Click Here For The Home Page

CNBC Says "Mike South - South is the Nikki Finke of the porn industry. His blog, which is never short on opinion, is a must-read among industry insiders. His style is unique, but he is also a leading agent of change within the industry. There are few fence-sitters when it comes to opinions about South, but no one ignores him."

Mike South Filmography

Recent Comments

  • Clover Arrested Again. At AEE (23)
    • LurkingReader: @erik2690 ” where can you find who owns what trademarks online?” Might want to start with the US Trade & Patent...
    • BT: Erik: It is not uncommon for production companies like DP to own the name and website of its contract girls. There is nothing out of the...
    • erik2690: So now it’s not about Digital owning that name as well? That was the first excuse. You’re confusing me. Now you are saying...
    • MikeSouth: I make tipos all the time and readilt admit them NP but there are good reasons to make them specially on an adult blog…think about...
    • erik2690: So they own both? Despite one of those names not being the name of the performer? Is that allowed? Can they own ‘Jess Jane’...
    • common sense: Not surprised. Like I said, most of the men in this industry today hate women (I am not just referring to the talent) .. and the...
    • MikeSouth: Digital owns the variation jessie jane as well as jesse jane but that aint the point there is value to a website to also cover these...
    • erik2690: So Digital does own “Jessie Jane”? If not, you’re saying you’re reporting wrong info purposefully as some weird...
  • Kurt Lockwood Gets An Ass Whipping and Trespassed By Hard Rock Cafe (3)
  • Is Gregg Dodson a Pimp? Is Dillon Harper A Prostitute? Is Cytheria A Prostitute? You decide (19)
    • mharris127: I don’t know about Christi Lake but producer “Porno” Dan Leal does Fuck-A-Fan scenes on his paysite (along with other...

Kurt Lockwood Gets An Ass Whipping and Trespassed By Hard Rock Cafe

Not sure of the circumstances yet (but I am sure I will hear) but word is that Alana Evans Hubby Chris pounded Lockwood last night and that Lockwood as a result is now banned from the Hard Rock in Vegas…More as I get it

Apparently it had something to do with Lockwood assaulting his girlfriend (SammyRyRy) and then threatening Alana Evans

ATMLA Drops Clover

cloverOne of the things I do here is give credit where its due, and in this case Mark Schechter at ATMLA did the right thing by dropping Clover from it’s roster.  There are those that would argue the move is a bit late and that Clover was given a second and even a third chance that he shouldn’t have been but in the end dropping him is the right thing to do.  Clover should go the way of Mr Marcus and it appears he may actually become the third guy to flunk out of porn.

Mark Schechter had this to say:

“There is no place in this industry for a person who perpetrates domestic violence against women, disrespect for women or shows a propensity for violence.  Our prayers and sympathy go out to the victims.

“I hope this becomes a lesson for anyone else in this industry who demonstrates this type of behavior that this industry will not tolerate violence against women,”

I am told that was a direct shot at Michael Whiteacre who lead the pack in domestic violence charges in 2014 having been arrested four times with a total of around ten different charges.  Like Mark or not he is dead right on that point, we have far too many guys who hate women that have slimed into this business in the last ten years.  Now is a good time to clean house.

Clover Arrested Again. At AEE

This time for beating up Morgan lee apparently he is trying to catch up to Uncle Peg Ari Bass/Michael Whiteacre.  Clover was also charged with possession of Cocaine and is currently being held in Las vegas Lockup

In Other news from AEE


Finally Several people have inquired about Jesse Jane, she is gone from Digital Playground and Digital Playground owns the trademark and the name Jessie Jane, as well as her site and anything else to do with that name.  She is now simply calling herself Jesse and is contracted to Jules Jordan Video.

Friday Fun Post A Rock And Roll Experience

I talked to Mike today and he was feeling a bit under the weather so I told him I would put up a fresh post. Hope you’re feeling better.

There is a world outside of porn, and I had a very cool experience in my world a few weeks ago. I have always enjoyed rock and roll, and have been in a little band with several of my childhood friends since we were in high shcool. Beatles, Stones,Chuck Berry, Neil Young,Clapton,Tom Petty type rock and roll. I have a 1968 Rickenbacker 360 guitar, my baby.

I like to go to Hollywood Guitar Center and play guitars in their “Vintage Room,” 1959 Telecasters, 58 Stratocasters, vintage Fender Bassman amps. So I am in the vintage room, playing a 1965 12string Rickenbacker 360 through and old VOX ac30 amp, heaven on earth, when who walks in the room, Mike Campbell, lead guitar player for Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers. He looks at me and says, “I love that guitar, I play it every time I come here.” Without saying anything I just look at him and start strumming the chords to Free Fallin. He gets a big ole smile on his face, grabs a bitchen early Gretch guitar off the wall and walks over. The GC employee grabs one of those cajon boxes, and another GC employee grabs a bass, and two minutes later we have an audience of about 25 people and we have a little jam session going. We played, Last Dance With Mary Jane, Free Fallin, You Dont Know How It Feels, Roll Over Bethoven.

Then me and Mike trade guitars, and we want to play A Hard Days Night. Now most rockers know that the first chord to Hard Days Night has been disputed for a long time. We talked for a few minutes and I told Mike Campbell he has been playing it wrong and I gave him my version of the opening chord,,,,,one guitar plays a Dsus4, one plays an F6, and the bass hits a D note. We all get set, 1,2,3,4, and hit the chord,, it sounds glorious. We do it a few more times just for the sheer joy how it sounds. Mike is pleasantly surprised and talks about hopefully adding Hard Days Night to the Heartbreakers live show. Mike was a very cool guy, and even showed me a few tricks for Free Fallin, and Mary Jane. I got a selfie with us holding these vintage instruments, which I then proceeded to send to my bandmates. They are extememly jelous, and right they should be.

Life away from THIS world is just so much better on so many levels. If you’re a musician, and have a few friends to help you out, try that Hard Days Night chord, but don’t just listen to it, feel it, and see if an uncontrolable smile doesn’t just magically appear on your face, and the face of everybody who hears it.

Is Gregg Dodson a Pimp? Is Dillon Harper A Prostitute? Is Cytheria A Prostitute? You decide

Everyone once in a while I run across something so incredibly stupid that it defies logic

I ran across this this morning, according to the article it happened yesterday in Vegas and was not the first time it was attempted.

Adult Verified Video Chat is letting fans pay for the chance to have sex with a porn star on camera.

On the first of November the site Adult Verified Video Chat declared that was on the move a very special kind of auction – sex with a porn star to the highest bidder.

And the porn star is Dillion Harper. It’s not prostitution, they say. It’s entertainment.

According to the site, the famous porn star Isis Love (who by the way is also a producer) will shot [sic] the scene in Las Vegas, at an upscale residence (of course), in January 20, one day before the beginning of the famous convention AVN.

This is the second auction that Adult Verified Video Chat has hosted. The first was with the porn star, known for her squirting talents, Cytherea. But because schedule problems the scene never happened and there was never a money transaction.

Talent that is now available on the platform includes Danni Cole, Isis Love, Brandy Aniston, Dakota Skye, Belle Knox, Emma Starr, Rilynn Rae, Alexis Monroe, Noelle Easton, Kennedy Leigh, Bethany Benz, Victoria Summers, Dillion Harper, Tanya Tate, Veronica Avluv, Katie St. Ives and many more. (reckon which of these girls is next)

Apparently the winning bid was $9,200 offered by a john named “Andrewcool11″

When I spoke to several attorneys every single one was shocked that anyone would think that this transaction was NOT prostitution, but who knows maybe Karen Tynan will represent Gregg Dodson, owner of adultverifiedvideochat and explain how it isn’t prostitution. And if it isn’t then maybe thats how porn can get out of the slump its in…..replace male performers that want to be paid with male performers that will pay 9,200 bucks to be in the scene…WOW

Tony T, CET, Manwin, The FSC, Dr Miao…Pretty cozy, but losing…..

Turns out Ismael Ibrahim, aka, Tony T is indeed a part owner of Cutting Edge Testing, apparently with a 150K stake he made growing medical Marijuana.

Tony T was contracted as a director to Manwin, who bought the Aptima Testing Machine for Cutting Edge Testing makes me wonder what Tony’s 150K was used for?  As many readers pointed out  back then Manwin was saying they would ONLY accept tests from CET.

Of course The FSC was a part of this as well.  I have witnesses that place Diane Duke, Dr Miao and Tony T at private meetings in the valley.

There’s a fly in the ointment though, seems CET, which was never really on solid ground has become very shaky since the departure of Jen and Bobbi, as I pointed out months ago they are well liked and as I suspected many followed them to Talent Testing Services.

The much touted (By the FSC) PASS system is barely being utilized at all by performers, I hear that from across the board, and have been hearing it for a long time.  Many performers as well as agents and company owners are hoping that Talent Testing Services will restart their superior system making PASS obsolete.  Indeed if I were Sixto I would strike now, no doubt about it.  If I were APAC (which clearly I am not LOL) I would get behind this move quickly because TTS had the better system and talent was safer all the way around in that system.

On a different note…what do Nikki Benz, Summer Brielle and Veronica Avluv all have in common?   What indeed….

Axel Braun Gets It, Yes You Read That Right

While we may disagree on some things Axel Braun showed himself to be one of the more intelligent people in the biz.  He was the Keynote speaker for XBiz 360 and he ended the speech with why we should go all condom.

I have said the same thing many times in the past, now is the time for a preemptive strike and the best way to cripple this legislation is to make it superfluous.  People generally aren’t keen on adding new laws and if the industry is using condoms and making a big show of it, STD rates are suddenly almost non existent, and we are already using condoms…we don’t the law.  It would  be a smart move, which is EXACTLY why The FSC and porn in general hasn’t gotten behind it in the past.  It is how we can begin to combat this law that costs the least yet has the best chance for a positive result.

Combine this with courting pharmaceutical companies and public health involvement and we could win.

Hats off to you Axel It wasn’t what porners want to hear, but it’s the truth…good for you for telling it. Credit where it’s due.

Braun closed his keynote with a controversial topic—condoms in porn. Already an industry leader with his on-set policies of a required seven-day STI test which he pays for, a minimum performer age of 21 and mandatory condoms, Braun pointed to the latest attempt to by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) to push through the statewide “California Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act.” The proposed measure was sent to the Attorney General’s office last week for approval prior to a likely signature drive for a spot on the 2016 ballot.

“If you read the text of the proposed law, you probably figured out that it is not meant to protect performers, [I do wish they would stop with this bullshit…the ONE thing it does MOST is protect performers, y’all REALLY need to get that because denying it simply makes you look foolish. -South] but to destroy the industry. It is not about condoms, it’s about politics,” Braun told the audience. “It’s full of booby traps and will allow people to sue producers left and right, and you mark my words: it will cripple us. Now we can fight it…but do we have a loud enough voice to convince the general public that we are still safer than most workplaces?

“All that people are gonna read on the ballot is ‘Safer Sex Act,’ and they’ll vote for it. So here’s a thought…how about self-regulating before that happens? How about going full-condom so that [AHF President Michael] Weinstein cannot use the condom excuse to pass this law? Think your movies won’t sell anymore? What about Dorcel, a French company that shoots all-condom and outsell most companies here? What about Wicked, one of the most successful companies in the business that’s been condom-only for 15 years? And in my first year shooting with condoms I’ve sold more movies and got more award nominations than ever in my life.”

Braun added, “Look, I’m not here to do a pro-condom speech, or to level the playing field, I’m just trying to tell you what I foresee in the future of the industry. And in this case the possibility of this law passing makes me think that volunteering might be a better option than being mandated. Whatever the case, our strength as an industry has always been in adapting. We adapt, we survive.”


Just When I Thought I Could No Longer Be Surprised By The Level of Stupidity Expressed By The FSC

Misguided ‘Adult Film Act’ Would Remove Performer Protections, Drive Industry Underground

[OK Lets be honest here, really honest, the first part of this is completely dishonest, It doesn’t remove “performer Protections”. Not ONE.  In truth the one thing this act does do without question is improve performer protection, no matter how uneducated you are you can surely understand that. Will it drive some of the industry underground?  Yes, but there are cross checks that would simply make it not worthwhile to try to operate that way.  The real truth is that the only honest word in that slug line is misguided, the problem is that it is this article that is misguided, not the Act.]


“Today, Michael Weinstein of AHF submitted the draft text of his controversial statewide ballot measure, which would force adult film performers to wear condoms, calling them a threat to public health. ”

[ I presume Diane means the performers not the condoms, but with Diane it’s hard to be sure]

“The Act would result in an effective criminalization of the adult industry. Under AHF’s proposed Act, those involved in the manufacture of an adult film that did not comply would be personally liable for massive penalties for even minor infractions.”

[This is not correct, except that this is true right now, whether the Act passes or not, the difference being it is not currently a criminal matter, nor will the Act make it criminal, the Act provides for civil, not criminal remedies(mostly)]

“The Act would require adult film producers to be issued licenses by the government in order to produce, and would require performers to submit their personal medical records for state inspection.”

[This is correct, but is it a bad thing really?  I would argue that it is but truth is everyone has to be licensed to do anything these days, at the very least you must have a business license.]

“Talent agents would be punished for representing adult performers. ”

[That is absolutely not true, they would be punished for sending performers to work on a set with illegal activity going on, just as they can be now]

“And, perhaps most dramatically, and in an acknowledgement that Measure B succeeded in driving the industry out of state, the Act would effectively prohibit the sale and distribution of adult films produced without condoms inside California, even in private transactions.”

[That is simply not true there is no wording in the bill that prohibits sale and distribution, it even states that even if condoms aren’t visible in the finished product it is fine as long as condoms are used]

“This is not regulation — this is Prohibition.”

[ It is obvious that you do not know the definition of either “regulation” or “prohibition”

“The Act would destroy the industry as we know it, drive the existing producers underground, and eliminate hard-fought performer protections.”

[How can anyone with half  enough brains to power a piss ant’s motorcycle half way around a BB make that statement? ” hard -fought performer protections? Really?  Please explain to me who fought for any protections for performers? Ever.  Only Michael Weinstein and AHF are fighting for performer protection, let’s be honest about that.]

“This process has already begun to happen in the wake of AHF”s misguided Measure B. Film permits dropped, productions moved out-of-state, and producers began shooting outside the industry’s widely praised testing system.”

[ Most of the first part is largely true (permits have dropped a few productions have moved even … but “the industry’s widely praised testing system”  who the fuck are you kidding? The only people who praise this system is The FSC, even most performers know it is a poor system at best and honestly is looking more and more like a scam on the part of The FSC, CET, Tony T, and Manwin/MindGeek]

That’s why, like AHF’s previous campaigns, we expect this will be vigorously opposed by performers.

[No, performers are at best apathetic, most performers will tell you that ideally they would like to have the choice to use a condom, that they would like to be the ones who make or don’t make that choice.  That is the simple truth, as inconvenient for The FSC as it is.]

Performers should always have the right to use a condom, but AHF’s conservative morality should not be forced on them under penalty of law. Performer should have control over their bodies, not the government and certainly not Michael Weinstein.

[If you replace the Letters AHF with FSC and the words Michael Weinstein with producers you get the problem….Peformers DO NOT have a choice and they have NOT had a choice for a very long time.]

What is APAC’s stance on this?  as if I need to ask….APAC could clearly come out here and do something honest for performers.  This is where we will see whose pocket APAC is in….as if we don’t already know.]


OK y’all If THIS is how you intend to fight this law, you may as well forfeit right now.  THIS is the problem with Diane Duke and the FSC  repeating this set of lies over and over, ad nauseum will not defeat this Act.  We have until November of 2016 to get our shit together, if this statement is the best that can be done it is very sad.  This may be the single dumbest thing I have ever read in my life.  Do I want this act to pass? HELL NO. But I am not going to get behind clearly ignorant rhetoric that makes me look as stupid as whomever penned this inanity.

Larry Flynt, Steven Hirsch, Steve Orenstein, John Stagliano, Patrick Collins, John Blitt, Moose, Greg Alves and so many more of you guys…You aren’t morons, do NOT throw money at this scheme we have intelligent people in this industry that can come up with good strategies to address this over the next two years. DO IT!  Enough is enough you guys have enough sense to see that this is too important to entrust it to the moron that wrote The FSC response.  Alec Helmy, you IN PARTICULAR should be embarrassed that this is the best that the organization you are on the board can do.  I know you and I know you are smarter than this.

Porn has one chance to get this right and about two years to do it….Don’t fuck it up!



Who Owns Cutting Edge Testing?

I am getting reports that  Ismael Ibrahim, aka, Tony T.  is a part owner of Cutting Edge Testing?

He attends meetings with Dr. Miao and Diane Duke I am told.

Do tell…..whats up with that one? More as this unfolds….

Who Will Benefit and Who Won’t From the Statewide Condom Law

At first glance you would automatically say that performers will benefit, and to some degree that is true.  For sure the A List will benefit, it may weed out a lot of performers on the low end of the scale though.  That is already happening to a large degree because most companies have cut production drastically. It also relieves them of the burden of testing costs and post exposure treatments for any STD.

The performers who will benefit most though will probably be the ones that are not USA based.  As many have pointed out in the previous post it’s not so hard to simply place a phone call or send an email and get content shot outside the USA.  There is talk of American porn actresses being flown to foreign countries to shoot and things of that sort.  While that could happen it would almost certainly be for the very upper echelon girls because financially it doesn’t make sense to fly the girls to say The Czech Republic and put them up when you have a plethora of gorgeous girls in Prague that shoot for half of what their American counterparts get.  This is why many of the Euro talent comes to the USA wanting to shoot.

Another thing I noticed about the law is hat it doesn’t differentiate between male and female condoms so a good female condom manufacturer may find this to be a boom market.

Male talent on the other hand could face problems, many of todays performers can’t perform without a condom and a Caverject injection or a handfull of Viagra so those guys are going to fall by the wayside VERY quickly, guys who can perform with a condom will get even more work…lots more.  One such performer I talked to was excited about this aspect, more money for him.

Any way you look at it this law will be tough on agents, the further slow down in work, the offshore production of content and regulations forbidding them to book shoots with non compliant companies.  There is no upside for agents.

The FSC and Diane Duke will benefit greatly.  Porners desperate to fight the law will pour in money, money that largely (over 75%) goes to pay for nothing but Diane Dukes salary and expenses.  No matter what she tells you she is loving the prospect of this…it is job security for her unless porners get smart and send her and The FSC packing like should have been done a lone time ago.

Companies like Evil Angel actually won’t benefit much or be hurt much, its pretty neutral for them.  Companies that rely on in house directors and such will be hurt unless they outsource from offshore, then those in house directors will be toast…in many cases I would say good riddance.

AHF will benefit because this is a huge publicity coup.  It will generate massive amounts of money and attention plus it will help relieve them of the burden of taking care of the people in the industry who do get STD’s.

The guys that will be hurt the most are the independent US based producers that rely on extreme content.   The good ones will do fine, they will continue to make quality product with condoms and prolly not miss a lick but the ones that depend on extreme and trainwreck content….not so much.

The lawyers, on both sides, again job security.

Finally the one thing that bothers me the most about this or any law like this is that once it is cast in the legal doctrine it’s next to impossible to get out.  For example suppose this law passes now in 10 years some big pharma company developes an STD vaccine that completely eliminates all STDs, they all go the way of Polio…The law is still enforceable and still on the books and can be used to harass. Don’t laugh, such a vaccine is certainly possible in the next ten years.

In the end we are reaping what we have sown.  How many times do you stick someone with the check before that someone no longer wants to go to dinner with you.  porners took no responsibility in looking after our own and instead dumped them off on society…well now society is coming to us and saying hey….time to pay your dues…..









How The California Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act Impacts YOU!

If you haven’t read the previous post..The text of The California Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act, go do it NOW!

Much has already been written about this but There will be things here that will be useful to everyone.

First lets get some things out of the way.

This is well written legislation and it has more teeth than a school of barracuda.  It is all based on existing law and technically doesn’t allow for civil action that couldn’t already be taken.  What it does do is quantifies and codifies it into one law. Much has already been pointed out about how it makes producers civilly liable for non condom shoots.  It also makes penalizes agents who send talent to non condom shoots.  All of this has been discussed here on in the past.  These are already actionable under civil law.

If you think this law will go down on a constitutional challenge you’d be wrong, it won’t.  There may be some small areas that would, like licensing producers,  but the law as a whole will stand.  It is sound and it is wholly based on existing law.

I made the statement many times over the years that one competent attorney could completely bankrupt this industry with civil lawsuits.  Welcome to the dawn of that prophecy.

If the industry wants to fight this they had better build a war chest, a big one and they had better NOT lay it in the hands of the incompetent group of morons at The Free Speech Coalition…Simply ask yourselves how that has worked for you so far?  You have a likely passage of this legislation by 71% of the likely voters.  Cons like slate mailers ain’t gonna overcome that…matter of fact you would likely see it grow in the wake of more bad publicity for the industry.

Don’t think running to Las Vegas or anyplace else will be a viable solution, this legislation will follow you, not to mention existing legislation may provide a stumbling block, Nevada is already talking of applying the same rules they have for brothels to any adult filming done in the state and unless you are completely clueless you know those rules require condoms.

If you haven’t read the text of the act  …one more time…do it NOW!

Who it effects:

Performers: Actually as a whole  it is VERY pro performer. It provides for 50,000.00 dollars every time a performer shoots without a condom, it also provides large monetary rewards for whistleblowers.

Producers:  Producers will be responsible for paying those penalties in the form of civil awards.  Producers will also have to be licensed, this is one area that could be challenged on constitutional prior restraint grounds.  It does have basis in law in that it IS constitutional to require licensing of dancers even though dancing is protected free speech.

What is interesting is that this law would have no real bearing on a company like Evil Angel.  Because every one of Evil Angels Producers IS an independent producer with his/her own company THEY would be the ones responsible for the fines, NOT Evil Angel. So Manuel Ferrara for instance, has a TON at stake here if he chooses to shoot his movies with no condoms.  John Stagliano would not be liable for penalties imposed on Manuel’s shoots.

In most other companies it would likely be that the producer would be deemed to be an employee of the company as things are now.  Look for companies to start taking moves requiring producers to have federal tax ID numbers and valid companies before the company will purchase product from them.

This differentiation may also be the bills biggest loophole as we will discuss.

Agents: There is liability on agents who knowingly send performers to non condom shoots.

There are other things but these are the bigger points.  Now, lets talk about how this would change the industry and where the potential loopholes are.

One thing I did last night was contact a handful of very high profile glamor models who don’t do boy girl.  After I explained the requirements of the legislation more than half responded that they would likely at least consider doing boy girl scenes if condoms were a strict requirement.  The result could be a much higher quality of girl coming into the business and way, way fewer performers as a whole.

Here comes the loophole I see.

What if Manuel and Nacho Vidal decide they want to do a gay scene together non condom….they simply become co-producers, equal partners in that scene. Since they are the producers they won’t be suing themselves….This is what I would envision as the husband and wife loophole.  Lets say a husband and wife are doing a website, they only work together and they own the website, as both producers and performers the law would have no effect and therein lies the potential fly in the ointment.  If the performers in the scene all OWN that scene and are all equal producers and the performers arent hired through an agency nobody faces a potential action.  This scenario would change how porn works and could potentially finally give performers an ownership stake…the downside of that would be that the performers would no longer be paid for the shoot on the spot, they would be paid when the shoot sold.

There is more but this is a good starting point.



The Entire Text of The California Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act

If you are in porn and you don’t read and understand this TODAY you are making a BIG BIG Mistake, this includes performers and agents.
There will be discussion about this later today and in the coming days and if you havent read this you wont understand it.  This is important.
The California Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act
The People of the State of California do hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1. Title.
This Act shall be known and may be cited as “The California Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act” (the “Act”).
Section 2. Findings and Declarations.
The People of the State of California hereby find and declare all of the following:
(a) Widespread transmission of sexually transmitted infections associated with making adult films in California has been documented by one or more county departments of public health. All workers in the adult film industry deserve to go to work and not become ill. It is important that safer sex practices in the making of adult films, and in particular the use of condoms by performers, be required so as to limit the spread of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections in the adult film industry. Not only is the risk of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections among adult film performers of immediate public concern, but so is the risk of transmitting HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections between adult film performers and the broader population.
(b) The adult film industry places profits above worker safety and actively prevents and discourages the use of certain essential safer sex methods. Costs of vaccinations, testing, and medical monitoring relative to HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections are currently unfairly borne by adult film performers, while adult film producers avoid bearing these costs and responsibilities. This Act is necessary and appropriate to address these public concerns.
Section 3. Purposes and Intent.
The People of the State of California hereby declare the following purposes and intent in enacting this Act:
(a) To protect performers in the adult film industry and minimize the spread of sexually transmitted infections resulting from the making of adult films in California, thus reducing the negative impact on people’s health and improving Californians’ quality of life.
(b) To require producers of adult films to comply with the law by requiring, among other things, that performers are protected by condoms from sexually transmitted infections.
(c) To authorize and require the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) and the California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board to take appropriate measures to enforce the Act.
(d) To require the costs of certain vaccinations, testing, and medical monitoring relative to HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections to be paid by adult film producers and to give adult film performers a private right of action to recover civil damages for economic or personal injury caused by adult film producers’ failure to comply with the health, vaccination, testing, and medical monitoring requirements of this Act.
(e) To hold liable all individuals and entities with a financial interest in the making or distribution of adult films who violate this Act.
(f) To require adult film producers to provide notice of filming, to maintain certain records regarding filming, to post a notice regarding the required use of condoms for specified scenes, and to fulfill additional health requirements.
(g) To discourage noncompliance and encourage compliance with the requirements of this Act by requiring adult film producers to be licensed.
(h) To extend the time in which the State of California may pursue violators of the Act.
(i) To enable whistleblowers and private citizens to pursue violators of the Act where the State fails to do so.
(j) To prohibit talent agents from knowingly referring performers to locations where condoms will not be used in the making of adult films.
(k) To provide for the Act’s proper legal defense should it be adopted and thereafter challenged in court.
Section 4. The California Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act shall be codified by adding the following provisions to the California Labor Code:
Section 6720. Health and Employment Requirements: Adult Film Industry.
(a) An adult film producer shall maintain engineering controls and work practice controls sufficient to protect adult film performers from exposure to blood and any other potentially infectious material – sexually transmitted infections (“OPIM-STI”). Engineering controls and work practice controls shall include: (1) Provision of and required use of condoms during the filming of adult films; (2) Provision of condom-safe water-based or silicone-based lubricants to facilitate the use of condoms; and (3) any other reasonable STI prevention engineering controls and work practice controls as required by regulations adopted by the Board through the Administrative Rulemaking process, so long as such engineering controls and work practice controls are reasonably germane to the purposes and intent of this Act.
(b) The costs of all STI prevention vaccinations, all STI tests, and all medical follow-up pursuant to the adult film regulations, or otherwise required by an adult film producer in order for an individual to be an adult film performer, shall be borne by the adult film producer and not by the adult film performer.
(c) An adult film producer’s failure to offer, provide, and pay for a STI prevention vaccine, STI test, or medical examination, as required by the adult film regulations or as required in order to be an adult film performer, if such vaccine, test, or examination is consented to by the adult film performer, shall result in a penalty against the adult film producer equal to the cost of each STI prevention vaccine, each STI test, and each medical examination that the adult film producer failed to offer, provide, or pay for on behalf of the adult film performer.
(d) Adult film producers shall maintain as strictly confidential, as required by law, any adult film performer’s health information acquired by any means.
(e) Any adult film performer may seek and be awarded, in addition to any other remedies or damages allowed by law, a civil damages award of up to $50,000, subject to yearly consumer price index increases, if the trier of fact: (1) finds that the adult film performer has suffered economic or personal injury as a result of the adult film producer’s failure to comply with Labor Code sections 6720(a), (b), (c), or (d); (2) makes an affirmative finding that the adult film producer’s failure to comply was negligent, reckless, or intentional; and (3) finds that an award is appropriate. The court shall award costs and attorney’s fees to a prevailing plaintiff in litigation filed pursuant to this section. Reasonable attorney’s fees may be awarded to a prevailing defendant upon a finding by the court that the plaintiff’s prosecution of the action was not in good faith.
(f) Any adult film performer entitled to bring an action under Labor Code section 6720(e) shall be entitled to bring such an action on behalf of all similarly situated adult film performers, subject to class certification by a court of competent jurisdiction.
(g) An adult film producer shall designate a custodian of records for purposes of this Act. A copy of each original and unedited adult film shall be retained by the custodian of records.
(h) By January 1, 2018, the Board shall adopt regulations to implement and effectuate the provisions and purposes of this Act in accordance with the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code) (“Administrative Rulemaking”).
(i) This section shall not be construed to require condoms, barriers, or other personal protective equipment to be visible in the final product of an adult film. However, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that any adult film without visible condoms that is distributed for commercial purposes in the State of California by any means was produced in violation of this section.
(j) Liability under this Act shall not apply to adult film performers, bona-fide employees, individuals providing independent contracting services, or production volunteers of an adult film producer who are acting within the scope of the general services being provided and in accordance with the instruction of the adult film producer, provided that such individuals have no financial interest in the adult film and are not adult film producers.
(k) In the event the amount of any monetary penalty set forth in this Act is found invalid by a court of law, the Division is empowered to and shall develop, and the Board is empowered to and shall adopt, monetary penalties via the Administrative Rulemaking process in a reasonable amount sufficient to deter noncompliance and encourage compliance with the requirements of the provision(s) in which the penalties are found to be invalid.
Section 6720.1. Notice & Disclosure.
(a) Within 10 days after the beginning of filming, an adult film producer must disclose to the Division, in writing, signed under penalty of perjury by the adult film producer, the following information:
(1) The address or addresses at which the filming took, is taking, or will take place, with any changes in location to be disclosed to the Division within 72 hours of such changes;
(2) The date or dates on which the filming took, is taking, or will place, with any changes to the filming date(s) to be disclosed to the Division within 72 hours of such changes;
(3) The name and contact information of the adult film producer;
(4) The name and contact information of the designated custodian of records as required by Labor Code section 6720(g);
(5) The name and contact information of any talent agency who referred any adult film performer to the adult film producer;
(6) A certification signed by the adult film producer, under penalty of perjury, that: (a) condoms will be used at all times during the filming of acts of vaginal or anal intercourse; (b) all STI testing, STI prevention vaccinations, and medical examinations, as required by the adult film regulations or otherwise required by an adult film producer in order for an individual to be an adult film performer, have been offered to the individual prior to the beginning of filming at no charge, and (c) the costs of all administered STI testing, STI prevention vaccination, and medical examinations have been paid by the adult film producer.
(7) Any other documentation or information that the Division or Board may require to assure compliance with the provisions of this Act.
(b) Upon submitting the information required by this section, the adult film producer must pay a fee set by the Division or Board in an amount sufficient for data security, data storage, and other administrative expenses associated with receiving, processing, and maintaining all information submitted under this section. Until the Division or Board sets the fee, the fee shall be $100.
(c) An adult film producer’s failure to timely or truthfully disclose to the Division the information required by this section or to comply with the Labor Code section 6720.1(d) training program requirement and the Labor Code section 6720.1(e) signage requirement shall be punishable by
a penalty of no less than $5,000 and no more than $15,000 per violation, as determined by the Division or a court of competent jurisdiction on a case-by-case basis.
(d) An adult film producer shall provide a training program to each adult film performer and employee as required by regulations adopted by the Board in accordance with the Administrative Rulemaking process.
(e) A legible sign shall be displayed at all times at the location(s) where an adult film is filmed in a conventional typeface not smaller than 48 point font, that provides the following notice so as to be clearly visible to performers in said films:
The State of California requires the use of condoms for all acts of vaginal or anal intercourse during the production of adult films to protect performers from sexually transmitted infections and diseases.
Any public health concerns regarding any activities occurring during the production of any adult films should be directed to: ______________________________________________________________.
(f) By January 1, 2018, the Division or Board shall adopt regulations to implement and effectuate this section and Labor Code section 6720.2 in accordance with the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code) (“Administrative Rulemaking”).
Section 6720.2. Adult Film Producers: License
(a) Within 10 days following the beginning of filming of an adult film, the adult film’s adult film
producer(s) shall pay the required application fee, submit a required application to the Division, and obtain from the Division an Adult Film Production Health License (“License”). The application fee shall be set by the Division via Administrative Rulemaking, in an amount sufficient to provide for the cost of the administration of this section. Until the Division sets the fee, the fee shall be $100.
(b) A License shall be effective immediately upon the Division’s receipt of the application and fee, and its effect shall be retroactive by 10 days or the day of beginning of filming, whichever is earlier.
(c) Issuance of a License shall be a ministerial task to be performed by the Division. Suspension of a License shall only be permitted upon a stipulation by an adult film producer or upon a proper showing before a Presiding Officer, to be selected by the Division to conduct the hearing, that the License holder has been found, via the administrative enforcement process or a civil action, to have violated Labor Code section 6720(a).
(d) For any adult film producer who is not an individual, no License shall be valid unless all owners and managing agents of such person obtain a License.
(e) A License shall be valid for two (2) years, unless suspended by the Division. Following the
last day of the suspension period, the Division shall inform the suspended licensee of License reinstatement.
(f) Licensing Requirements:
(1) Each applicant and licensee must not have been found, through the administrative enforcement process or by a court of competent jurisdiction, to have violated any of the requirements of Labor Code section 6720(a) for the twelve (12) months preceding the filing of an application with the Division or the duration of the adult film producer’s suspension, whichever is lesser. All persons shall be considered in compliance with this Act as of the effective date of this Act.
(g) Whenever the Division determines that a licensee has failed to comply with the requirements of Labor Code section 6720(a), the Division shall issue a written notice to the licensee. The notice shall include a statement of deficiencies found, shall set forth corrective measures, if any, necessary for the licensee to be in compliance with Labor Code section 6720(a), and shall inform the licensee that penalties and/or License suspension may result.
(h) A written request for administrative review, or for a continuance if good cause is shown, must be made by the noticed licensee within fifteen (15) calendar days of the issuance of the notice to comply, or else such review or continuance are waived.
(i) Within ten (10) days following the administrative review or waiver, excluding weekends and holidays, the Division shall issue a written notice of decision to the licensee, specifying any penalties imposed on the licensee. For Licenses that have been suspended, the notice of decision shall specify the acts or omissions found to be in violation of this Act, and, in the case of a suspended License, shall state the length and extent of the suspension. The notice of decision shall also state the terms, if any, upon which the License may be reinstated or reissued.
(j) A License issued pursuant to this Act may be reinstated if the Division determines that the conditions which prompted the suspension no longer exist and any penalties imposed pursuant to this Act has been satisfied. In no event shall this section be construed as limiting a licensee’s right to seek mandamus or to appeal an adverse License decision.
(k) Performing the functions of an adult film producer without a License shall result in a fine of up to $100 per day for any adult film producer who has previously been found to have violated Labor Code section 6720(a). Any adult film producer who fails to register as an adult film producer within 10 days after qualifying as an adult film producer shall be liable for a fine of up to $50 per day for performing the functions of as an adult film producer without a License.
Section 6720.3. Statute of Limitations.
(a) Notwithstanding Labor Code section 6317, in an action to prosecute any alleged violators of this Act or any adult film regulations now or hereafter adopted, the time for commencement of action
shall be the later of the following: (1) one year after the date of the violation; or (2) one year after the violation is discovered, or through the use of reasonable diligence, should have been discovered.
Section 6720.4. Liability and Penalties.
(a) Notwithstanding Labor Code section 6423, every adult film producer and every officer, management official, or supervisor having direction, management, control, or custody of any employment, place of employment, or of any adult film performer, who does any of the following shall, in an administrative or civil action, be assessed a penalty as defined in subsection (b) of this section:
(1) Knowingly, negligently, or repeatedly violates any provision of Labor Code section 6720, or any adult film regulations;
(2) Fails or refuses to comply with, after notification and expiration of any abatement period, any provision of Labor Code section 6720; or
(3) Aids and abets another to commit any of the acts in paragraphs (1) or (2) of subsection (a) of this section.
(b) Any violation of Labor Code sections 6720.4(a)(1) or (a)(2) is punishable by a penalty of not less than $10,000 nor more than $30,000; and any violation of Labor Code sections 6720.4(a)(3) is punishable by a penalty of not less than $5,000 nor more than $15,000.
Section 6720.5. Agents of Control; Aiding and Abetting; Multiple Violations.
(a) Every person who possesses, through purchase for commercial consideration, any rights in one or more adult films filmed in California in violation of Labor Code section 6720(a) and who knowingly or recklessly sends or causes to be sent, or brings or causes to be brought, into or within California, for sale or distribution, one or more adult films filmed in California in violation of Labor Code section 6720(a), with intent to distribute, or who offers to distribute, or does distribute, such film(s) for commercial purposes, shall be assessed a penalty of : (1) not less than one-half times, but not more than one-and-one-half times, the total amount of commercial consideration exchanged for any rights in the adult film(s); or (2) not less than one-half times, but not more than one-and-one-half times, the total cost of producing the adult film(s), whichever is greater.
(b) Any person found to have aided and abetted any other person or persons in violating Labor Code section 6720.5(a) shall be found liable for violating Labor Code section 6720.5(a).
(c) Any person found liable for violating Labor Code section 6720.5(a) who has previously been found liable for violating Labor Code section 6720.5(a) shall be assessed a penalty of: (1) not less than two times, but not more than three times, the amount of commercial consideration exchanged for any rights in the adult film; or (2) not less than two times, but not more than three times, the total cost of producing the adult film, whichever is greater.
(d) Any person found liable for violating Labor Code section 6720.5(a) who has been found liable two or more times for violating Labor code section 6720.5(a) shall be assessed a penalty of: (1) not less than three times, but not more than four times, the amount of commercial consideration exchanged for any rights in the adult film; or (2) not less than three times, but not more than four times, the total cost of producing the adult film, whichever is greater.
(e) This section shall not apply to legitimate medical, educational, and scientific activities, to telecommunication companies that transmit or carry adult films, and to criminal law enforcement and prosecuting agencies in the investigation and prosecution of criminal offenses.
Section 6720.6. Enforcement; Whistleblowers; Private Rights of Action.
(a) Any person who violates any provision of this Act shall be liable via the administrative enforcement process, or via a civil action brought by the Division or its designee, a civil prosecutor, an adult film performer aggrieved by a violation of Labor Code section 6720, or an individual residing in the State of California. Any adult film performer or individual, before filing a civil action pursuant to this subsection, must file with the Division a written request for the Division to pursue the alleged violator(s) via the administrative enforcement process or by commencing a civil action. The request shall include a statement of the grounds for believing that this Act has been violated. The Division shall respond to the individual in writing, indicating whether it intends to pursue an administrative or civil action, or take no action. If the Division, within 21 days of receiving the request, responds that it is going to pursue the alleged violator(s) via the administrative enforcement process or a civil action and does so within 45 days of receiving the request, no other action may be brought unless the Division’s action is abandoned or dismissed without prejudice. If the Division, within 21 days of receiving the request, responds in the negative, or fails to respond, the person requesting the action may proceed to file a civil action.
(b) The time period within which a civil action shall be commenced shall be tolled from
the date of the Division’s receipt of the request to either the date the civil action is dismissed without prejudice or the administrative enforcement action is abandoned, whichever is later, but only for a civil action brought by the individual who filed the request.
(c) No civil action may be filed under this section with regard to any person for any violations of the Act after the Division has issued an order consistent with this Act or collected a penalty against that person for the same violation. Although this Act imposes no criminal liability, no civil action alleging a violation of this Act may be filed against a person pursuant to this section if a criminal prosecutor is maintaining a criminal action against that person regarding the same transaction or occurrence. Not more than one judgment on the merits with respect to any particular violation of the Act may be obtained under this section against any person. The court may dismiss a pending action without prejudice to any other action for failure of the plaintiff to proceed diligently or in good faith.
(d) If judgment is entered against one or more defendants in an action brought under this section,
penalties recovered by the plaintiff shall be distributed as follows: 75 percent to the State of California and 25 percent to the plaintiff. The court may award to a plaintiff or defendant other than a governmental agency who prevails in any action authorized by this Act and brought pursuant to this section the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney’s fees. However, in order for a defendant to recover attorney’s fees from a plaintiff, the court must first find that the plaintiff’s pursuit of the litigation was frivolous or in bad faith.
Section 6720.7. Talent Agency Liability.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any talent agency, as that term is defined in Labor Code section 1700.4(a), to knowingly refer, for monetary consideration, any artist, as that term is defined in Labor Code section 1700.4(b), to any producer, or agent of the producer, including, but not limited to, casting directors, of adult films who are not in compliance with Labor Code section 6720(a). Any talent agency found liable for violating this subsection shall be liable to the artist for the amount of the monetary consideration received by the talent agency as a result of the referral made in violation of this section and for reasonable attorney’s fees associated with successfully pursuing the talent agency for liability for violating this subsection.
(b) Any talent agency that obtains written confirmation prior to the beginning of filming, signed under penalty of perjury by the producer of the adult film, that the producer is in compliance with, and will continue to comply with, all requirements of Labor Code section 6720(a) shall not be liable for violating this section.
(c) Violation of this section may be grounds for suspension or revocation of the violator’s talent agency license. The Division and the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement shall maintain concurrent jurisdiction over the enforcement of this section.
(d) Upon the finding of liability for violations of Labor Code section 6720(a), the Division shall transmit the information in Labor Code section 6720.1(a)(5) to the Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement or any successor agency.
Section 6720.8. Definitions.
(a) For purposes of California Labor Code (“Labor Code”) sections 6720 through 6720.8, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) “Adult film” means any recorded, streamed, or real-time broadcast of any film, video, multimedia, or other representation of sexual intercourse in which performers actually engage in vaginal or anal penetration by a penis.
(2) “Adult film performer” shall mean any individual whose penis penetrates a vagina or anus while being filmed, or whose vagina or anus is penetrated by a penis while being filmed.
(3) “Adult film producer” means any person that makes, produces, finances, or directs one or more
adult films filmed in California and who sells, offers to sell, or causes to be sold such adult film(s) in exchange for commercial consideration.
(4) “Adult film regulations” shall mean all regulations adopted by the Board in accordance with the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act that are reasonably germane to the purposes and intent of this Act.
(5) “Aided and abetted” or “aids and abets” means knowingly giving substantial assistance to a Person.
(6) “Beginning of filming” means the point at which an adult film begins to be recorded, streamed, or real-time broadcast.
(7) “Board” means the California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board.
(8) “Commercial consideration” means anything of value, including but not limited to, real or digital currency, or contingent or vested rights in any current or future revenue.
(9) “Commercial purposes” means to sell, offer to sell, or cause to be sold, in exchange for commercial consideration.
(10) “Distribute” or “distributed” means to transfer possession of in exchange for commercial consideration.
(11) “Division” means the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA).
(12) “Filmed” and “filming” means the recording, streaming, or real-time broadcast of any adult film.
(13) “License” means Adult Film Producer Health License.
(14) “Licensee” means any person holding a valid Adult Film Producer Health License.
(15) “Other potentially infectious material – sexually transmitted infections” (“OPIM-STI”) means bodily fluids and other substances that may contain and transmit sexually transmitted pathogens.
(16) “Person” means any individual, partnership, firm, association, corporation, limited liability company, or other legal entity.
(17) “Sexually Transmitted Infection” (“STI”) means any infection or disease spread by sexual conduct, including, but not limited to, HIV/AIDS, gonorrhea, syphilis, chlamydia, hepatitis, trichomoniasis, genital human papillomavirus infection (HPV), and genital herpes.
Section 5. Liberal Construction.
This Act is an exercise of the public power of the People of the State of California for the protection of their health, safety, and welfare, and shall be liberally construed to effectuate its purposes.
Section 6. Conflicting Measures.
This Act is intended to be comprehensive. It is the intent of the People of the State of California that in the event this Act and one or more measures relating to the same subject shall appear on the same statewide ballot, the provisions of the other measure or measures shall be deemed to be in conflict with this Act. In the event that this Act receives a greater number of affirmative votes, the provisions of this Act shall prevail in their entirety, and all provisions of the other measure or measures shall be null and void.
Section 7. Proponent Accountability
The People of the State of California hereby declare that the proponents of this Act should be held civilly liable in the event this Act is struck down, after passage, in whole or in part, by a court of law for being constitutionally or statutorily impermissible. Such a constitutionally or statutorily impermissible initiative is a misuse of taxpayer funds and electoral resources and the Act’s proponents, as drafters of the Act, must be held accountable for such an occurrence.
In the event this Act, after passage, is struck down in a court of law, in whole or in part, as unconstitutional or statutorily invalid, and all avenues for appeal have been exhausted, proponents shall pay a civil penalty of $10,000 to the General Fund of the State of California for failure to draft and sponsor a wholly constitutionally or statutorily permissible initiative law. No party or entity may waive this civil penalty.
Section 8. Amendment and Repeal.
This Act may be amended to further its purposes by statute passed by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the Legislature and signed by the Governor.
Section 9. Severability.
If any provision of this Act, or part thereof, or the applicability of any provision or part to any person or circumstances, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, the remaining provisions and parts shall not be affected, but shall remain in full force and effect, and to this end the provisions and parts of this Act are severable. The voters hereby declare that this Act, and each portion and part, would have been adopted irrespective of whether any one or more provisions or parts are found to be invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 10. Legal Defense.
The People of the State of California desire that the Act, if approved by the voters, and thereafter
challenged in court, be defended by the State of California. The People of the State of California, by enacting this Act, hereby declare that the proponents of this Act have a direct and personal stake in defending this Act from constitutional or statutory challenges to the Act’s validity. In the event the Attorney General fails to defend this Act; or the Attorney General fails to appeal an adverse judgment against the constitutionality or statutory permissibly of this Act, in whole or in part, in any court of law, the Act’s proponent(s) shall be entitled to assert its direct and personal stake by defending the Act’s validity in any court of law and shall be empowered by the citizens through this Act to act as agents of the citizens of the State of California subject to the following conditions: (1) The proponent(s) shall not be considered an “at-will” employee of the State of California, but the Legislature shall have the authority to remove the proponent(s) from their agency role by a majority vote of each house of the Legislature when “good cause” exists to do so, as that term is defined by California case law; (2) The proponent(s) shall take the Oath of Office under California Constitution, Article XX, §3 as an employee of the State of California; (3) The proponent(s) shall be subject to all fiduciary, ethical, and legal duties prescribed by law; and (4) The proponent(s) shall be indemnified by the State of California for only reasonable expenses and other losses incurred by the proponent, as agent, in defending the validity of the challenged Act. The rate of indemnification shall be no more than the amount it would cost the State to perform the defense itself.
Section 11. Effective Date.
Except as otherwise provided herein, this Act shall become effective the day after its approval by the voters.

Advocates Submit Official Language for Condoms in Porn California Ballot Measure

Groups first announced plans for ballot measure in November; today, safer sex advocates from AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) and FAIR (For Adult Industry Responsibility), submitted official text of a 2016 California statewide ballot initiative for title and summary as a prelude to signature gathering.

Proposed statewide California law will require condom use in all adult films shot anywhere in the state.

LOS ANGELES–(BUSINESS WIRE)–As part of its ongoing campaign to improve and strengthen state law on the use of condoms in adult films produced in California in an effort to reduce the spread of STDs, including HIV, safer sex advocates from AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) as well as from FAIR (For Adult Industry Responsibility), the formal campaign committee that will shepherd signature gathering for the ballot initiative process, today submitted the official text of a 2016 California statewide ballot initiative for (proposed) title and summary as a prelude to signature gathering. Plans for the proposed initiative—a statewide California law that will require condom use in all adult films shot anywhere in the state—were previously announced by the group in November. The measure will be formally known as “The California Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act.”

“Given the probability of strong support from California voters, we are confident that this no-nonsense workplace safety measure will become the law of the land, providing much-needed additional protection to California workers”

Advocates aim to have the condoms in porn measure qualified to appear on the November 2016 Presidential election California ballot. Initial polling of 1,158 California voters that the group conducted on the statewide measure in mid-September 2014 showed overwhelming support for the proposed law—71% answered ‘yes’—when asked how they would vote on such a measure were the election held today.

“Given the probability of strong support from California voters, we are confident that this no-nonsense workplace safety measure will become the law of the land, providing much-needed additional protection to California workers,” said Michael Weinstein, President of AIDS Healthcare Foundation and one of the five formal proponents of the ballot measure. “We sadly just witnessed another HIV infection directly tied to the adult industry this fall—an outcome that consistent and correct condom use could have prevented.”

When condom advocates first announced plans for the statewide ballot measure in November (link to full press announcement here), Cameron Adams, who became HIV-positive while working in the adult film industry in August 2013, said at the time: “The adult film industry exposed me to blood on set because they just wanted to finish a scene. I did everything the adult film industry told me to do, and now I am HIV-positive … I am proud to support and participate in this California-wide ballot initiative to require the use of condoms in all adult films. Being exposed to bloodborne pathogens and other potentially infectious material shouldn’t be considered part of the job. It’s time for California voters to support fairness.”

About AIDS Healthcare Foundation

AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF), the largest global AIDS organization, currently provides medical care and/or services to more than 382,000 individuals in 36 countries worldwide in the US, Africa, Latin America/Caribbean, the Asia/Pacific Region and Eastern Europe. To learn more about AHF, please visit our website:, find us on Facebook: and follow us on Twitter: @aidshealthcare.


Ged Kenslea
Senior Director, Communications
+1.323.308.1833 work
+1.323.791.5526 mobile
Christopher Johnson
Associate Director of Communications
+1.323.960.4846 work
+1.310.886.9913 mobile

Why Michael Whiteacre Is Not In Jail

Last week a judge made the unusual order that Whiteacre (Ari Scott Bass) aka Uncle Peg (Because girls he has hired as escorts claim he likes to be pegged) not have any contact with his wife Christina Parreira, after going to court for the second of several domestic violence charges in the last year.

Many of you have wondered why The Flip Flop Ninja isn’t behind bars as he probably should be.

Oddly enough it goes back to something that happened way before most porn chicks were even born. In June of 1971 President Richard Nixon declared that the country was at war with drugs. In doing so he pushed through things like no knock warrants and mandatory sentencing.

Thanks to that The land of the free could just as easily be called the land of the incarcerated.  the United States of America has more people behind bars than any other country on earth, yes that includes China.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), 2,266,800 adults were incarcerated in U.S. federal and state prisons, and county jails at year-end 2011 – about 0.94% of adults in the U.S. resident population. Additionally, 4,814,200 adults at year-end 2011 were on probation or on parole. In total, 6,977,700 adults were under correctional supervision (probation, parole, jail, or prison) in 2011 – about 2.9% of adults in the U.S. resident population.

That number is even a lot higher now.

Of all of those people just over half are incarcerated for non violent drug crimes, half of those, simple possession of Marijuana.

That is because of mandatory sentences imposed by the federal government,  Remember when The first President George Bush went on TV to defend his escalation of the war on drugs, He stated “We will make room” when defending the idea that we didn’t have room in the prison system for all the non violent drug offenders.

We have made room at the expense of not incarcerating people guilty of far more violent and dangerous crimes (Like Ari Bass).  The sad eventuality is that they almost always end up there anyway because the violence escalated to the point of aggravated assault or murder. Just like “War Machine”.  Don’t let anyone tell you there is a difference between Koppenhaver (War Machine) and people like Michael Whiteacre, there is not, the only difference is that Whiteacre hasn’t injured Christina Parreira enough to put her in the hospital… Yet.

With porn claiming to be looking to move to Las Vegas, it certainly seems they have a high tolerance for spousal abuse there.

Y’all should keep this war on drugs thing and mandatory sentencing in mind next election cycle.

Remember, there are so may guys in jail for having a joint that they don’t have room for a guy who habitually beats his spouse, so the judge issues a no contact order hoping to keep these events from happening again so that he can have room for the weed smokers he has to send behind bars.

Think about that.

About That NPR Thing – Reader Mail

(With my comments in parenthesis)
“What Is The PASS Protocol For Gay Industry Talent”
During the show on NPR yesterday the guy from AHF said that one of the HIV positive guys in this latest incident did test at a PASS facility. Dianne Duke said he didnt.  ( well thats what she said day fore yesterday but in the press releases back in October Diane Duke said that the Talent pool was tested and that there had been no further exposure, we now know that to be another lie.  IIRC she also praised the PASS system for not letting an on set exposure happen…ooops….) Regardless if he did or didn’t it brings up the question, what is the PASS protocol for the gay industry?  Does anyone know?  APAC, do you know? Do performers know?
Here’s the problem for the FSC.  Too many performers are not using the PASS system, and the vast majority of the gay industry doesn’t use it. With all the crossovers these days that leaves a huge gaping hole in this safety net. But what if this unfortunate guy did go to a PASS facility? ( He actually DID)   Why was there no moratorium, no quarantine list in September or October when he tested?( There was a 3 day shutdown as I recall)   Is it PASS protocol to not do a gay industry quarantine,to not call for a moratorium when a gay actor turns up positive? (actually it is)
 Dianes self serving statement that they didn’t use PASS is reason enough to conclude that the system isn’t working. During yesterdays show nobody mentioned that the general rule is, the gay industry does not participate in PASS, and left the impression that these guys were outside of the industry protocol, when in fact there is no protocol for testing in the gay industry. This recent case is proof of exactly what Diane has been saying “between the lines,” we don’t include the gay industry in our protocols or in our statement about no on set transmission. Basically, the gay side doesn’t count, even when they use a PASS facility.
Does the FSC, which claims to be the industry watchdog, represent the gay industry, and if gay industry talent test at a PASS facility are there separate protocols if someone tests positive? Only time will tell if this person did or did not test through PASS because one thing is absolutely certain,  Diane or the guy from AHF is either mistaken or lying. (lying and we know which one)  And just exactly how does Diane know who  tested how? , that all the results of the exposed partners were negative if they weren’t using PASS?  Who gave them this private, HIPPA protected information. How do they know what kind of test was used, who gives them this information?
Testing is not a shield that protects you, it is a safety net that catches you after something bad has happened. Testing did not PREVENT any of the exposed people from contracting the disease. Testing did not prevent this one guy from passing it to the other.