Artistic freedom (adult industry) vs. Workplace Dangers (CalOSHA)....

[Redrob]

Two titans of culture and society are about to collide.

Unfortunately, Workplace Dangers carries a big stick (ie. the force of law administered by CalOSHA and local governments).

I'm hoping for the best; but, the fight's outcome could be a brutal beatdown.

And, who are the adult industry's fighters: AIM - Target #1 and the FSC, our underfunded and often ignored trade association.

It is time you, collectively, woke up and smelled the coffee. The culture wars are well underway and you need to support your champions that represent you.

If you aren't a FSC member, don't join, and you are shooting, acting or selling porn..... well, don't bitch to me when they add the required dental dams, condoms and goggles to your content. You had your chance to do something and chose not to.

The FSC has been addressing these issues at a series of CalOSHA hearings that are happening NOW! The opposition is well funded, media-smart and playing to public sentiments by claiming victimization of talent by the industry.

The time is getting late, the time to act is now. The FSC needs and deserves your support. Visit http://www.freespeechcoalition.com for more information on how to join.

Just my personal opinion.

Thank you,

[Redrob]

Strangely silent on this thread. No opinions?

[NemesisEnforcer]

I'm ambivalent about the Free Speech Coalition and have not renewed my membership. I liked them better when Kat Sunlove was part of the organization.

I will continue to support AIM.

[Vendzilla]

I dealt with Cal OSHA on several occasions working in LA, bunch of idiots, fed OSHA is worse

[Redrob]

Tell me Nemesis Enforcer, what did you like better about Kat as the Executive Director?

What makes you feel ambivalent about the FSC now?

[pornlaw]

Is the FSC finally giving up on "working" with CalOSHA on this issue ?

When I ask Diane why wasnt the FSC taking a more aggressive approach I was told that the industry (meaning the 5 companies that still support FSC) wanted to work with the state to come up with a reasonable solution. I told her dont waste time with that approach.

You guys hired lawyers that knew CalOSHA but didnt know the industry. Was FSC told that there was no way CalOSHA was going to back down ? How much has been spent already trying to work with CalOSHA ?

I knew from attending the meeting in Los Angeles that CalOSHA wasnt going to back down off condoms. Not now, not ever.

I have worked on California employee injury and safety issues since 1997 and have had experience with CalOSHA. They dont change. They are all about the employee, nothing more.

Why didnt the FSC attack this law from day one?

Use the carrot and stick approach. Challenge the law legally and while fighting it try to negotiate a reasonable solution. Your right when you say its a little too late, but it really is the FSC thats wasted years at this point.

Sorry but you guys knew about this issue since at least Sept 2005 when the FSC invited me to come speak to your General Membership Meeting about safety/work comp and production.

[Redrob]

Michael,

First, I can only speak for myself, not the FSC.

Diane, the Executive Director, and Jeffrey, the Chairman of the Board, are in-route from Cartagena to LA. I will forward your comments to them for a response. They know much more about this issue than I do.

But, I will say this.....looking backward with perfect hindsight as you are, I believe that attempting to work within the system to affect change is still preferred to litigation when such an approach is possible.

Litigation will place one in a permanent adversarial relationship with CalOSHA which makes future cooperation difficult. The FSC's mission statement says that it will use litigation only as a last resort. I have found that some attorneys don't really agree with this position.

As the rule in question has been on the books for years and unenforced, who knew that it would, suddenly, become a major concern, AHF would become a major agitator, or an actor would proclaim to the world how poorly the Industry had treated him.

Personally, I do believe that we need to provide our talent a safe work environment. The rub comes in who defines "safe"? Is 99%, 99.9% or is 99.9999% safe enough? Condoms break, splashes and accidents happen; therefore, no safety equipment will be absolutely 100% safe, 100% of the time.

Should our efforts be focused on prevention at the testing level; or, focused on transmission on the sets? Or, both? Again, personally, I'd like to see our industry's talent healthy and disease free so I think testing should be the emphasis instead of transmission by bodily fluids. But, I am just one person and not a decider in this matter.

For your information, the FSC still has hundreds and hundreds of companies and individuals supporting its efforts as active members.

Yours,
Redrob

[Barry-xlovecam]

This is all about "imminent danger to the public," "public safety" v. image, perception and reality.

In other words, this matter is 98% political with just enough truth to make this policy acceptable.

[NemesisEnforcer]

Originally Posted by Redrob

Tell me Nemesis Enforcer, what did you like better about Kat as the Executive Director?

When Kat Sunlove was a part of the organization, she would send out daily emails to EVERYONE (members and nonmembers) in the adult community letting us know what was going on as well as making us aware of all the various obscenity prosecutions, proposed laws affecting the industry, etc. When Larry Flynt needed support for Hustler Hollywood in Cincinnati, it was Kat Sunlove that notified the adult community (members and nonmembers) and we responded. When Max Hardcore needed support for his first obscenity prosecution, it was Kat Sunlove that notified us (members and nonmembers) and some of us responded. Today, when the support call went out for John Stagliano, I "think" FSC was involved but the word didn't come from FSC to me. Overall, I felt that Kat Sunlove was doing battle for the adult industry as a whole rather than just for paid members of FSC.

Originally Posted by Redrob

What makes you feel ambivalent about the FSC now?

When Michael (pornlaw) asked the question above, "Why didn't the FSC attack this law from day one?" That's what I've been asking about the FSC in general. They always seem to be late and when they do something it's not for the benefit of the community at large but rather just for members, i.e. 2257. Going back to the '90s, when jurisdictions across the country were restricting adult sales to just 10% of the merchandise in stores. I didn't see FSC in there for the fight.

[Agent 488]

too busy registering cumonmygoggles.com

adapt or die.

[Redrob]

Haahahahha! Clever!

[sandman!]

in for the .net here

Originally Posted by Agent 488

too busy registering cumonmygoggles.com

adapt or die.

[cherrylula]

Isn't this just a California thing? If we're not in Cali, why should we care? Honest question.

They do shoot porn globally, so as long as that happens it's all good for us webmasters.

Sorry California and LA are such assholes controlling everything. Part of the reason I left!

[pornlaw]

Originally Posted by Redrob

Michael,

First, I can only speak for myself, not the FSC.

Diane, the Executive Director, and Jeffrey, the Chairman of the Board, are in-route from Cartagena to LA. I will forward your comments to them for a response. They know much more about this issue than I do.

But, I will say this.....looking backward with perfect hindsight as you are, I believe that attempting to work within the system to affect change is still preferred to litigation when such an approach is possible.

Not hindsight. I told the FSC this was coming. Go read the articles and the interview I did with Joanne for XBiz on work comp and safety issues.

Litigation will place one in a permanent adversarial relationship with CalOSHA which makes future cooperation difficult. The FSC's mission statement says that it will use litigation only as a last resort. I have found that some attorneys don't really agree with this position.

CalOSHA was NEVER going to work with the FSC on this matter.

As the rule in question has been on the books for years and unenforced, who knew that it would, suddenly, become a major concern, AHF would become a major agitator, or an actor would proclaim to the world how poorly the Industry had treated him.

Again go read my interview... better yet here's a quote from the article...

But what will end up happening, and this I can almost guarantee, is that at some point, something is going to happen, whether that's another injury, an HIV outbreak, a special report by a news station, the federal government taking a look at this, a state governmental agency taking a look at this ? something is going to happen at some point where there's going to be more interest in this issue and it could be detrimental for the industry.

If you didnt see this coming you had to be wearing blinders. We were told over and over again in Sacramento by the politicians to get our act together on this issue.

Personally, I do believe that we need to provide our talent a safe work environment. The rub comes in who defines "safe"? Is 99%, 99.9% or is 99.9999% safe enough? Condoms break, splashes and accidents happen; therefore, no safety equipment will be absolutely 100% safe, 100% of the time.

Should our efforts be focused on prevention at the testing level; or, focused on transmission on the sets? Or, both? Again, personally, I'd like to see our industry's talent healthy and disease free so I think testing should be the emphasis instead of transmission by bodily fluids. But, I am just one person and not a decider in this matter.

Then start working with the companies to make it happen. Tell them to start offering condoms to those that want them. Might as well see how condom porn sells while there's still some time left. Try having the studios pay for testing and try one test one shoot as a new standard. There's a viable alternative to condoms. Try setting up a hotline that the talent can call to report companies that are in violation to the FSC. Give them an option beyond AHF and CalOSHA. Start policing the industry or someone else will.

For your information, the FSC still has hundreds and hundreds of companies and individuals supporting its efforts as active members.

Sure okay. But on a percentage basis how much money comes from the Big 5 - Wicked, Vivid, Digital Playground, Hustler & Adam & Eve compared to the hundreds of others ?

[DWB]

Originally Posted by Redrob

Two titans of culture and society are about to collide.

Unfortunately, Workplace Dangers carries a big stick (ie. the force of law administered by CalOSHA and local governments).

I'm hoping for the best; but, the fight's outcome could be a brutal beatdown.

And, who are the adult industry's fighters: AIM - Target #1 and the FSC, our underfunded and often ignored trade association.

It is time you, collectively, woke up and smelled the coffee. The culture wars are well underway and you need to support your champions that represent you.

If you aren't a FSC member, don't join, and you are shooting, acting or selling porn..... well, don't bitch to me when they add the required dental dams, condoms and goggles to your content. You had your chance to do something and chose not to.

The FSC has been addressing these issues at a series of CalOSHA hearings that are happening NOW! The opposition is well funded, media-smart and playing to public sentiments by claiming victimization of talent by the industry.

The time is getting late, the time to act is now. The FSC needs and deserves your support. Visit http://www.freespeechcoalition.com for more information on how to join.

Just my personal opinion.

Thank you,

This battle has been a long time coming and was inevitable.

I hope it all works out for porn valley but I have a bad feeling on this one. But with rumors of AIM makeshift draw stations in private homes and in cars, one has to wonder if they deserve to be in business at all.

[DWB]

Originally Posted by NemesisEnforcer

When Michael (pornlaw) asked the question above, "Why didn't the FSC attack this law from day one?" That's what I've been asking about the FSC in general. They always seem to be late and when they do something it's not for the benefit of the community at large but rather just for members, i.e. 2257..

I lost all respect for the FSC during the 2257 fiasco. When they came out and said, "only FSC members will be protected from inspections" that was the end for me. I did not renew my membership when the time came and have not taken them seriously since. That put a sour taste in my mouth.

[cherrylula]

Originally Posted by DirtyWhiteBoy

I lost all respect for the FSC during the 2257 fiasco. When they came out and said, "only FSC members will be protected from inspections" that was the end for me. I did not renew my membership when the time came and have not taken them seriously since. That put a sour taste in my mouth.

I remember that.

[Redrob]

Michael,
I am not familiar with your Xbiz interview. I will try and find it.

DWB.
As I recall, it was the judge that said only FSC members would be covered by the 2257 injunction, not the FSC. The FSC fought to get the signup window extended by 3-days so others could join and receive the protection of the injunction.

[DWB]

Originally Posted by Redrob

As I recall, it was the judge that said only FSC members would be covered by the 2257 injunction, not the FSC. The FSC fought to get the signup window extended by 3-days so others could join and receive the protection of the injunction.

Which I'm sure was a deal struck between him and the FCS. A judge just didn't just pull that out of his ass. But some members ended up inspected anyway so it was all a wash, as I expected it would be.

I'm sure they did fight HARD to extend for 3 more days. Money was probably pouring in at that time.

[Redrob]

DWB,

It was not fun, easy, or profitable if you look at what was spent by the FSC on the litigation's expenses.

I'm sure everyone including the FSC would rather that the entire exercise would have not been needed.

[davecummings]

Originally Posted by DirtyWhiteBoy

Which I'm sure was a deal struck between him and the FCS. A judge just didn't just pull that out of his ass. But some members ended up inspected anyway so it was all a wash, as I expected it would be.

I'm sure they did fight HARD to extend for 3 more days. Money was probably pouring in at that time.

1. In the summer of 2005, I was personally in the conference room in Denver (I and Lenny Friedlander had agreed/volunteered to also be plaintiffs along with the FSC even though there was concern that DOJ might "target" us personally) when FSC lawyers were brain-storming and finalizing arguments for the the upcoming hearing with the 10th District Circuit in Denver that was scheduled for just a few days later.

2. As I recall, I heard someone in that room of powerful First Amentment FSC Attorneys surface the subject of legal "standing" and a question of how to insure that Secondary Producers would also be included and protected by inclusion in the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) being sought by FSC (yes, protection was also being sought for those Adult Internet people, not many of whom IMHO financially supported FSC via memberships prior to the 2257 challenge FSC mounted, many of whom still don't(?) -- some of whom even to this day, IMHO, seem to somewhat automatically "blast" FSC on the boards). I witnessed that FSC was conscientiously looking to assist Adult Internet folks, too, not just the Primary Producers of video companies.

3. One of the FSC attorneys who was often on the phone to the DOJ attorney (the DOJ guy was the main one who was coming to Denver in just three days to defend DOJ in court hearings; and, that DOJ attorney was assigned to defend the DOJ regulations that included inspections and potential prosecutions and jail time for violators, INCLUDING Adult Internet Secondary Producers); finally, after much discussion and back-and-forth with supervisors at DOJ, the FSC attorney got DOJ to also agree to not fight the "standing" issue for any Adult Internet Secondary Producers who fell under the FSC plaintiff umbrella as members.

4. Also negiotated was the agreement that the Court would appoint a "Master" (a retired judge) to oversee a short period of time for FSC membership actions, which I think was for the three days before the then-upcoming court hearing, for Adult Internet Secondary Producers to formally sign up to become members of FSC and resultingly have standing/inclusion in the the TRO if FSC won it.

5. The judge heard both sides and agreed to render an early decision. As I recall (I was in the Court at the time), one of the FSC attorneys requested that DOJ not pursue a massive bunch of 2257 inspections while the Judge was pondering his decision. I think, but can't recall for sure, that either DOJ relunctantly said OK and/or the judge agreed with the FSC motion.

NOTE: It's hell to be nearing 71 years of age and not have the long-term memory of every detail like my younger years allowed. On top of that, I'm merely a porn star, not an attorney, so I don't adequately understand the legal terms and the "why's" and "how's" of things related to 2257 and other issues that FSC advocates for us. I do advise, however, that an attorney be retained to handle our own specific 2257 matters.

6. The judge took many months to issue his opinion, during which time mass inspections were on hold, THANK GOODNESS, which gave time for some FSC members and other Records Custodians to get their records in better shape. That period of time, IMO, might have has contributed to the two FBI Inspection Teams not getting fully geared up for many months after the judge's ruling (which went against the TRO, but gave everyone a time to "get our shit together" to better withstand the subsequent inspections).

Unlike some, I personally think that we ALL should immediately join and support FSC in their actions to represent us against: the over-burdensomeness of 2257; CAL/OSHA policies and regulations, and the Aids Healthcare Foundation crusade to mandate dental dams for cunnilingus, and condoms-and-goggles for fellatio, and condoms for sexual intercourse; Piracy; .xxx; and, other stuff that affects all of us as a group.

[NemesisEnforcer]

Originally Posted by cherrylula

Isn't this just a California thing? If we're not in Cali, why should we care? Honest question.

If your question is about FSC, it drives home my point as to why I miss Kat Sunlove. She kept everyone in the know.

[NemesisEnforcer]

Originally Posted by Redrob

DWB,

It was not fun, easy, or profitable if you look at what was spent by the FSC on the litigation's expenses.

I'm sure everyone including the FSC would rather that the entire exercise would have not been needed.

Didn't FSC do that "members only" thing again recently?

[Redrob]

The FSC is a membership-based organization and does work to offer its members benefits that it does not offer non-members.

Yes, the FSC offered the FSC Anti-Piracy Action Program to its members.

You have to be a member to participate. It is really a great program for content producers that want to step up their anti-piracy efforts.

And, the FSC is working on more "value-added" benefits for its members.

[Redrob]

On a side note:

The memberships of FSC includes all aspects of the adult entertainment industry.

The FSC is primarily focused on the needs of its members.

Therefore, as the FSC works and campaigns for the benefit of its members, quite often, the entire adult industry benefits from the results.

There is no requirement to join the FSC; but, a better funded and successful FSC is good for the entire adult industry in my opinion; but, I am admittedly biased.

I like the "All boats rise on the incoming tide" model of seeing the situation.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by cherrylula

Isn't this just a California thing? If we're not in Cali, why should we care? Honest question.

They do shoot porn globally, so as long as that happens it's all good for us webmasters.

Sorry California and LA are such assholes controlling everything. Part of the reason I left!

It's a well known fact the porn industry is totally situated in a few districts in the Valley and if they're hit the rest of the porn world will collapse overnight.

Can't be bothered to search for a sarcasm button.

[davecummings]

I wonder if this thread has motivated anyone to join FSC, or whether GYF readers of it just want to complain but simultaneously be "protected/included" by FSC efforts that other FSC members helped by being FSC members/supporters?!