askAnews ha scritto:Niente condom nei film hard, in California vince l'industria a luci rosse Bocciato l'obbligo che secondo attori avrebbe leso il business
askAnews ha scritto:Niente condom nei film hard, in California vince l'industria a luci rosse Bocciato l'obbligo che secondo attori avrebbe leso il business
La battaglia vinta, ma la guerra continua. AHF non si e' arresa e continua. Faranno sicuramente delle accuse fiutando dove si girano scene porno e invieranno i cani randagi http://www.xbiz.com/news/204524 But just hours after the 3-2 vote by the board, Weinstein said in a press release that the AHF will charge on and come out with a new workplace-safety proposal to replace the one that was sunk today.
“We are disappointed that the Occupational Safety & Health Standards Board failed to complete this years-long process, an action today that would have resulted in improved worker safety for adult film workers in California, but thank them for their work on this over the past six years,” Weinstein said.
"To be clear, condom use in adult film production in California — one of only two states in which adult film production is legal — already is required under California’s bloodborne pathogens standard.
"We are announcing today that we will immediately file a new petition with Cal/OSHA on this important health measure."
http://business.avn.com/articles/legal/ ... 38923.html http://www.xbiz.com/news/205403
Cal/OSHA ha multato "Third Rock Enterprises Inc." (aka James Deen Productions) $77,875 per varie violazioni per aver girato scene senza condom e altre leggi di sanita ("safety laws")
Cal/OSHA aveva fatto delle perquisizioni negli uffici/residenza di James Deen Productions (a Woodland Hills, California) il 12 gennaio 2016
Si nota che Dee ha fatto i bagagli e ora gira a Las Vegas (Nevada), ma OSHA lo ha seguito anche li (e si anticipano altre multe).
Piu di una volta ho detto che la AIDS Healthcare Foundation ha il tempo, soldi e energia per perseguitare ditte e personaggi del circuito porno.
=La dununcia contro Deen era stata fatta nel mese di dicembre 2015 da AHF.
=Era legittimo per AHF di averla fatta? Yes! AHF fa le cose secondo le regole e le leggi esistenti in California.
=Deen dice che AHF fa un "witchunt" (caccia alle strege). Deen non e' straniero a quello che AHF fa. Inoltre da molto tempo
ha pubblicamente ha indicato che e' parziale al NON uso del condom in scene porno. E ha anche girato un video che si beffa dell'uso del condom.
Deen e' un importante attore porno, dunque AHF si concentra su di lui. Perche dovrebbe sprecare energia, tempo e soldi a correre indietro a altri pesciolini?
=Deen dice “I am not okay with the government dictating what people are allowed to watch in the privacy of their homes. This is a case of an outside organization pushing their personal desires and agenda on the viewers of adult entertainment. Just because the AIDS Healthcare Foundation decides they are not comfortable with certain sexual acts does not mean is should be deemed illegal.”
Deen non e' OK con quello che il governo e le autorita pensano del porno, ma altri pionieri molti anni fa hanno fatto contestato vecchie leggi e hanno vinto certe battaglie. Se il porno e' diventato legittimo oggi (in California) e' grazie ad altri che hanno speso sono e energuie combattendo il governo. Dunque o fai le cose legittime o le fai illegitime (underground). Se il porno si vuol considerare una impresa legittima il governo ha stabilito certe leggi e regole. Non si puo accettare un cosa e rifiutare altre che sono inconvenienti.
Deen ha rifiutato di collaborare con Cal/OSHA che alla fine e in frustrazione fece delle persequisizioni nel mese di gennaio 2015.
=Deen dice anche: According to Deen, at no point was any adult performer exposed to any disease while working for James Deen Productions. At no time did any performer contract any illness or suffer any injury while working for James Deen Productions. None of the citations issued by Cal/OSHA even allege that there was any actual injury or illness that occurred. The vast majority of the $77,875 in fines was for potential exposure, not actual injuries or even an actual exposure to any illness
Dunque uno si deve ammalare o morire in un set porno di Deen per farlo osservare le regole governative (safaty, health)? Un McDonald, un elettricista, un macellaio, una ditta di costruzioni, devono osservare le regole, ma no Deen?
Aspetta che le autorita nel Nevada si rendono conto cosa Deen fa a Las Vegas. Lui crede che i bordelli (legali) fuori di Las Vegas stanno li a osservare Deen che gira porno senza condom, quando
le loro prostitute in quei bordelli devono usare condom? Aspetta...aspetta...
C'e stato un "accordo" tra Vivid Entertainment Group, Contea di Los Angeles, e AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF).
L'industria porno cerca di dimostrare che questa e' una "grande" vittoria ma non lo e'.
AHF ha semplicemnte deciso di non fare nessuna querela nei prossimi 3 anni per la questione di Measure B (promulgata nel 2012)
Ma AHF puo sempre aver ricorso contro l'industria porno tramite CAL/OASHA come ha dimostrato in questi ultimi tempi.
Vivid/AHF Settlement: Measure B Won't Be Enforced for 3 Years
Posted Mar 29th, 2016 04:36 PM by Mark Kernes
LOS ANGELES—Today, the final signatures were affixed to the settlement agreed upon between plaintiff Vivid Entertainment Group, defendant County of Los Angeles, and intervenors AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) and various of its employees, and perhaps its most attractive feature is that the parties have agreed that Measure B will not be enforced in Los Angeles County for three years from the date the settlement takes effect.
"Intervenors [AHF and employees] expressly agree that they will not file any lawsuit, claims, causes of action or administrative complaints or actions regarding the enforcement of Measure B for a period of three (3) years from the date the Action is dismissed by Plaintiffs with prejudice," Section II-4 of the settlement agreement states. "Notwithstanding this paragraph, Intervenors do not waive their right to file a notice of a dispute, lawsuit, claim, causes of action or adminsitrative action related to any congtroversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the validity, inducement or breach thereof, pursuant to Section II-5 and IV-9 below."
Section II-5, titled "Dispute Resolution," refers to controversies or claims arising out of any breach of the settlement agreement, and does not apply to an adult production company shooting within the county without using condoms and other barriers. Section IV-9, however, titled "Choice of Law and Venue," states that "This agreement shall be interpreted according to the laws of the State of California. The Parties agree that any controversy among the Parties involving or relating to the meaning, application and/or interpretation of this Agreement or any breach or claimed breach of this Agreement shall be filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California or the Los Angeles Superior Court."It also notes that any such disputes must first be referred to mediation by "an attorney who has at least ten (10) years of experience with a law firm or corporate law department with demonstrated expertise in the areas of dispute or who was a judge of a court of general jurisdiction."
But while AHF may be barred from filing any complaint regarding non-compliance with Measure B, the possibility exists that Cal/OSHA, which is not bound by this agreement, may begin targeting productions on its own since the "laws of California" include the California Health Code, Section 5193, which has been interpreted by Cal/OSHA as requiring not only condoms but other "barrier protections."
That said, the settlement agreement also provides that "All Parties agree that Measure B shall be considered by the Parties to be in effect and enforced but permanently enjoined as enumerated by the District Court's Order dated August 16, 2013, wherein Judge Pregerson partially granted and partially denied Intervenors' Motion to Dismiss, partially granted and partially denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and vacated Plalintiffs' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, and as upheld by the Ninth Circuit, unless subsequently amended, revised or repealed, or unless further enjoined by subsequent court order." [Emphasis in original] While that clause may appear to contradict the agreement that Measure B will not be enforced for three years, this paragraph apparently will only apply after the end of that three-year moratorium.
The settlement also includes a clause wherein the Plaintiffs and Intervenors (but, oddly, not the Defendant County of Los Angeles) agree to waive any rights those parties may have under California Civil Code Section 1542, which clause states in part, "Plaintiffs and Intervenors acknowledge that they are aware that facts may hereafter be discovered in addition to or different from those now known or believed to be true with respect to this release, but that it is the intention of the Plaintiffs and Intervenors to hereby fully, finally and forever release and discharge each other, and thus this release shall remain in effect as a full and complete release notwithstanding the later discovery or existence of any such additional or different facts."
In other words, even if AHF and its employees missed some violation of Measure B committed by Vivid or other producers, such violations are deemed included in this settlement and will not form the basis of any future legal action begun by either Vivid or AHF.
One has to wonder, though, whether the legality of the massive expenditures by AHF to, first, get Measure B on the ballot, and later, to promote its passage in the County, which may very well be in violation of the expenditure limits allowed for a non-profit entity of AHF's size, may still be investigated by the state revenue department as well as the IRS. Nothing in the settlement agreement appears to bar such investigations.
Also of interest: Although the current lawsuit has been settled between the parties "with prejudice," meaning that Vivid is barred from refiling this or a similar lawsuit against the County in the future, the agreement does not (and in fact cannot) bar some other adult content producer from filing a similar lawsuit against the County, and thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry (the same-sex marriage case), AIDS Healthcare Foundation and anyone else not directly affected by Measure B's provisions would be barred from intervening in such a suit.
In short, the settlement of Vivid Entertainment, LLC et al v. County of Los Angeles, et al, with AHF and its employees as Intervenors, appears to be one that is favorable to the adult industry, at least in the short run.
BOY RACER INC (Burning Angel/Joanna Angel) e' stata multata da Cal/OSHA $32,400 per infrazioni del non-uso del condom durante un ispezione fatta nel
mese di aprile 2016.
http://www.dailynews.com/social-affairs ... ondom-fine By Susan Abram, Los Angeles Daily News
Posted: 08/17/16, 6:39 PM PDT
An adult film production company has been fined by state regulators after inspectors found its performers working without condoms, which is against the law in California, officials said this week.
Boy Racer Inc., which produces the Burning Angel website, was cited $32,400 for four violations based on an inspection conducted in April at a production site in Porter Ranch, according to Cal/OSHA.
Condoms have been required on all adult film production sites since the early 1990s, but the regulation is only enforced when a complaint is filed by a worker and an inspection takes place.
Burning Angel founder Joanna Angel said in a statement she would not let the violations stop her from creating her work.
“In addition to the financial loss I have impending, this citation has been incredibly tedious and tiresome, and incredibly straining for a small business like mine to deal with,” she said. “My lawyer and I will deal with this and not let down my fans, my followers or any of the amazing talent in this industry.”
Prop 60 requires performers in adult films to use condoms during filming of sexual intercourse. Requires producers of adult films to pay for performer vaccinations, testing, and medical examinations related to sexually transmitted infections. Requires producers to obtain state health license at beginning of filming and to post condom requirement at film sites. Imposes liability on producers for violations, on certain distributors, on performers if they have a financial interest in the violating film, and on talent agents who knowingly refer performers to noncomplying producers. Permits state, performers, or any state resident to enforce violations
Proposition 60 (abbreviato: Prop 60) e' una iniziativa legilsativa che si dovra votare nel mese di Novembre 2016.
Questa proposta (cosidetta "California Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act") presentata dalla AHF permettera chiunque a fare causa contro un "performer" (attore/attrice) che non usa il condom
in una scena esplicita porno, anche nel caso che Cal/OSHA rifiuterebbe di indagare e multare il "performer" (produttore in questione).
E' stata una mossa dalla AHF per mettere pressione su ditte porno che rifiutano di girare scene porno senza condom.
Ma bisogna capire che il "chiunque" potrebbe essere (non solo un semplice cittadino ma) anche il performer stesso, che e' stato "forzato/a" di girare senza condom e che avrebbe contrattato
delle malattie (STD, HIV, ecc)
Ma questa proposta (Prop 60) spinge indirettamente Cal/OSHA a investigare e multare ditte che non rispettano la legge.
Votando "no" le attrici/attori non hanno tanto compreso la proposta. Pensano che votando "no", vuol dire che se vincono, non saranno obbligati di usare il condom
in una scena porno. Ma l'uso del condom e' gia obbligatorio...
Votando "si" e se vince il "Si", queste attrici saranno piu protette.
Il problema proviene da questo malinteso: Prop 60 requires performers in adult films to use condoms during filming of sexual intercourse
No!!!! Prop 60 non e' una proposta per l'uso del condom. L'uso del condom (in produzioni porno) gia esiste in altre leggi che sono state promulgate anterioramente.
dicono anche che la Prop60 imporrebbe ai produttori il pagamento di "vaccinations, testing, and medical examinations".
Si vota ad inizio novembre in California.
dicono anche che la Prop60 imporrebbe ai produttori il pagamento di "vaccinations, testing, and medical examinations".
Si vota ad inizio novembre in California.
Il pagamento di test e' gia obbligatorio dalla parte dei produttori.
In qualsiasi lavoro nel USA in cui il datore di lavoro (employer) esige dei test medici a un impiegato (employee) il datore di lavoro e' obbligato a pagare tali test.
Il problema e' che i produttori per piu di 20 anni hanno sempre imposto questa spesa ai poveracci di "performers" (attorori) maschili e femminili.
Sai che scusa cacciano?
Le attrici/attori non sono "impiegati" (employees) nel vero senso....vengono impiegati e usati per una specifica ragione.
Raggionamenti ultra fasulli, ma nessuna attrice o attore con le palle ha osato trascinare questi produttori davanti un tribunale.
La prop 60 non cambiera proprio nulla in questo senso.
Sta di fatto che praticamente l'intero mondo del porno è apertamente schierato contro questa proposta, e paventa addirittura la fine dell'industria nel giro di pochi mesi qualora passasse.
La FSC (Free Speech Coalition) ha chiesto un moratorio nella produzione di scene porno, in seguito alla scoperta che c'e un performer (non e' stato
rivelato il nome e se si tratta di una donna o uomo) che e' stato diagnotistatico(a) HIV+
