Blocked Sign (blog.cyberghostvpn.com).
Some porn providers have decided to get political, and fight California’s Proposition 60. While I do think health is a major concern, I really don’t know enough about the porn industry in general to make any sort of statement about their particular health policies in regard to their actors. I would assume most actors do care about their health, and don’t take unnecessary risks, but again, I really don’t know. I might be one of ten people on the planet who is not a porn consumer. I certainly do understand the fight against part of the prop which states they can be sued, by anyone, at anytime. That seems more than a little dodgy to me. I’m also very uncomfortable when it comes to anyone trying to mandate another person’s bodily autonomy. I don’t want anyone telling me what I can and can’t do with myself, as I am my body. That should apply to everyone else as well. So, if I were still in SoCal, I’d be a no vote. Anyroad, as a political tactic, I foresee great success here.
Today, adult websites are taking away California’s porn. In protest of Proposition 60, a state bill mandating condoms in adult films, several sites are interrupting or entirely blocking access to California IP addresses. This includes the mainstream giant Vivid Video, as well as Evil Angel, Kink, Pink & White Productions, and Treasure Island Media. In-state visitors to these sites are met with a message instructing them to vote no on Prop 60 and, in some cases, warning that their porn might be permanently taken away if the bill passes.
This virtual strike coincides with a protest by roughly 100 adult performers planned later today outside of the Los Angeles headquarters of the Yes on 60 Campaign.
Prop 60, which is sponsored by AIDS Healthcare Foundation and will be on the ballot November 8, requires condoms in adult films shot within the state and also allows any resident in the state to sue producers and distributors of condomless porn. The adult industry is broadly opposed to the bill, primarily on the grounds that it violates performer choice and will push productions underground, making them less safe. Opponents also argue that by allowing lawsuits by everyday citizens the bill could expose producers and adult performers to stalkers, harassment, and privacy violations.
[…]
But at least three studios are considering the possibility of permanently blocking access to Californians if the bill passes — the thinking being that if Californians can’t see their content, maybe they can’t file lawsuits. Vivid’s website greets in-state visitors with a black screen bearing a “NO ON 60” icon and a message reading, “If you live in California and Prop 60 passes this is what your porn will look like.” Pink & White Productions’ pay sites greet all visitors with a pop-up reading, “IP BLOCK California? SAY IT AINT SO! If California Prop 60 passes, it could be” (although it’s possible to close it and navigate the sites). Kink’s site delivers a message reading, “This is what Californa will see on their favorite porn sites if PROPOSITION 60 passes.”
Mike Stabile, Kink’s spokesperson, told Vocativ, “Prop 60 isn’t a public health measure, it’s a public harassment measure for adult performers. If we have to block access to California in order to protect the performers who work with us, that’s what we’ll do. And should this initiative pass, it’s something we’ll be looking at doing in California on a permanent basis after November 8.”
Full story at Vocativ.
I’m a consumer of Kink (which should surprise absolutely no one), so I’m biased, but I think Stabile has a point. A fan could start a lawsuit and effectively get the courts to dox the performer for them.
Siobhan:
So do I. That law would be a stalker’s delight. It’s basically permission.
Well…health and safety regulation in the workplace is something Our Side is generally in favor of, as is treating sex work just like any other kind of work. So I’d be inclined to support something along those lines if it were a bona fide effort to address real health and safety issues. Prop 60, on the other hand, is simply an attempt to harm the porn industry…because porn. So, no.
BTW…when is the Screen Actors Guild going to get around to organizing porn performers? (A ballot measure making *that* easier is something I might vote for….)
The STD rate in the porn industry is lower than in the rest of the population, because when you’re going to work, the first thing you’re going to do is present ID and proof of your age, as well as your AIM STD panel results. Proof of right to work is also necessary if you’re a non-citizen. Those checks are a minimum -- unlike, you know, people meeting in a bar or online.
There was big news a few years ago when someone on a porn set was identified as having HIV/AIDS. The news, for me, was that it was caught more or less instantly -- unlike how things happen in the rest of the population.
Requiring condoms is bullshit; there are plenty of other ways to get STDs, like getting herpes from a mohel or a catholic priest. In fact, both of those examples have higher rates of STD transmission than the entire porn industry. Regulate them.
The idea behind p60 is that watching porn where the actors don’t use condoms promotes unsafe sex in the general population because young people’s exposure to sex is mainly through porn. Even adults may become accustomed to the idea that condoms aren’t necessary. That point does have merit behind it.
However, p60 as it stands, with its lawsuit clause is nothing short of draconian and is obviously an attack on the porn industry itself.
If p60 were all that keen on public health they could have promoted real mandatory universal sex ed in schools so that young people would have a better understanding of a healthy sexuality. But that’s hard and unpopular with the hypocrite and moronic parents, so p60 tries to ban porn instead, consequence be damned.