from http://www.huffingtonpost.com////condoms-in-porn-measure_n_1140475.html
LOS ANGELES — The Los Angeles City Attorney’s office has filed a lawsuit to keep the June 2012 ballot free of a measure that would require porn actors to wear condoms during film shoots.
In a lawsuit filed Thursday in Los Angeles Superior Court, city attorneys say the AIDS Healthcare Foundation’s proposed measure is unnecessary and will waste taxpayer money.
According to the lawsuit, there are already state laws mandating workplace safety which address the need for protective barriers to be used when workers are exposed to blood borne pathogens, such as HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.
The filing urges the court to take immediate action rather than wait until after the election to invalidate the measure by finding it "patently illegal" because that "would undermine the public trust."
The AIDS Healthcare Foundation has already collected more than 71,000 unverified voter signatures and has submitted them to city officials for verification, said Michael Weinstein, the advocacy group’s president.
"I think it’s extraordinary to attempt to thwart the will of 71,000 voters who under the laws of the city of Los Angeles wish to see this measure put before the voters," said Weinstein.
To get on the city’s ballot, advocates must get 41,183 verified signatures from Los Angeles voters. If passed, the measure would require porn producers to agree to have their actors use condoms in adult films shot in Los Angeles in order to obtain permits to film in the city.
Weinstein said it shouldn’t cost taxpayers any money to include the proposition since the election will be held no matter what.
"I’m not an elections scholar but I’m not aware of prior restraint on voter’s ability to have their voices heard on an initiative," said Weinstein.
The AIDS Healthcare Foundation has made a number of unsuccessful legal efforts to require condoms in adult films, including multiple attempts to move state legislation and lawsuits.
The city’s San Fernando Valley is the heart of the multi-billion dollar American porn industry.
The Free Speech Coalition, a trade association for the porn industry, praised the city’s decision to take the matter to court.
FSC Executive Director Diane Duke argued the AHF measure squanders its donor resources.
I’m very confused. Is LA county trying to say that the ballot isn’t necessary because girls are already wearing goggles for facials? That’s kind of the jist that I’m picking up, here.
It is quite obvious that the city of los angeles really does not care about the safety of the performers, but scared that the porn industry will flock to las vegas and other locations.
Digusting, shame on the city of los angeles.
No Fartz, the city contends that the California state Legislature expressly retained exclusive jurisdiction with Cal/OSHA for the enforcement of occupational safety and health standards, and that the initiative is preempted by state law, specifically California Labor Section 144.7.
Weinstein’s effort to use the city of LA to shame the LA County has hit a snag here because the city doesn’t want to be AHF’s pawn, and the City Attorney’s office clearly resents Weinstein and his tactics (which included getting Cal/OSHA to send the city a letter telling it that it’s own attorney was wrong).
Weinstein has no pull in the state capitol, he has pissed of the folks at the LA County level (he dragged them into this mess and then tried to shame Dr. Fielding of LA County Department of Public Health in a public ad campaign; not to mention the fact that the cooked numbers made-to-order for AHF by LA County Public Health Drs. Kerndt and Kim-Farley were exposed by the FSC-commissioned report), and then he tried to use the city to shame the county for following the LAW and bunting this matter back to the state.
He wanted city council action, but when they were too slow to act, and relied on a proper opinion from the LA City Attorney (that this could NOT be done legally at the city level) he got his good friends at Cal/OSHA to issue an unheard-of opinion letter, informing the city that its own attorney was wrong. This did not win him any friends at the LA City Attorney’s office.
To make matters worse, once he had the required number of signatures, Weinstein then turned the ballot initiative into a club to try to beat the City Council into doing his will, by positioning the issue as “you can just enact this now, and save us all the trouble of having to go through the ballot process.” He tried to use the LA City Council as political pawns by shaming them — that’s Weinstein’s main move (MacGruber uses throat rips, Weinstein uses shame). I’m sure the City Council (which includes mayoral candidate Eric Garcetti) were not amused.
So now LA taxpayers pick up the tab AGAIN as Weinstein has to go back to court — where he and his buddies have LOST EVERY TIME.
Fuck you, Michael Weinstein. You’re the cockroach in a designer suit who can’t stand to lose, so he keeps doubling down. What a joke.
This is all about expanding the meddling influence of the AID$ empire. The AID$ industry is an obscenely profitably death racket and scam. Whinestein will keep whining until the bullshit HIV/AIDS dogma rules the world and his “non-profit” org buys him a few more million dollar homes.
Meanwhile, The British publication, Continuum, has proposed a test ban on all HIV antibody tests:
http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/testban.shtml
Anyone who has been involved in the Cal/OSHA process can plainly see the discomfort and even disgust with, as well as the rampant ignorance of, heterosexual sex — let alone hetero porn — on display by representatives from OSHA, as well as AHF. Seemingly, to Michael Weinstein, Brian Chase, Whitney Engeran-Cordova, Deborah Gold and Amy Martin, heterosexuals who make or watch hetero porn are a bunch of icky “breeders.”
It’s wrong for heterosexuals to impose rules or “norms” based on their biases about homosexuality, and the reverse is also true.
The Donkey & Co. had it wrong: the gay mafia is AHF and Cal/OSHA.
No one wants to admit that porn production helps support the city and state tax wise. Also no one wants to be left holding the bag if they force porn production out of California with their various attempts at getting rid of porn.
So these various boards and liscensing groups are tossing this issue of mandatory condoms around like its a hot potato and no one wants to end up with it and be blammed for the loss of revenue.
Weinstein wants mandatory condoms so it will kill the industry. He may say its for the greater good to lower the chance of getting AIDs and things of that nature but they are really working the situation to get rid of porn.
For many years the folks that don’t want porn tried to get rid of it legally and the courts said it was legal. So they started the mandatory condom end run to try and get rid of adult material the sneaky back door way by linking it to +HIV.
More details, courtesy the reporting of AVN’s Mark Kernes (with additional annotation by yours truly):
Named as defendants in the suit are AHF president Michael Weinstein, AHF director of communications Ged Kenslea, AHF public policy health consultant Mark Roy “Wolverine” McGrath (formerly of LA County Dept of Public Health AND UCLA), AHF legal assistant Arlette de la Cruz, and Marijane “Miki” Jackson, AHF’s sniveling Public Policy Consultant and in-house AIDS activist.
The city maintains that AHF’s initiative is likely unconstitutional under state law, and its complaint asks the Court to rule on the validity of the initiative before the June 5 election because, were it to pass, and a court were to rule afterward that the initiative violated state law, such a result would “undermine public trust in the petition process,” and because a post-election determination that the initiative was illegal “would also waste millions of dollars of taxpayer money incurred in the process of preparing such initiative for the ballot.”
A copy of the City of LA’s complaint may be downloaded here:
http://business.avn.com/downloadfile.pl?contentmap_id=457664hy
The FSC’s statement on the suit may be found on the FSCblogger.wordpress [dot] com site. Of particular note are the comments made therein by FSC attorney (and APHSS.org legal consultant) Karen Tynan.
Meanwhile, there goes the neigbhorhood again. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbnRzQluETQ
Ironically, I was on my way to a mainstream set shooting a gangster shootout scene right after this happened. Traffic was enough to cause road rage.
@Jeremy – That was not far from AHF’s offices, oddly enough.
What I don’t get about all this is that if Weinstein and AHF exercises just a bit of patience and allows Cal/OSHA to set up their regulations, they could probably get a much bigger victory when the regs are finally issued and approved statewide. Not to mention, the fact that some at the national OSHA might want to extend these regs nationwide.
I guess that Weinstein and AHF doesn’t trust the Cal/OSHA process enough to carry it to its logical conclusion?? That’s why they are so willing to attempt to push this initiative down the throats of the LA City Council??
Anthony
No, Weinstein has confidence in OSHA, he simply has no respect for the process. Any legitimate legal, constitutional process. It’s called megalomania; he wants to set policy and force it upon us. His style reminds me of the way George Clooney describes Christopher Plummer’s manner in Syriana: he speaks in a way that makes it sound as if the law is being written as it’s spoken.
This is all in service of a larger agenda. It has little to do with porn, or even sex. This is all about Weinstein. It’s quite simple, really.
Interesting, Michael. Well, the scenario of finding out about the scam of HIV testing (which you agree with, as we’ve both referred here on LIB the “House of Numbers” documentary- though in spite of this the silence in response is deafening- a sad sketch of conditioned humanity) along the deadly medicine which promotes a self-fulfilling prophecy that the likes of Weinstein and associate get rich off of, I could see people already on the edge losing it. Therefore, AHF being around looney tune central is convenient and appropriate.
AIDS Inc. is certainly a sham of deception, but I think this is more a case of a predator seeking out a golden scam opportunity, than a borderline scumbag going full scumbag. But, I could be wrong.
Absolute power does indeed corrupt absolutely, and who can wield greater power in contemporary society than he who wears an “AIDS activist” halo?
And yes, you are also dead-on about conditioned humanity. That’s one of the reasons I find it useful — and often necessary — to use strong language. Sometimes we wake up, other times we have to be woken.
Speaking of “AIDS, Inc.”, I recommend this book by the same name, which I’ve had for many years (used copies are on sale for 37 cents, plus s/h):
http://www.amazon.com/AIDS-Inc-Scandal-Jon-Rappoport/dp/0941523039/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1323582277&sr=1-4
Also, heres’s a free documentary to watch on the AID$ $cam by the same name. But you can’t expect the porn industry to be interested in such a subject!!!:
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/aids-inc/
More on the moron/Hollywood shooter (now deceased):
A nut originally from Pennsylvania
http://www.facebook.com/tyler.brehm?sk=wall
, who supposedly recently broke up with this girl…
http://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/1850391/viewall
Was this guy a Steve Driver fan
I think we are being short sighted if we see this move by the City of Los Angeles as positive in any way. It is already making headlines across the country that make the industry look bad, AHF look good, and Los Angeles look as nutty as a fruitcake.
In depth post coming later this morning.
If enactment of the ballot measure would result in an illegal / unconstitutional law — something that at least two court decisions in cases brought by AHF would seem to indicate — then how could the city bringing suit to prevent it not be “positive in any way”?
On newsmeat.com, There is a list of politicians that Michael Weinstein has donated money to. He has donated to Barbara Boxer (D), Gilbert Cedillo (D), Scott Galvin (D), Thomas Richard Harkin (D), Dennis J Kucinich (D), David R. Obey (D) and Diane E E Watson (D).
You left out a few. He also gave to Richard Gephardt (in 2004).
LA City Councilmember William “Bill” Rosendahl has also received campaign contributions from Weinstein personally: in 2004, when Rosendahl was first running for City Council, and two further contributions of in the spring of 2005 to Rosendahl’s general campaign fund.
In addition, Weinstein also contributed to LA City Councilmember Paul Koretz, in January of 2009, two months before Koretz, who had “termed out” as a state assemblymember, stood for his first election to City Council, and then again one month after Koretz’s election.
The list for donees of AHF and other AHF executives is also interesting. I encourage readers to examine them online.
Also of note, and available by cross-referencing public records, is that Mr. Weinstein’s home was purchased for $1,686,000 in 2008.
Incidentally, Kern County public records also show that, earlier this year, Garrett and Shelley Lubben purchased a new $480,000 home. It’s a second home for them, as their old house is now the Pink Cross “Recovery Home” (in which no-one is recovering). However, I can find no record of any donations made by the Lubbens.
I am Jack’s complete lack of surprise.
One might take note that the list of people AHF has donated to reads like a whose who of people that a lot of porners wrongly consider “friendly” to the biz…..All Democrats too…..
First off…just because one is a Democrat — or even a strongly liberal one — doesn’t necessarily mean that one is strong for the porn biz or for sexual expression.
It’s more likely that the reason why AHF and Weinstein tend to give to Democrats is because they are far more likely to be willing to give government money to HIV/AIDS research that is more “gay-friendly” than the mostly Christian Right/libertarian dominated GO(T)P.
Also…more liberal Dems are far more likely to fall for the AHF party line about mandating condoms being an effort to “save” performers and a means of “role modeling” safer sex behavior to the public at large. Not to mention, Dems tend to want to loosen the purse strings more as well.
In this local case, though, it’s more likely that Weinstein’s simply engaging in the usual political game of “scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours”.
Certain knowledgeable individuals in the adult industry have told me they think it’s better not to fight AHF every step of the way because ultimately the courts will rule on the constitutionality of the mandatory condom standards, but, to quote Ring Lardner, Jr., I think that in the face of the near-term costs “it’s short sighted to be long sighted.”
Yeah, Michael, let AHF be the babbling fool on the street corner that no one’s listening to. Maybe they’re run into Melrose Larry and strike up a conversation. But if they get too loud, give them a “desginated free speech zone” way out in the boondocks, behind the wearhouse.