Domain-a-Palooza

As expected, Internet regulatory agency ICANN at its meeting in Singapore last week approved the addition of specific gTLDs, like .Disney, .boobs or .whatever.

And, while ICANN and the registrars rejoiced – all of a sudden, the Internet seems on course to become a very complicated, crowded space. News about the coming changes has been rampant and, at best, very mixed as to how this will help or hurt the Internet. Many are of the opinion that the new gTLDs represent a very lucrative opportunity for ICANN, especially with a registration fee of $185K, and annually fees of $25K. This prohibitive price is certain to allow only serious brand-builders into the Brave, New Internet.

The general state of confusion over what will result from ICANN’s action was expressed in this article from The Christian Post, where ICANN CEO Rod Beckstrom said, “No one can predict where this historic decision will take us.”

Well, that’s good to know – we’d venture to predict that a lot of big brands will feel that they’ve been taken to the cleaners, while ICANN and registrars go to the bank.  Web businesses may be left out to dry while consumers try to chart their way to online destinations, and cyber-squatters try to grab their piece of the pie.

Of course, as the adult industry trade association in the U.S., FSC’s primary concern is the .XXX sTLD, scheduled to roll out in September. In this article by Dan Gillmor (one-time candidate for the ICANN Board) in The Guardian, he questions whether ICANN is actually necessary, and points out the inherent flaws of .XXX:

“Contrary to Icann’s rationalisations, .xxx is a terrible idea. Should it succeed, it will enrich its promoters. But it will also likely lead, should the domain actually be adopted widely, to widespread censorship and manipulation. Governments are keen to restrict access to what they consider to be pornography or block it altogether; look for laws requiring adult sites to use the .xxx domain, so they can be more easily fenced in – or out. India has already announced it will block .xxx entirely.

I hope this wretched move fails for practical reasons. Adult content providers possessing common sense will hesitate to move their operations into a censor-friendly zone of this kind. Indeed, the Free Speech Coalition, an adult entertainment trade group, is urging its members to boycott .xxx and stick with the tried and true .com suffix that most of them already use,” Gillmor added.

Mainstream businesses apparently missed the memo on .XXX, and now law and marketing firms are warning their customers to avoid having their brands contaminated with a .XXX para-site. This firm warns its Middle Eastern clients to avoid having their brands associated with the adult industry. This story suggest that brands NOT rush to pay for blocking during the Sunrise period of .XXX, and to wait until after the domain launches, when .XXX overseer ICM Registry will purportedly install a system to prevent cyber-squatting – but that certainly hasn’t prevented registrars from offering to block .XXX addresses at $300 a pop.

Here’s an interesting question: If you were a mega-brand like Disney – notorious for protecting thousands of its brands, from Mickey to the Little Mermaid – would you be willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in what amounts to “protection” money, to prevent your brands being squatted on? Or would you simply pay $185,000 to buy .Disney and send all your consumers there? When you look at it like that, seems like it would be more productive to build your brand, than to play into the hands of online carpetbaggers.

And make no mistake, in the blinding light of the Sunrise period, as mainstream companies are grappling with protecting their major brands – it seems only natural that they will blame the adult entertainment industry as a whole for the trouble with TLDs – not ICANN or ICM Registry. Maybe even to the point where they support conservative legislators that will propose governmental mandates on .XXX sites? If that were to happen, there will be few safe harbors in the light of that new day.

And in more .XXX news:

ICM last week announced the members of its IFFOR Policy Board, which will oversee operations and set policy for .XXX domains. The new members include Former American Civil Liberties Union President Nadine Strossen, child-protection authority Sharon Girling, law professor Fred Cate and attorney Robert Corn-Revere. In addition, mainstream businessmen Clyde Beattie and Sébastien Bachollet have been named to the organization’s board of directors – a very impressive-sounding list that does not include any members of the adult online industry – but will be setting policy for .XXX adult webmasters.

This week, ICM also announced an $8M deal with online security provider McAfee, so that every .XXX website will be scanned daily for malware and phishing programs. While this may reassure the nervous consumer that hesitates to go to adult sites, fearing a flurry of pop-ups and possible viruses – it also implies that .com adult webmasters are shady or uncaring about their customers. In fact, in 2009, security provider Symantec released a list of “dirtiest websites” and 52% had nothing to do with adult content. Perhaps ICANN can arrange for the entire Internet to be scanned on a daily basis, and then get rid of those pesky pirates who have NO problem going to P2P and tubesites for their adult entertainment.

In any case, responsible adult webmasters that have invested in building their .com brands are not going to destroy their reputations by exposing their customers to malicious Internet gremlins. That’s why they have survived, while low-quality, less reputable adult sites have been swallowed up in the Great Recession.

And if you are a responsible adult webmaster – do you need daily monitoring? Do you want to be obligated to follow policies set down for you by a governing body? Would you willingly link your successful .com business to a .XXX address that must comply to monitoring and oversight – a .XXX address that is likely to be blocked or becomes the default for curious kids trying to find adult material?

As this article from The Register explains, $60 of the $70-$135 fee for a .XXX address will go to “ICM and its policy body.” Funny thing – The Register’s editorial policy seems to be to use the euphemism “pron” when referring to “porn” in a headline; this is a common tactic to prevent filters from blocking access to the story link. Guess you won’t be seeing TheRegister.xxx anytime soon.

FSC leads the opposition to .XXX and urges all adult online businesses to stay .COM – say “NO” to .XXX. – jc

(Graphic courtesy of the Library of Congress)

How MUCH is AHF’s ‘Epidemic’ Going to Cost Taxpayers?

Well, AIDS Healthcare Foundation is at it again, and what we would like to know is:

WHY are California taxpayers expected to throw more money at an appeal to the State Supreme Court over a non-issue that AHF has blown up to “epidemic” proportions? Especially at a time when the state budget is being slashed for much-needed programs, including state and local STI programs?

Yesterday, taxpayer supported “nonprofit” AHF announced that it will “vigorously pursue” an appeal on a recently dismissed lawsuit; filed in 2009, the suit seeks to have the courts compel Los Angeles County Public Health (LACPH) officials to take action against the “spread” of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in the adult performer population. AHF claims it feels STI rates for adult performers represent a public health threat and they are willing to go to the State Supreme Court to prove it.

The action by AHF follows last week’s judgment by California Appeals Court Justices Richard D. Aldrich, Joan D. Klein and Patti S. Kitching. In his written opinion, Justice Aldrich said specifically that AHF’s claims that LA County is obligated to take action in order to stop AHF’s purported “epidemic” are patently false. Moreover, it is unlikely that any court can grant AHF’s demands because, as it says in the current ruling, the court “cannot compel another branch of government to exercise its discretion in any manner” nor “compel [LA County] to implement [AHF’s] agenda.”

Of course, AHF’s agenda is enforcing mandatory condoms and other barrier protection in the adult industry – because apparently there are not enough legitimate issues facing those affected with HIV/AIDS or populations at risk for HIV infection. Apparently, all of AHF’s attention can now be focused on policing the adult performer population numbering, perhaps, 1,500 people.

Never mind that the adult production industry has successfully self-regulated the safety of its performers with monthly STI testing since 1998. The testing protocol instated by the now-defunct Adult Industry Medical Healthcare (AIM) clinic efficiently prevented HIV-positive individuals from entering the business, and also effectively limited the spread of infection when active performers tested positive in 2004, 2009 and 2010. AIM also served the sexual health needs of other high-risk populations not involved in adult production.

Never mind that another lawsuit, and numerous complaints filed by AHF were instrumental in contributing to the “financial hardships” that finally destroyed AIM.

Never mind that statistical information on STI rates for adult performers, presented by public health officials, has been described as inaccurate and “without basis in science” in a report commissioned by FSC, written by prominent epidemiologist and biostatistician Dr. Lawrence Mayer. That report was entered into record at the June 7 Cal/OSHA meeting, attended by scores of adult performers that wanted their voices heard in a regulatory process that will impact them the most. And never mind that AHF – not performers – has filed workplace safety violation complaints against adult production companies and agents, forcing Cal/OSHA into action.

Never mind that AHF keeps on quoting what they now must know to be inaccurate information; as in its press release, that “as many as 22 porn performers have tested positive in the last five years,” when in fact, the LA Times published that health officials retracted their findings concerning the number of performers that tested positive for HIV. And according to Dr. Mayer’s report, the stats that AHF quotes (as analyzed by LA County Public Health) on Chlamydia and gonorrhea in the performer population ALSO are wildly inaccurate.

And while AHF is busy playing nanny to adult industry performers and the public at large, did you know that a recent study shows that the highest rate of increase in HIV infection in the nation is affecting Asians and Pacific Islanders? When was the last time that we saw an Asian on an AHF billboard, or AHF launching media outreach to that community?

Did you know that HIV rates for gay and bisexual men in California may have been dropping steadily since the mid-2000s, and this may be due to improved treatments for HIV? AHF provides valuable resources for those living with HIV and should continue to do so – at the same time, taking responsibility for the education of at-risk populations about safe sex.  But adult performers – who test 12 times a year or more – are making an informed choice about their health and the work they do; how many average citizens are tested for STIs, even just once?

Citizens of Sacramento – where legislators work every day to try and serve the public’s interests while dealing with never-ending debates over how to fix the budget – did you know that funding cuts to local STI programs in Sacramento have resulted in the capitol now having the fifth largest incidence of syphilis in the state? That’s up from NO reported cases of syphilis in the early 2000s, and due to lack of funding for outreach staffing.

Look, we all know that California is facing a budget shortfall of up to $23 BILLION dollars for 2012. So far, state funding has been slashed to important programs for firefighters, courts, prisons, schools, state parks and the elderly, just to name a few.

Do the state of California, Los Angeles County or even AHF’s contributors need to spend one more red cent on funding or defending against AHF’s  impractical campaign to enforce condom use on adult production sets? For that matter, do state officials (at the behest of AHF) want to encourage the legal, revenue-generating adult production industry to pull up stakes and move out of California, to places where production safety and standards will be virtually impossible to enforce?

FSC has been working with Cal/OSHA, industry stakeholders, compliance experts and attorneys to develop industry-appropriate regulations. As the industry trade association in the U.S., our agenda is to promote and protect the well-being of the adult industry community and businesses.

We’ll leave it to you to figure out what AHF’s agenda is, and how much it’s costing taxpayers. – jc

FSC Applauds Court’s Decision on Performer Privacy

Alameda Superior Court Judge Winifred Smith this week issued a decision blocking Cal/OSHA’s subpoena for information in the 2009 case of “Patient Zero.” The state regulatory agency had subpoenaed now-defunct Adult Industry Medical Healthcare (AIM) for employment and medical information of Patient Zero, an adult performer, as well as all other adult performers who had received testing or treatment at AIM.

Judge Smith pointed out in her decision that Cal/OSHA’s request for information violated privacy rights of adult performers under the U.S. and California constitutions.

The judge issued a permanent injunction prohibiting Cal/OSHA from subpoenaing the confidential health records, medical information and personal identifying information of Patient Zero.

CalOSHA had argued that because adult performers tested at AIM had signed waivers allowing adult producers to view their test results that they had given up expectation of privacy.

However, the judge found that Patient Zero, as well as other performers, had reasonable expectation of privacy, and that Cal/OSHA had not “demonstrated by evidence or argument, a compelling need for the information sought in the subpoena.”

The court’s action is the latest development in proceedings by Cal/OSHA to regulate workplace safety on adult production sets, largely spurred on by complaints filed by AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF).

Attorney Karen Tynan, who specializes in OSHA litigation and has represented several adult companies, told FSC, “This ruling is a bit of a bittersweet victory since AHF has brought about the demise of AIM.

“However, this shows that AIM was properly and legally protecting patient privacy at all times,” she added.

Since 2009, AHF has relentlessly campaigned to mandate condoms and other barrier protection on adult production sets. The nonprofit HIV/AIDS organization continues to assert that sexually-transmitted infections in the performer population present a public health threat of “epidemic” proportions, citing data presented by LA County Health officials. To date, AHF has filed lawsuits and legal complaints against adult production studios, talent agents and LA County Health, in its attempt to force its condom-only agenda on the industry.

FSC, along with Tynan, industry stakeholders and compliance experts have been working with Cal/OSHA to arrive at industry appropriate regulations for workplace safety.

Recognizing the gap left by the closure of the AIM clinic, FSC is currently developing Adult Production Health & Safety Services (APHSS), in order to ensure that STI testing protocols for the industry continue, and to protect the safety of performers. Tynan will serve as legal advisor for the APHSS Advisory Committee, when the program is launched.

“New procedures and plans for industry medical testing and protection of performer privacy will be consistent with the legal analysis and conclusions offered by Judge Smith,” Tynan said.

(Photo courtesy of Glentamara)

 

If There’s a .XXX Elephant in the Room, Shoot It

Okay, it may be a slight overstatement to say that .XXX was the elephant in the room at last week’s XBIZ Summit held in Chicago. The adult online “sponsored” Top Level Domain was represented by IFFOR Board Executive Director Dr. Joan Irvine and ICM Registry’s Vaughn Liley, but the only other visible presence of the .XXX was on FSC postcards, calling for opposition to the domain.

Just days before the XBIZ show, however, the latest registrar to announce it will be selling .XXX addresses is GoDaddy – the company that recently received lots of media attention when its CEO Bob Parsons shot a “nuisance” elephant in Zimbabwe and then put a video of the kill up on YouTube. With Peta in an uproar and animal activists everywhere disgusted by his actions, Parsons explained that the hunt was justified because the elephant was destroying locals’ crops – so instead of giving them money to put up a fence or otherwise financially contribute to the villagers, Parsons gave them GoDaddy hats and allowed them to hack up the elephant for food, which he also documented on video.

Whatever your personal feelings on hunting or animal rights, what’s really important is the attitude of corporate imperialism on display here. GoDaddy was a supporter of .XXX from early on in the approval process – though its safe to say they were not actively pursuing adult online business prior to the concept of creating an adult online ghetto. In fact, many industry members might agree that adult businesses hosted at GoDaddy find dealing with their customer service and email service policies somewhat problematic.

.XXX has now addressed any issues GoDaddy may have had with adult online business, and part of that $70 annual fee for a .XXX address will go to fund further humanitarian efforts by Bwana Parsons to rid the world of annoying animals that threaten to crowd out human populations in third world countries.

Meantime, in other .XXX news…

Mainstream companies are now being clued in by attorneys and brand managers that if they want to avoid their brands being squatted on, they can pay for blocking for anywhere from $150 to $300 per address. Trademark attorney Steve Abreu, in AdAge Magazine, tells rights owners to “expect shenanigans” with the new domain. DomainNameWire.com said registries will “get a windfall” during the blocking period, but that brand owners may have only 30 days to plan their protection strategy. Law firm Allens Arthur Robinson warned its clients against “.XXX brand-jackers.” TGDaily.com quoted blocking fees at somewhere between $75 to $650 per address, and added speculation that large mainstream companies may end up spending more than $100,000 to defend their brands. Adult brand owners may pay up to $300 to reserve .XXX addresses they already established in the .com domain.

Companies all over the world must be thrilled at the prospect of having to spend money they didn’t have to spend before, in order to protect their brands – all we can say is, don’t blame the adult online industry. Call up ICANN and ask them how this happened.

Looks like the U.S, government already has. During the XBIZ Chicago show, the government announced a “further notice of inquiry,” signaling an overhaul of the IANA contract that is currently overseen by ICANN (and expires in September), dealing with ICANN’s implementation of policies for Top Level Domains. With the anticipated approval of specific gTLDs – like .sex or .porn – maybe companies like Disney can get around .XXX by purchasing the right to use .disney?

It’s a good time to be a registrar, apparently, while online business owners and content producers struggle to contend with a rapidly changing Internet landscape.

Back on terra firma, India promised to block .XXX less than five days after ICANN’s approval. Kenya quickly followed suit, stating that the domain would make it easier for children to find adult material online (see if Parsons shoots any elephants for them). It was revealed that Euro Commissioner for the Digital Agenda Neeli Kroes had asked the U.S. Dept of Commerce to delay the addition of .XXX to the root system after it was approved by ICANN.

Singapore quietly announced the other day that it will actually allow .XXX – the country where, coincidentally, ICANN will be holding its Public Meeting this month, June 19-24.

Elsewhere – Turkey has said that it will block online adult websites; other Middle Eastern countries will not be far behind. China is likely to be pleased with the launch of .XXX so that they can systematically block adult sites instead of censoring websites  “by hand,” as they have been doing for years now.

FSC leads opposition to the .XXX domain. It’s a bad idea for the Internet and adult webmasters, happening at the worst time possible for many online businesses. We urge adult businesses to STAY .COM – say NO to .XXX, and save an elephant. -jc

(Graphic courtesy of Michael Whiteacre)

CalOSHA Meeting Wrap-up, and a Thank You from FSC

Simply put, FSC would like to thank the performers, producers, agents, and other industry members that attended yesterday’s CalOSHA Subcommittee meeting.

It was a lively discussion, to say the least – and gave a voice to the adult industry, to answer claims made by industry critics, including AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF). It was the first time that CalOSHA had an opportunity to hear from legitimate industry stakeholders, and they heard hours of comments on proposed health & safety regulations that could affect the lives and livelihoods of the adult industry community – from the adult industry community.

Industry attorney Paul Cambria (there on behalf of Vivid Entertainment) spoke first, and entered into record the FSC-commissioned report by respected Johns Hopkins professor, biostatistician and epidemiologist Dr. Lawrence Mayer. The report states that data presented by LA County Public Health officials Drs. Robert Kim-Farley and Peter Kerndt is “flawed” and “without basis in science.” Prior to Dr. Mayer’s report, the only data on rates of adult industry STIs was from LA County Public Health, and now, that data has been called into question.

Following Cambria, industry members spoke up to question and offer comments on a 17-page draft of proposed health and safety regulations (link below), which the subcommittee is considering for submission to the CalOSHA Standards Board.

Throughout the meeting, the questions and comments from industry members were impassioned, intelligent and mostly from performers that voiced their independent opinions – and outrage – at feelings of being left out of regulatory protocol that will affect them, while outside healthcare organizations and medical authorities have aggressively pushed their agendas for regulating the adult industry.

Special thanks to performer Danny Wylde and industry activist Michael Whiteacre for helping to rally performers to attend the meeting. Also, to Girlfriends Films owner Dan O’Connell and GF vice president Moose for the company’s continued support of FSC and for spreading the word to their models, many of whom attended yesterday. Wicked Pictures, a longtime supporter of FSC, was represented at the meeting by Jessica Drake, Brad Armstrong and Kaylani Lei.

Thanks to all the independent performers, like Nicki Hunter, who was interviewed by the LA Daily News, and said, “I think the intentions are good, but the proposals are unrealistic in the industry. If this does pass, the industry will move to Nevada.”

To performers Ela Darling, Lilly Cade, and Sarah Shevon, who questioned the scope of potential barrier control methods. And Darryl Hannah, who eloquently expressed her disgust and mistrust of the process. To agent Shy Love, whose fiery commentary called anti-adult Pink Cross Foundation out on the carpet.

Performers like John Magnum, who tried to build bridges of understanding with their questions – indicating to all those gathered – that the industry is not anti-regulation but, instead, pro-choice for performers. Who knows better than them, the risks they face and the precautions they take to protect themselves on a daily basis?

To everyone that spoke up to say – putting the issue of barrier protection aside – that testing and self-regulation imposed by the industry has worked and protected them, proving that they are not a “public health threat” and that conditions are not “epidemic,” as some anti-adult activists would have you believe. In fact, that in comparison to other sexually-active groups in the general population, the performer STI rates are lower and that infections are detected sooner because of frequent testing protocol.

To director Eli Cross and performer Tommy Gunn, who pointed out that stunt men, boxers and mixed martial arts fighters risk exposure to bodily fluids, just like adult performers – and that even a simple French kiss in a mainstream movie can put actors at risk of exposure.

To Nina Hartley, who expressed concern for her friends and family if the proposed regulations were passed – and her husband director Ira Levine, who patiently nailed down direct responses from officials.

Agents like Derek Hay and Mark Spiegler, who explained the business aspects involved in arriving at practical regulatory decisions. And to FSC board member and industry veteran Christian Mann, who brought up the producer’s point of view, alongside Cyd Black and several other content producers.

To performer Kara Price, who signed up for FSC membership prior to the meeting and also showed up to voice her opinions at the meeting. And to all those at the meeting that did not get a chance to speak, but showed their support simply by being there. To any of those we may have missed…

To attorneys Karen Tynan and Kevin Bland, who have worked tirelessly to help FSC and other adult industry companies in dealing with CalOSHA.

And, lastly, to all the industry members that couldn’t be there, but followed the live Tweets, asking questions and stating their opinions online. For industry members that would like to submit their questions and comments directly to CalOSHA, contact Subcommittee Director dgold@dir.ca.gov.

FSC would like to thank each and every one for fighting the good fight. It is great to feel the support and see industry stakeholders involved in the process. CalOSHA stated that they do not expect another meeting until the end of the year – but until then, FSC will keep you informed and updated. Anyone with questions, or who would like more information on FSC, please contact joanne@freespeechcoalition.com.

And again – thank you. -jc

Sexually Transmitted Infections Discussion Draft for 6-7-11 meeting — circ

Photos from CalOSHA Subcommittee Meeting, June 7

FSC Executive Director Diane Duke addresses the subcommittee

Performer Sarah Shevon speaking to the assembly

Industry members, with 'Patient Zeta' Derrick Burts in the foreground (green shirt)

Director Eli Cross queues up to voice his opinion

Performer Kara Price makes her point

Agent Shy Love is not shy, as Directors/Performers Brad Armstrong and Jessica Drake look on (l to r)

Performer Nina Hartley talks about her concerns for the industry

Director Ira Levine asked tough questions

The room was so crowded with industry folks that they had to bring extra chairs and open an adjacent room

The CalOSHA Subcommittee heard comments from many performers, agents and producers

(Photos courtesy of Percy Leon)

 

Study Finds LA County Health Dept Reports on Adult Industry STI Data Flawed, ‘Without Basis in Science’

Dr. Peter Kerndt, Director of STD Programs for LA County Public Health Dept

Free Speech Coalition (FSC), the trade association for the adult entertainment industry in the U.S., today announced it has received a report from nationally renowned epidemiologist Lawrence S. Mayer MD, MS, PhD, that establishes that data presented by the L.A. County Public Health Dept (LACPH) on rates of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) for adult industry performers is “poorly documented” and “without basis in science.”

Dr. Mayer currently is a professor at Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health and School of Medicine, as well as a Professor of Biostatistics at Arizona State University and Professor of Epidemiology at the University of Arizona. Since 1998, he has served as a detective in the District Attorney’s Office of Maricopa County, AZ.

“Early in this process, CalOSHA’s Standards Board emphasized the need for an epidemiological analysis of the data surrounding the adult film industry and sexually transmitted infections. To date CalOSHA has had to rely on the inaccurate findings provided by LA County. Now we have information the Standards Board requested using the same scientific methodology that the Center for Disease Control utilizes,” FSC Executive Director Diane Duke said.

In the report, Dr. Mayer analyzes data given in presentations by LACPHD officials Robert Kim-Farley MD, MPH (who also is professor-in-residence at UCLA) and Peter Kerndt MD, MPH on estimated prevalence of gonorrhea, chlamydia and other STIs in the performer population within Los Angeles County, compared to statistics for infection in the general population.

Kim-Farley and Kerndt’s findings suggested that rates of STIs for performers vary from as much as 8 to 60 times more prevalent, in comparison to rates of infection for groups from the general population in Los Angeles County.

However, Mayer’s report concludes that the data presented by Kim-Farley and Kerndt is “fundamentally flawed” and that the methodology used by the doctors to arrive at the estimated rates is invalid. Mayer points out that the statistics calculated by Kim-Farley and Kerndt also contradict each other’s presentations, as well as data contained in other reports on STIs released by LACPH.

Mayer claims that, since the vast majority of persons in LACDPH’s comparison groups are not even tested within any given year for any STIs (and may not be sexually active enough to risk infection), a much better comparison group would be comprised of persons who are frequently tested for infection, similar to adult performers. Utilizing this methodology, the rate of infection in sexually active young people in LA County may be up to ten times higher than Kerndt and Kim-Farley suggest, and not much higher than the supposed rates of adult performer infection.

Mayer’s report goes further to state:

• Kim-Farley and Kerndt did not reveal the methodology employed to derive the estimates they used in their calculations, and provided little or no citation for their data.
• Kerndt suggests, based on anecdotal evidence from “industry sources” that there are 1200 adult performers in LA County, while Kim-Farley places the number at 2000-3000.
• Kim-Farley’s purported chlamydia rate of 1.8% for LA County stands in sharp contrast to other rates reported by his own agency, such as the 11.3% rate published in LACDPH’s 2008 STD Clinic Morbidity Report.
• Kerndt and Kim-Farley’s reports take into account neither re-infection rates nor performer re-testing.
• Kim-Farley’s method of estimating prevalence rates diverges sharply from that recommended by the CDC.
• Kerndt and Kim-Farley’s data, based upon similarly-aged subgroups and all ages, do not take into account the fact that many LA County residents are not tested each year for STIs.

FSC will present the report at the CalOSHA Advisory Subcommittee meeting scheduled for June 7, to be held at the CalTrans Bldg, 100 S. Main Street, in downtown Los Angeles. The meeting was called to discuss possible recommendations to be made to the CalOSHA Standards Board regarding workplace health and safety regulations for adult industry productions. FSC has been working with CalOSHA officials, regulatory compliance experts and adult industry stakeholders to develop industry-appropriate standards in order to protect the well being of the industry and its performers.

The actions follow last week’s announcement by LACPHD Director Dr. Jonathan Fielding in which he proposed a reorganization of the County’s Sexually Transmitted Infection program, headed by Kerndt. According to the L.A. Times, Fielding said that he hopes to improve the program’s efficiency and effectiveness.

AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) has waged a two-year campaign to mandate condom use on adult production sets. AHF has made allegations of “epidemic” STI rates among performers, purportedly based on LA County health department statistics.

In 2009, after a performer referred to as “Patient Zero,” tested positive for HIV, LACPH was forced to retract statements that alleged that up to 18 performers had tested positive for HIV since 2004. LACPH later admitted that it did not know whether these individuals had ever been performers or if they had merely been tested at Adult Industry Medical Health Care (AIM), a clinic that catered to adult industry clients but also served the general public. Long-targeted by AHF, AIM closed in April due to financial hardship.

“It’s time to put political agendas aside and to tell the truth about the adult entertainment industry, and that is that our performers are valued, protected and safe,” Duke said.

Dr Mayer report FSC AFI STI 06-03-11

 

FSC Urges Industry Members to Attend CalOSHA Meeting on June 7

Free Speech Coalition is urging industry members to attend a CalOSHA Advisory Subcommittee addressing the issue of condom regulation on adult production sets, as well as other workplace health and safety issues for the adult industry.

The meeting is scheduled for 10am on June 7, to be held at the CalTrans Building, 100 S. Main St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.

“We strongly suggest that industry members affected by content production, especially performers, producers and talent agents, attend this meeting,” said FSC Executive Director Diane Duke. “It’s possible that this may by the last meeting before the advisory subcommittee offers recommendations to CalOSHA Standards Board. If so, this could be the last opportunity for CalOSHA to hear from industry members on the subject of mandatory condom use and other regulations that will have direct impact on adult production.”

CalOSHA has issued a draft of topics to be discussed at the meeting. They include; STI testing protocol; required use of condoms and other barrier protection (including gloves and eye protection); on-set hygiene; systems for medical services, post-exposure evaluations and follow-ups; vaccinations (HBV and HPV); performer training and education; record-keeping; and producer responsibility for compliance.

The subcommittee meeting is open to the public. While there may not be opportunity for each attendee to speak, Duke emphasized that attendance for this meeting is very important so that the subcommittee has a sense of industry unity and interest in these topics.

“One thing that we have heard from sources is that CalOSHA would like to see more performers and industry members in attendance, in order to broaden discussion around these topics,” Duke added. “It’s fair to say that organizations like AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF), L.A. County Health Department, as well as anti-adult groups will be there to push their agendas to the subcommittee. The industry is stronger when we present a united front.”

Last week, FSC introduced its plans to launch Adult Production Health & Safety Services (APHSS). The new program will fill the gap left by the closure of the AIM clinic by providing new testing protocols, testing facilities and a limited access database for performers and producers.

For more information on the CalOSHA meeting, FSC or APHSS, contact joanne@freespeechcoaltion.com.

(Photo courtesy of the U.S. Navy)