California State Assembly Bill 332 (AB-332)[1] is the bill that just passed it’s first committee hearing and is moving on to the Labor and Employment Committee, possibly as early as April 24th, 2013. This is an initiative started years ago to mandate condoms in adult films and webcam broadcasts shot in the State of California. Is it a simple issue? No. It’s not “simple” because laws and contracts–anything legally binding–is comprised of specific language. It has to be extremely specific because so much hinges upon specific, appropriate wording. That is to say, if you are not aware of a law’s specific language, you stand to go to jail. And that is never a simple matter.
The language contained in AB-332 is highly questionable and problematic for a number of reasons. But first, a little history.
AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) started really advocating for mandatory condoms in 2009. Through a series of media blitzes, press conferences and boycotts, they managed to stir up a lot of press over condoms; even allying themselves with Lifestyles Condoms when they boycotted Hustler of Hollywood[2]. Of course, the adult industry isn’t comprised of just a few large companies like Hustler, but it was a headline-maker and the store is located on one of L.A.’s busiest thoroughfares, Sunset Boulevard.
I would just like to be clear: The language contained in AB-332 (and Measure B, of course) is dangerous.
For example, including “hazmat suit” in a law about an industry of adults that have sex as entertainment is, obviously, problematic. We’re supposed to believe that everyone around the bill is so much smarter than the industry it seeks to protect, yet they can somehow miss the fact that when you wear a hazmat suit–literally, a “hazardous material suit”[3] that completely covers your body from head to toe–you can’t have sex. The porn industry is painted as dumb folk that “don’t get it” when a glaringly obvious piece of legalese clearly outlines a safety precaution that completely prevents sex from happening at all.
But let’s assume that AHF’s intentions have nothing to do with hazmat suits. Why include that language in a bill? “Intentions” in a legally binding document don’t matter. What matters is what you’re saying. [Amendment: I've been informed that intentions are actually extremely important in law. In this case, what is the intention? To shut down the adult industry altogether? I'll write more about this later.]
Take a gun law, for example, that created a vacuum where on the one hand you had to register your gun in order to own one, but a completely separate law stated you could not register your gun[4]. By adding language that–if it is so unnecessary and unimportant, why put it there?–includes points that aren’t the intent, it opens up the law to interpretation and stands to create the same kind of nonsensical vacuum. Let’s say AHF doesn’t care about hazmat suits. You don’t sign a legal document, or sign off on one, with only yourself in mind. You have to consider people in the future that will inherit this law. In fact, that example can be found in this situation, because it was finding language around bloodborne pathogens and laws that were created in the 1990s specifically for clinics and hospitals that gave them the language they’re using in AB-332: dental dams, gloves, goggles, hazmat suits. The next group down the line will have no qualms about being openly anti-porn and pointing at condoms as the minimum requirement that includes other safety implements and interpreting that to mean that the rest should apply.
Then there’s the fact that making condoms the primary step in mitigating STDs (testing secondary)–even though the language loosely includes testing–could set a precedent. Say a performer shows up to a set where the producer refuses to let them work because they don’t have a test. That performer could sue the producer for discrimination because he’s willing to wear a condom; the minimum requirement. If you don’t understand the law, you can miss that, yet it is entirely possible.
The adult industry is being chided by its critics for raising their concerns and being shamed into just complying. Industry adults are being painted as irresponsible and careless because they understand basic economics, they understand their choices and right to reject an idea, and they understand the risks involved in doing what they do. A condom is a terrible Band-Aid and irrational as a primary defense against STDs. To make the physical, determined effort to go to a clinic and stand face-to-face with a doctor who can tell you what STDs are and how they affect you, informs you about the risk. Opening a condom is not going to instantly inform you about STDs, what they look like, how they effect you in the longterm when they go untreated, or that they break, tear and come off altogether. As a woman, the act of going to a clinic and just being counseled to test every three-to-six months for HPV and different types of Hepatitis is invaluable depending on how little you already know about these things. The adult community is informed about the risk of having multiple sex partners and it has evolved its model to meet safety as well as consumer demands. It is dangerous to shift perception towards thinking that condoms will protect people from STDs and HIV. Anyone not being offered education encouraging them to know their health status before they have sex is given the false impression that condoms will protect them. It’s irresponsible to circumvent education through testing. The industry is relatively young, but shortly after California vs. Freeman[5] found that porn is not pandering and therefore legal, the industry began to come together as a community and evolve its business practices in increasingly more responsible ways; hence implementing voluntary testing in the early 1990s.
The industry wants industry-appropriate regulations. That’s it. Adult industry “insiders” help spin AHF’s arguments to make it look more complicated than it is. It’s not complicated. These people don’t want to leave California, and they want to make a living. If you don’t fully understand the ramifications for pushing a law as quickly as possible without considering its problem areas and without properly consulting the industry you propose to “save”, you are doing more harm than good. If you propose to speak for a few people as their big brother without proof, and without encouraging them to come forward and state their mind regardless of the consequences, you are perpetuating the “victim” label historically used by anti-pornographers to further silence men and especially women of the sex industry; you are doing more harm than good. If you ignore the fact that people are leaving California[6] because they feel they have no choice because they live paycheck-to-paycheck, are chasing jobs and don’t want to go to jail, you are incapable of reason, or incapable of seeing the situation for what it is.
I was recently accused on someone’s radio show of calling AIDS Healthcare Foundation’s Executive Director, Michael Weinstein, hateful names on James Bartholet’s Inside the Industry[7]. That’s not true. I simply stated that I do not think Weinstein cares about adult performers. That is my opinion, as well as countless other adult industry professional’s and gay activist’s, based upon years of reading articles, watching press conferences, watching Weinstein walk hand-in-hand with an industry predator–several women have come forward to say Shelley Lubben took advantage of them during their most vulnerable moments after leaving porn–watching a video ad during a major campaign that I believe premeditatedly failed to disclose the “Paid Actor” status of their spokespeople (Darren James and Derrick Burts)[8], talking to other industry professionals, and so much more[9][10]. And I did not always feel that way. I wanted to believe that maybe AHF was trying to be helpful at one point, but now I do not.
I was a performer for six years, worked as a Custodian of Records (18 U.S.C. § 2257 compliance) for four years and have been writing about adult industry issues on my website for four years. I supported my family as a sex worker and am an advocate for sex worker rights. I interview performers in the industry, and I do so with no financial incentive as I don’t own a porn company, I make no residual income off of past product and do not sell ad space on my website. (Doesn’t mean I always won’t, but right now I do not.)
Who am I to speak as an ex-performer[11]? Basically, when critics say, ‘If the industry is so great, where are the ex-performers who come forward and say their time in adult was a pleasant one?’ That’s me. It’s not glamorous, but I do it out of conscience because I am a sex worker. I may be technically retired, but I’m the one who has to bear the sex worker stigma for the rest of my life. I know what it means to work paycheck-to-paycheck. I know what it means to have a family and be too busy trying to schedule the next job to make time to read extensively and go to our capitol and speak about our marginalized industry. I was in FSC’s anti-piracy PSA[12], and happily contributed to the latest Opposition to AB-332 PSA[13]. I feel an obligation to represent my industry thoughtfully as it is full of good people. James Bartholet probably didn’t want to spend that much of his usually lighthearted program talking about AB-332, but I appreciate that he did.
If you want to be helpful opposing this bill, read and inform yourself as much as you can. AHF is probably already working on this at the federal level, so continue to follow what’s going on. I have a Category here under AB-332 and Measure B. PVVOnline and FSC Blog have information, as do sex workers under the “Sex Worker Blog” column in the right sidebar. Read Doug’s take on AB-332 if you want an outsider’s perspective [link here]. He listens to me talk about the bill and reads other’s articles, but like me, he has his own mind and thoughts about it from a reasonable perspective.
Also, should this site ever be offline (maintenance issues happen!), please bookmark JulieMeadows.Wordpress.com and check it regularly.
I leave you with a very good interview between Larry “The Sage from South Central” Elder and Michael Weinstein of AIDS Healthcare Foundation. Larry sticks to the simple issues and I, personally, appreciate him for that. Sex workers are not “animals”. Animals can’t consent; adult human beings can. It is frustrating how thoroughly I have to dummy myself down to speak about this. http://fetch.noxsolutions.com/elder/audio/weinstein_20130410.mp3
[1] – http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB332
[2] – http://articles.latimes.com/2009/dec/23/local/la-me-porn23-2009dec23
[3] – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazmat_suit
[4] – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago
[5] – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_v._Freeman
[6] – http://www.sbsun.com/ci_23024668/porn-film-permits-have-dropped-dramatically-l-county?IADID=Search-www.sbsun.com-www.sbsun.com
[7] – http://www.latalkradio.com/James.php
[8] – http://business.avn.com/articles/legal/No-On-Gov-t-Waste-Comm-Charges-More-AHF-Campaign-Violations-491481.html
[9] – [NSFW] http://thesword.com/why-is-michael-weinsteins-aids-healthcare-foundation-selling-bareback-porn.html
[10] - http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-weinstein4apr04,0,7369027.story
[11] – https://fscblogger.wordpress.com/2013/04/12/1943/
[12] - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xNzsTHA1nI
[13] – http://vimeo.com/63621315
You may quote this site's original content in incomplete excerpts with credit to © Julie Meadows Entertainment and a direct link to quoted material. Thank you!