen an active role taken at the federal level to review these laws to make the state feel comfortable that they could be applied.

Ashcroft's being a Minister has so many implications, some more obvious, some less obvious.

Nobody on either side wants ANYONE to get infected and / or die of HIV. I have too many friends who have suffered and died to think anyone would want that. However, the amount of effort to get after 4 isolated cases seems a little bit, well, extreme, when you look at the overall picture (hint: There were probalby 4 new infections in the US in the time it took to read this!).

Alex

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Sep 17 2004, 09:50 AM
Hmmm...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...&type=printable

This might finally be the type of actions that drive the business out of California. Not because the industry wants to shoot without condoms (except for a few, oh well) but that this is a government agency peeping in on the productions... and possibly creating havoc for companies.

It's strange days indeed.

Alex

PS: Americans, vote for Kerry. he might be an ass, but Bush is, well, dangerous.

What does this issue have to do with Bush? I doubt he even knows or cares about it!! This is a STATE issue, not a federal issue. This is being done by officials in the most liberal state in the US.

It is troubling, but so is AIDS. If Industry cannot police itseld the State will always come in and fill the void - it is easy for the state to claim "workplace health issues" and jump to regulate.

It is funny to see people who hate Bush so much that they try to saddle the man with things that he has no control over at all. If Bush was Gov of California maybe you could have some kind of arguement.

RawAlex we need to give you a refresher class on the Federal System we have here in the US.

[JR]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Sep 18 2004, 09:29 AM
JR, it is up to individual performers, actors, actresses, and each person involved in the industry to know and understand the risks before they get involved in the industry. It is no different than picking someone up at a bar and having unsafe sex. That happens all the time, and literally hundreds of thousands of people have died in the US as a result of that.

i can't believe that as a liberal, you are saying "its ok if everyone kills themselves" and as someone that is fairly conservative, i am saying "maybe the state should intervene where people obviously fail to regulate themselves and protect the lives of people"

it is different than picking up someone in a bar Alex.... some idiot not knowing he is infected and picking up girls is hardly the same as a production company hiring teenage runaways and junkies to do bukkake shoots as a business practice... and then trusting them when they say "don't worry about it, you'll be fine"

[*KK*]

It will be interesting to see if the companies appeal the fines and actually get this brought into court. Here in California who the hell knows what the 9th might come up with as a ruling if it gets before the bench.

[RawAlex]

JR, I missed the part where the shoots involved runaways and junkies. I didn't see that in the news...

It isn't about "it's okay to kill yourself". It is about having SOME personal responsibility. The collective governments and various groups have spent untold numbers of dollars promoting aids awareness. Each and every one of these performers should know that AIDS is a serious consequence of unprotected sex. They should have had the HIV tests (and if they didn't, and the producers did require them, well, the producers then really did drop the ball!). As much as you would love to paint me with a big liberal tag, fact of the matter is I am a BIG believer in personal responsibility.

HIV and AIDS is horrible. I hope you never see someone die of it.

Alex