Vote NO on Prop. 60 - The Party Hat Law

[Libertine]

Prop. 60 has been opposed by the California Democratic Party, the California Republican Party, and the California Libertarian Party, and numerous Democratic clubs throughout the state.

Five of the leading papers in California say Vote No on Proposition 60. Major papers like the Sacramento Bee, the San Francisco Chronicle, the San Jose Mercury News, the San Diego Union Tribune, the Fresno Bee, and the East Bay Times agree that this initiative is dangerous.

On November 8, Californians will vote on Proposition 60, a ballot initiative that would appear to require condoms in all adult films shot in California. Unfortunately, the measure is not what it seems.

Most voters are unfamiliar with the industry and its workers, so the initiative appears to be an easy victory for progressivism — a one-two punch wherein the porn industry becomes a conduit for safer-sex messaging, while allegedly increasing workplace protection for the performers. But Prop. 60 is anything but progressive. It jeopardizes personal privacy and weakens workplace safety for adult film workers by empowering any resident of California to sue adult film performers — even a married couple producing content from their own home.

Prop. 60 is the latest gambit by Michael Weinstein, the controversial founder of (AHF) AIDS Healthcare Foundation. Many may remember Weinstein and AHF for misleading campaigns against PrEP, sex-shaming billboards, and hyperbolic attacks on Grindr, Tinder, and Viagra. But Prop. 60, his fourth attempt to impose new laws on the adult film industry in California, may be the most misguided campaign yet.

Weinstein says he’s targeting “greedy pornographers,” but when it comes to Prop. 60, his most vocal opponents have been the performers themselves. That’s because, under Prop. 60, anyone who produces, sells, or profits from adult films — a group that now includes the majority of performers — will be subject to lawsuits and fines if a condom isn’t visible.

In today’s adult film industry, the majority of performers are also producers. In addition to shooting for studios, most porn stars regularly create their own content — either for their own websites, on webcams, or in partnership with studios. Performers also regularly promote their own scenes — on Twitter or Tumblr, for instance — in exchange for a share of the sales. Under Prop. 60, anyone in California who doesn’t see condoms in an adult film can sue a performer personally and receive a portion of any fine imposed.

Proposition 60 was created essentially to litigate the adult film industry into compliance with condom rules. If voters were to approve the measure, and Cal/OSHA declined to pursue a reported violation within 21 days, the complainant could file a civil suit against anyone with a financial stake in the production and take a cut of the proceeds. We aren’t so far gone that we want to start offering bounties and inviting frivolous lawsuits.

An all-out war, in the courts and by the state, on an industry that already operates at the fringe would just drive performers further underground.

Proposition 60 raises red flags with another provision. In its fine print is language AHF says it needs if the initiative wins and is challenged but the state fails to uphold the voters’ will and defend it in court. In such a case, Weinstein would be sworn in as a state employee with standing to defend the initiative himself, and he couldn’t be fired without a majority vote of both legislative houses. Oh, and the taxpayers would be on the hook for his legal expenses.

There are other elements of Prop. 60 that pose problems. The measure gives private parties the right to sue a porn producer or adult performer if state health officials don’t take action, a proviso that invites legal bounty hunting. Also performers, who often use screen names, could have their identities and addresses made public, a feature that invades privacy and could lead to harm from porn-addled stalkers.


http://dontharassca.com


http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/e...-t-9198804.php


http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/electi...100921742.html


http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...p13-story.html


http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/08/1...asure-prop-60/


http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2...-lead-less-hiv

[marsean]

Originally Posted by Libertine

Prop. 60 has been opposed by the California Democratic Party, the California Republican Party, and the California Libertarian Party, and numerous Democratic clubs throughout the state.

Five of the leading papers in California say Vote No on Proposition 60. Major papers like the Sacramento Bee, the San Francisco Chronicle, the San Jose Mercury News, the San Diego Union Tribune, the Fresno Bee, and the East Bay Times agree that this initiative is dangerous.

On November 8, Californians will vote on Proposition 60, a ballot initiative that would appear to require condoms in all adult films shot in California. Unfortunately, the measure is not what it seems.

Most voters are unfamiliar with the industry and its workers, so the initiative appears to be an easy victory for progressivism — a one-two punch wherein the porn industry becomes a conduit for safer-sex messaging, while allegedly increasing workplace protection for the performers. But Prop. 60 is anything but progressive. It jeopardizes personal privacy and weakens workplace safety for adult film workers by empowering any resident of California to sue adult film performers — even a married couple producing content from their own home.

Prop. 60 is the latest gambit by Michael Weinstein, the controversial founder of (AHF) AIDS Healthcare Foundation. Many may remember Weinstein and AHF for misleading campaigns against PrEP, sex-shaming billboards, and hyperbolic attacks on Grindr, Tinder, and Viagra. But Prop. 60, his fourth attempt to impose new laws on the adult film industry in California, may be the most misguided campaign yet.

Weinstein says he’s targeting “greedy pornographers,” but when it comes to Prop. 60, his most vocal opponents have been the performers themselves. That’s because, under Prop. 60, anyone who produces, sells, or profits from adult films — a group that now includes the majority of performers — will be subject to lawsuits and fines if a condom isn’t visible.

In today’s adult film industry, the majority of performers are also producers. In addition to shooting for studios, most porn stars regularly create their own content — either for their own websites, on webcams, or in partnership with studios. Performers also regularly promote their own scenes — on Twitter or Tumblr, for instance — in exchange for a share of the sales. Under Prop. 60, anyone in California who doesn’t see condoms in an adult film can sue a performer personally and receive a portion of any fine imposed.

Proposition 60 was created essentially to litigate the adult film industry into compliance with condom rules. If voters were to approve the measure, and Cal/OSHA declined to pursue a reported violation within 21 days, the complainant could file a civil suit against anyone with a financial stake in the production and take a cut of the proceeds. We aren’t so far gone that we want to start offering bounties and inviting frivolous lawsuits.

An all-out war, in the courts and by the state, on an industry that already operates at the fringe would just drive performers further underground.

Proposition 60 raises red flags with another provision. In its fine print is language AHF says it needs if the initiative wins and is challenged but the state fails to uphold the voters’ will and defend it in court. In such a case, Weinstein would be sworn in as a state employee with standing to defend the initiative himself, and he couldn’t be fired without a majority vote of both legislative houses. Oh, and the taxpayers would be on the hook for his legal expenses.

There are other elements of Prop. 60 that pose problems. The measure gives private parties the right to sue a porn producer or adult performer if state health officials don’t take action, a proviso that invites legal bounty hunting. Also performers, who often use screen names, could have their identities and addresses made public, a feature that invades privacy and could lead to harm from porn-addled stalkers.


http://dontharassca.com


http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/e...-t-9198804.php


http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/electi...100921742.html


http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...p13-story.html


http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/08/1...asure-prop-60/


http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2...-lead-less-hiv

Agreed. Bad proposed law whose passage would never meet it's purported goals.