“We should not allow adult performers to be harassed simply because someone doesn’t like what they do. California law should protect workers from harassment, not sanction it.” ~Michael Stabile.
If you listen to Michael Weinstein and the AHF, those of us in the adult industry are a bunch of opportunistic pornographers against mandatory condom laws because it will eat into our profits. The tube sites and free porn have already done that. Our opposition stems from the very real threat it poses not to our bottom line, but to adullt performers themselves.One overlooked fact to begin with: should it pass, the HIV testing protocol that would become law is less frequent and uses a less comprehensive test that is currently in place, the PASS System.
As we saw yesterday, Eric Paul Leue and the Free Speech Coalition (FSC) are taking the condom battle public. Today, as reported by xBiz, they are taking things one step further by establishing The Californians Against Worker Harassment ballot measure committee, sponsored by the FSC and funded by a group of performers, businesses, and public health advocates.
Which brings up to our second overlooked fact, the initiative would allow “any private citizen of California the power to sue a worker, even an injured worker, in the adult entertainment industry, simply because they don’t agree with how that worker does their job.” In order to sue a sex worker, you first have to obtain the legal name, address, and other private, personal information that turns them into prey for stalkers or obsessed fans.Michael Stabile, a co-founder of The Sword and a spokesperson for Californians Against Worker Harassment and the FSC, said the proposed law would set a precedent in California law, creating “a dangerous culture of harassment and fear in the adult film industry.”
“It opens up the door to extortion and harassment of a predominantly female performer base and small business owners by those outside the industry.”
“Adult workers have been vocal in their opposition to the law, which would remove their own ability to choose a condom, and open the door to stalkers and serial harassers, a serious issue for many performers,” the committee said. “Many also fear that the initiative will further drive a legal industry underground, leaving them less protected.”
Stabile said California’s Attorney General estimates the California Condoms in Pornographic Films ballot initiative will cost tens of millions annually in lost tax revenue and administration costs. A similar bill in Los Angeles in 2012 resulted in a 95 percent drop in permits for adult production in Los Angeles County, before being ruled unenforceable.
“This initiative is dangerous to adult performers, sets a precedent for other workers to be sued, and will force tax revenues and jobs out of state,” Stabile said. “We should not allow adult performers to be harassed simply because someone doesn’t like what they do. California law should protect workers from harassment, not sanction it.”
Here’s the bottom line: the California Condom Ballot Initiative, by less rigorous testing and exposing performers to potential stalkers and crazed fans offers potential mental and physical harm to the very people it purports to protect. If you like your porn with condoms, view it. If you like it bareback, watch it. Same holds true in your own bedroom. What we don’t need is Michael Weinstein, the AHF, or uninformed voters making those decisions for us.
And when it comes to protecting sex workers, The FSC and the Californians Against Worker Harassment Committee have that, if you will pardon the expression, well covered.
How can you weight in on this?
Show up on election day in California and every state.