Normally I don’t get involved in politics but on this occasion, I’ll make an exception. This one falls close to my heart even though this is something that’s happening half a world away. It’s still important to everyone on earth whom choosing to produce pornography, regardless of it being amateur or professional — You could potentially be at risk.

Many of the professional performers and pornstars that you adore, which keep you entertained, perhaps educate your children about how to make love, and possibly kept your marriage alive have said they would retire from the industry should this proposal passes. Below is a complete break down of proposal, it’s designed to kill off the adult pornographic industry as you know it.. Do you want less porn? Cause that will happen if this passes.

Support the VoteNoProp60 campaign and spread awareness.
Banners for social media are available for download here.

Let’s keep the government
out of our bedrooms. 

Credits:  The article below is written by Verta and posted on


How does Michael Weinstein’s measure proposal define “Safer Sex”?


With love (and eyes I’ve tried very hard to keep from getting permanently lodged pointing into my skull), I am going to take you on a play-by-play of the… problematic aspects of the ballot initiative submitted by Michael Weinstein. Some points, before we begin:
i. This is a very long criticism of garbage. It is all trash. Please stay with me. It is worth it. If you can’t stay with me, please skip ahead to Page Twelve; Section 8- or check out the condensed version.
ii. I’m quoting from the proposal draft with included amendments. Direct quotes will be noted in red italics. Just in case you think I am making any of this up. (It’s asinine enough that it will sound fabricated.)
iii. I will do my best to indicate what is harmful to performers as well as the general public. Don’t feel left out if you are not an adult  film worker. This isn’t all about us.
iv. I am a Swear Bear™. I am going to overburden my vocabulary trying not to use “foul language.” If I make it to the end of this without a single expletive, please congratulate me. Particularly if you read anything  yourself that makes you swear aloud.

I hope your safety bar is secure. Here we go.

 

COVER LETTER
Sincerely, 
______________[signature here]_________________
Michael Weinstein 
Proponent
So what’s the problem
? Not technically a problem. I just want to be clear, going forward, who “Proponent” references. There are no other proponents on this initiative.
Proponent = Michael Weinstein.

 

PAGE ONE; SECTION 1 (Title)
This Act shall be known and may be cited as “The California Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act” (the “Act”).
So what’s the problem? So clever. What person with a heart will look at “Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry?” and say, “Nahhhh.”? That is quite a title. The Proponent is very familiar with how this game is played.

 

PAGE ONE; SECTION 2 (Findings and Declarations) 
(a) Widespread transmission of sexually transmitted infections associated with making adult films in California has been documented by one or more county departments of public health. All workers in the adult film industry deserve to go to work and not become ill. It is important that safer sex practices in the making of adult films, and in particular the use of condoms by performers, be required so as to limit the spread of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections in the adult film industry. Not only is the risk of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections among adult film performers of immediate public concern, but so is the risk of transmitting HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections between adult film performers and the broader population. 
So what’s the problem? Where do I begin. I wrote this open letter to the Proponent asking why he felt the urge to scapegoat an entire community as disease-spreaders; it is reckless fear-mongering. I did a Google search of “adult film industry sexually transmitted infection transmission rates” and I found an awful lot of trash. It isn’t exactly easy for the average person to understand conflicting research conclusions. Due to human error, it is appropriate to keep in mind that the conditions of every study could be improved for better data and that something is always missing. I will not direct traffic toward LA Weekly, but I saw a headline in the search results claiming 1 in 4 performers has tested positive for gonorrhea or chlamydia. In the same search results, I found this article that states 1 in 4 teenagers contracts an STI every year and more than half of the population will test positive for an STI in their lifetime.
Conner Habib asked why you hate porn stars and- even if you think you’ve already asked yourself this question- you should read the article and really consider your reasoning. The only study I could find that definitively stated STI rates are higher for adult film performers than they are for the general public came from the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. I’ll pause for the collective gasp. But it doesn’t matter; from the tone of the search results, it is pretty clear you all view our genitals as highly infectious weapons. There is no reason for it. Fear and reason are not the best of friends, however.

(b) The adult film industry places profits above worker safety and actively prevents and discourages the use of certain essential safer sex methods. Costs of vaccinations, testing, and medical monitoring relative to HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections are currently unfairly borne by adult film performers, while adult film producers avoid bearing these costs and responsibilities. This Act is necessary and appropriate to address these public concerns.
So what’s the problem? After the previous paragraph demonised us as sexual lepers, I guess I am meant to be personally touched by the tone of concern here. I can hit all of these points now and avoid having to present an argument every time the Proponent brings them up.
You could say, “The [enter field of work] industry places profits above worker safety…” about pretty much any line of employment and people would be inclined to believe you. If the basis for this argument is found in the latter half of that sentence, allow me to state on the record that I have never been actively prevented nor discouraged from using certainessential safer sex methods (the Proponent means condoms, guys).
I do bear the cost of testing and medical monitoring, but if I listed all of the things I have to pay for in order to work, you’d stop reading. Should producers also be responsible for paying for my clothes and makeup? Reimbursing me for transportation and lodging? It would be nice if these things were more affordable, but we aren’t demanding affordability for some reason.
In reality, if adult film producers were somehow forced to pay medical costs of performers, production would cease. I mean, I’m too tired not to point out that’s what this is about: pushing the adult film industry out of California. I do not understand how anyone who pays attention to the adult entertainment industry could possibly think there’s still so much money in it. I mean, it isn’t as though you pay for it.

 

PAGE ONE; SECTION 3 (Purposes and Intent)
(c) To authorize and require the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA) and the California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board to take appropriate measures to enforce the Act.
So what’s the problem? There is a lot of language in the proposal that mirrors current OSHA regulations, which makes this all pretty unnecessary. Pay attention to any clause the Proponent adds to bypass current regulations, as well as prevent the workers themselves from participating in creating regulations.
Someone should tell the Proponent OSHA doesn’t need him to tell them how to do their job; I’m fairly certain they are already “authorised and required” to enforce their regulations.

 

PAGE TWO; SECTION 3 (Purposes and Intent)
(e) To hold liable all individuals and entities with a financial interest in the making or distribution of adult films who violate this Act.
So what’s the problem? This is meant to protect us, right? This clause is a knife in our spines. “All individuals with a financial interest in the making or distribution of adult films…”? That is all of us, as well as any tertiary distributors and providers. This clearly states if you are profiting from an adult film (performers are, ah, pretty heavily involved in the making of adult films) and are found to be in violation of this measure, you are open to punishment. (We’ll get there, don’t worry.)

(g) To discourage noncompliance and encourage compliance with the requirements of this act by requiring adult film producers to be licensed.
So what’s the problem? Are you a person who lives in California and runs a clip store with your significant other for a bit of added income? Well, the Proponent wants you to be licensed for that.

(h) To extend the time in which the State of California may pursue violators of this Act.
So what’s the problem? The current regulations state that a citation cannot be issued after six months of a violation. This is a reasonable amount of time to file a citation, as a worker. The extension of time is not meant to benefit workers, however. But we’re approaching that issue soon.
The Proponent has an almost desperate need to insist OSHA is just not doing a good enough job.

(i) To enable whistleblowers and private citizens to pursue violators of the Act where the State fails to do so.
So what’s the problem? Let’s stop right here. We’re going to need a moment. There are so many.
The Proponent wants to extend the amount of time you can “pursue” a “violator” as he gives the power to private citisens to do so.
There is not a single instance of an employee being pursued by private citisens for not adhering to OSHA regulations.
Why are we writing vigilantism into laws.
Why does the Proponent want to open the doors of harassment to people who are already trying to prevent those birds from flying into their windows?
Why is the Proponent so determined to override the authority of the State?

(k) To provide for the Act’s proper legal defense should it be adopted and thereafter challenged in court.
So what’s the problem? Is it customary to write into a measure that the State has to pay if that measure is challenged in court? Please advise.

 

PAGE TWO; SECTION 4 (The California Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act shall be codified by adding the following provisions to the California Labor Code)
Section 6720. Health and Employment Requirements: Adult Film Industry
(a) [current OSHA regulations] … (3) any other reasonable STI prevention engineering controls and work practice controls as required by regulations adopted by the Board through the Administrative Rulemaking process, so long as such engineering controls and work practice controls are reasonably germane to the purposes and intent of this Act. 
So what’s the problem? “Well, I guess OSHA can still add rules, as long as I agree with them.” -The Proponent.
CASEY CALVERT EDIT: OSHA is a federal institution, a CA law can’t trump it. The exemption to this rule is if we get Cal-OSHA to alter their guidelines – that would still then not apply under this section.

 

PAGE THREE; SECTION 4 (The California Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act shall be codified by adding the following provisions to the California Labor Code)
Section 6720. Health and Employment Requirements: Adult Film Industry
(cd) Adult film producers shall maintain as strictly confidential, as required by law, any adult film performers health information acquired by any means.
So what’s the problem? Whoooooa. Are producers seriously legally required to hold onto my medical records, regardless of how they obtain them? I thought I had to consent to my medical records being released to anyone. This is… um… concerning.
CASEY CALVERT EDIT: The reason why PASS solely has a checkmark vs actual medical info is because of HIPAA. An individual must consent to sharing medical records with an employer, even if the records pertain to employment. If they are required to obtain records beyond PASS, that’s a HIPAA violation. And HIPAA is federal, which means it trumps state law. 
http://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-individuals/guidance-materials-for-consumers/

 (f) Any adult performer entitled to bring an action under Labor Code section 6720(e) shall be entitled to bring such an action on behalf of all similarly situated adult film performers, subject to class certification by a court of competent jurisdiction.
So what’s the problem? I would love to discuss the issues I found with section 6720(e), but I’m not entirely certain I fully understand it. I believe it is clarifying worker compensation for performers. I am not well-read on worker’s comp in the adult film industry, so I will not address it.
THIS clause, however? C’MON. I honestly cannot imagine a piece of proposed legislation being more lawsuit-heavy than this one. Class-action lawsuits for worker’s comp in this industry? That begs chaos.
CASEY CALVERT EDIT:  …[T]his section stipulates that a single performer could start a class to sue under worker’s comp law. I do suggest that you link to/include the verbiage of section 6720(e):http://maplight.org/california/bill/2013-ab-332/1116442/total-contributions

(hi) This section shall not be construed to require condoms, barriers, or other personal protective equipment to be visible in the final product of a film. However, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that any adult film without visible condoms that is distributed for commercial purposes in the State of California by any means was produced in violation of this section.
So what’s the problem? People who don’t produce films (or understand how expensive the required equipment and software are) get really excited about the idea of using CGI to edit out condoms. Even if that were reasonably accessible to everyone who produces adult content in the state of California, this clause pretty much destroys that option. No loopholes! the Proponent cries. How dare we not adhere to the spirit of the law?!
And I am interested in the ramifications on adult film producers in Nevada. I’m interested in how the Proponent- how anyone- could believe this will turn into anything more than a circus.

(ij) Liability under this Act shall not apply to adult film performers, bona-fide employees, individuals providing independent contracting services, or production volunteers of an adult film producer who are acting within the scope of the general services being provided and in accordance with the instruction of the adult film producer, provided that such individuals have no interest in the adult film and are not adult film producers. Such individuals shall not be considered agents of the adult film producer for purposes of this Act.
So what’s the problem? This exemption does not apply to you if you shoot trade content. This exemption does not apply to you if you shoot customs. This exemption does not apply to you if you upload your own videos to any clips distributors. This exemption does not apply to you if you do anything that will provide longevity in your career.

 

PAGE FOUR; SECTION 4 (The California Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act shall be codified by adding the following provisions to the California Labor Code) 
Section 6720. Health and Employment Requirements: Adult Film Industry
I just want to note that the (j) clause was added as an amendment and reiterates clause (a) found in this section in stronger language.-

(k) In the event the amount of any monetary penalty set forth in this Act is found invalid by a court of law, the Division is empowered to and shall develop, and the Board is empowered to and shall adopt, monetary penalties via the Administrative Rulemaking process in a reasonable amount sufficient to deter noncompliance and encourage compliance with the requirements of the provision(s) in which the penalties are found to be invalid.
So what’s the problem? Read it this way: “If a court of law finds that a defendant does not owe a fine, the Division and Board have the right to circumvent that ruling and charge the defendant a sum of money we will write into the regulations.”
And “a reasonable amount sufficient to deter noncompliance and encourage compliance” after a court has ruled that a defendant is innocent sounds an awful lot like extortion.

 

PAGE FOUR; SECTION 4 (The California Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act shall be codified by adding the following provisions to the California Labor Code)
Section 6720.1. Notice and Disclosure
(b) Upon submitting the information required by this section, the adult film producer must pay a fee set by the Division or Board in an amount sufficient for data security, data storage, and other administrative expenses associated with receiving, processing, and maintaining all information submitted under this section. Until the Division or Board sets the fee, the fee shall be $100. The fees collected pursuant to this subsection shall not be used to cover the costs of enforcing the Act.
So what’s the problem? “We can’t afford processing this influx of information we’re demanding, so you’ll have to pay us for it.” Are we reaching the point where the Proponent defines who will be paying the cost of enforcement?

(dc) An adult film producer’s failure to timely or truthfully disclose to the Division the information required by this section, or to comply with the Labor Code section 6720.1(fd) training program requirement, and the Labor Code section 6720.1(ge) signage requirement, or the Labor Code section 6720.1(h) recordkeeping requirement shall be punishable by a penalty of no less than $15,000 and no more than $715,000 per violation as determined by the Division or a court of competent jurisdiction on a case by case basis via the administrative enforcement process or a civil action. Each repeat violation shall be punishable by a penalty of no less than $7,000 and no less than $15,000, as determined via the administrative enforcement process or civil action. The failure to provide any individual piece of information required by Labor Code 6720.1(a)(1)-(7) constitutes a separate violation.
So what’s the problem? I’m interested in what the training programme would entail. If I would be getting information about sexual health from either representatives of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation or adult film producers, I’d demand a refund.
The language around recordkeeping requirements states you must designate a custodian of records to keep these records for no less than 4 years. This includes people that work out of their homes. You’ll have to keep a lot of personal and medical information. Good luck if anyone breaks in.
Oh, and the lawsuits. Can’t forget about that! No, you really can’t read through this and forget about them.

(e) An adult film producer who knowingly makes any false statement, representation, or certification in complying with Labor Code section 6720.1(a)(1)-(7) shall be assessed a penalty of not more than $70,000 as determined via the administrative enforcement process or a civil action.
So what’s the problem? What is the legitimacy in the concerns of producers falsifying information about shoots? I mean, I thought Weinstein’s previous measure just resulted in a dramatic decrease in permit applications and an unfortunate increase in performers having to shoot in Las Vegas.

 

PAGE SIX; SECTION 4 (The California Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act shall be codified by adding the following provisions to the California Labor Code)
Section 6720.2. Adult Film Producers: License
(d) For any adult film producer that is not an individual, no License shall be valid effective unless all owners and managing agents of such adult film producer person obtain a license.
So what’s the problem? When I read this the first time, I thought, “Huh. Well, here I’d been naive and forgiving and assumed he just didn’t know how the adult industry functioned these days.” I gave the Proponent the benefit of the doubt, that he didn’t know how many performers this proposal put at risk.
He knows. He just doesn’t care.

 

PAGE SEVEN; SECTION 4 (The California Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act shall be codified by adding the following provisions to the California Labor Code)
Section 6720.2. Adult Film Producers: License
(k) Performing the functions of an adult film producer without a License shall result in a fine of up to $1050 per day for any adult film producer who has previously been found to have violated Labor Code section 6720(a). Any adult film producer who fails to register as an adult film producer within 10 days after qualifying as an adult film producer shall be liable for a fine of up to $250 for performing the functions of as an adult film producer without a License.
So what’s the problem? Just a reminder: if you are having penetrative sex with your significant other on webcam, and you do not adhere to regulations (you probably aren’t even aware of because you’re just having sex in your bedroom with a camera on)- if someone gives you a single penny for this, you can be fined up to $50. You can be fined up to $25 for having sex with your significant other without a license.
Let us all take a moment to shed a tear for our true loves, the amateurs. You can’t afford this bill.

PAGE SEVEN; SECTION 4 (The California Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act shall be codified by adding the following provisions to the California Labor Code)
Section 6720.3. Statute of Limitations
(a) Notwithstanding Labor Code 6317, in an action to prosecute any alleged violators of this Act or any adult film regulations now or hereafter adopted, the time for commencement of action shall be the later of the following: (1) one year after the date of violation; or (2) one year after the violation is discovered, or through the use of reasonable diligence, should have been discovered.
So what’s the problem? “No citation or notice shall be issued by the division for a given violation or violations after six months have elapsed since occurrence of the violation.” That’s what Labor Code 6317 states.
Notwithstanding is a funny word.

 

PAGE EIGHT; SECTION 4 (The California Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act shall be codified by adding the following provisions to the California Labor Code)
Section 6720.4. Liability and Penalties
(a) Notwithstanding any contrary provisions in Labor Code sections 6423 through 6436, every adult film producer, or any person in an agency relationship with an adult film producer and every officer, management official, or supervisor having direction, management, control, or custody of any employment, place of employment, or of any adult film performer, who does any of the following shall, in an administrative or civil action, be assessed a penalty as defined in subsection (b) of this section: 
 (1) Knowingly, nNegligently, or repeatedly violates any provision of Labor Code section 6720(a)-(c) or any adult film regulations; 
 (2) Knowingly or repeatedly violates any provision of Labor Code section 6720(a)-(c);
 (23) Fails or refuses to comply with, after notification and expiration of any abatement period, any provision of Labor Code section 6720(a)-(c); or
 (43) Aids and abets another to commit any of the acts in paragraphs (1), or (2), or (3) of subsection (a) of this section. 
(b) Any violation of Labor Code sections 6720.4(a)(1) or (a)(2) is punishable by penalty of not less than $10,000 nor more than $305,000; and any violation of Labor Code sections 6720.4(a)(23) or (a)(3) is punishable by a penalty of not less than $55,000 nor more than $1570,000; and any violation of Labor Code 6720.4(a)(4) is punishable by a penalty of not less than $1,000 nor more than $35,000. 
(c) Notwithstanding any contrary provisions in Labor Code sections 6423 through 6436, any adult film producer who willfully violates Labor Code section 6720(a), the violation of which causes death or permanent or prolonged bodily impairment, to the adult film performer, is punishable by a fine of not more than $100,000 via the administrative enforcement process or a civil action. If the adult film producer is a limited liability company or a corporation, the fine may not exceed $1,500,000.
So what’s the problemLabor Code sections 6423 through 6436 states fines and legal recourse to violations.
There goes that word again.

 

PAGE EIGHT; SECTION 4 (The California Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act shall be codified by adding the following provisions to the California Labor Code)
Section 6720.5. Agents of Control; Aiding and Abetting; Multiple Violations
(a) Every person who possesses, through purchase for commercial consideration, any rights in one or more adult films filmed in California in violation of Labor Code section 6720(a) and who knowingly or recklessly sends or causes to be sent, or brings or causes to be brought, into or within California, for sale or distribution, one or more adult films filmed in California in violation of Labor Code section 6720(a), with intent to distribute, or who offers to distributes, or does distribute, such film(s) for commercial purposes, shall be assessed a penalty of- the greater of: (1) not less than one-half times, but not more than one-and-one-half times, the total amount of commercial consideration exchanged for any rights in the adult film(s); or (2) not less than one-half times and not more than one-and-one-half times the total cost of producing the adult film(s), whichever is greater
(b) Any person found to have aided and abetted any other person or person(s) in violating Labor Code section 6720.5(a) shall be found liable for violating Labor Code section 6720.5(a). 
(c) Any person found liable of violating Labor Code section 6720.5(a) who has previously been found liable for violating Labor Code section 6720.5(a) shall be assessed a penalty of the greater of: (1) not less than two times, but not more than three times, the amount of commercial consideration exchanged for any rights in the adult film; or (2) not less than two times but not more than three times, the total cost of producing the adult film, whichever is greater
(d) Any person found liable of violating Labor Code section 6720.5(a) who has been found liable two or more times for violating Labor cCode section 6720.5(a) shall be assessed a penalty of the greater of: (1) not less than three times, but not more than four times, the amount of commercial consideration exchanged for any rights in the adult film; or (2) not less than three times but not more than four times, the total cost of producing the adult film, whichever is greater.
So what’s the problem? And the Proponent drops the façade. This is meant to drive the adult film industry out of the State of California. If you go after the distributors for aiding and abetting and they share liability, the distributors won’t take the risk. The fine per violation increases until it bankrupts the producer. No producers, no distributors; no industry.
No?
And how does the consumer know where in the world a scene was shot? How are people who shoot outside of California protected from frivolous lawsuits?

(e) This Actsection shall not apply to legitimate medical, educational, and scientific activities, to telecommunication companies that transmit or carry adult films, and to criminal law enforcement and prosecuting agencies in the investigation and prosecution of criminal offenses, and to any film rated by the Motion Picture Association of America unless such film is an adult film.
So what’s the problem? The mask is off. The Proponent shows his face. Smirks. This isn’t about worker safety. This is a direct shot to the adult film industry.

 

PAGE NINE; SECTION 4 (The California Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act shall be codified by adding the following provisions to the California Labor Code)
Section 6720.6. Enforcement; Whistleblowers; Private Rights of Action
(a) Any person who violates any provision of this Act shall be liable via the administrative enforcement process, or via a civil action brought by the Division or its designee, a civil prosecutor, an adult film performer aggrieved by a violation of Labor Code 6720, or an individual residing in the State of California. Any adult film performer or individual, before filing a civil action pursuant to this subsection, must file with the Division a written request for the Division to pursue the alleged violator(s) via the administrative enforcement process or via by commencement ofing a civil action. The request shall include a statement of the grounds for believing that this Act has been violated. The Division shall respond to the individual in writing, indicating whether it intends to pursue an administrative or civil action, or take no action. If the Division, within 21 days of receiving the request, responds that it is going to pursue the alleged violator(s) via the administrative enforcement process or a civil action, and does so initiates enforcement proceedings or files a civil action within 45 days of receiving the request, no other action may be brought unless the Division’s action is abandoned or dismissed without prejudice. If the Division, within 21 days of receiving the request, responds in the negative, or fails to respond, the person requesting the action mayproceed to file a civil action. 
[*PAGE TEN(c) No civil action may be filed under this section with regard to any person for any violation of the Act after the Division has issued an order consistent with this Act or collected a penalty against that person for the same violation. Although this Act imposes no criminal liability, no civil action alleging a violation of this Act may be filed against a person pursuant to this section if a criminal prosecutor is maintaining a criminal action against that person regarding the same transaction or occurrence. Not more than one judgment on the merits with respect to any particular violation of the Act may be obtained under this section against any person. The court may dismiss a pending action, without prejudice to any other action, for failure of the plaintiff to proceed diligently or in good faith.
So what’s the problem? Meet Mike. Mike HATES porn stars. Mike knows an awful lot about porn for someone who finds it so distasteful. Mike learns he can sue a performer if he doesn’t see a condom in a porn clip. All he has to do is wait 21 days for a response from OSHA. If OSHA investigates it, great. He just has to wait 45 days to see if they take action on their own. If they don’t, Mike can file a lawsuit! Civil action. Anti-porn vigilante.
There are a lot of people like Mike. More than we want to admit.
And it bears reiterating: What happens when a citisen of California sues a producer outside of the State?
The interesting point this section brings up: for a producer, once a complaint is filed, there is no escape. OSHA must address it or the courts will be overburdened. If it goes to court, maybe you’ll win- but in Section 6720(k), the Board is urged to fine you some arbitrary sum, anyhow.

 

PAGE TEN; SECTION 4 (The California Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act shall be codified by adding the following provisions to the California Labor Code) 
Section 6720.6. Enforcement; Whistleblowers; Private Rights of Action
(d) If judgment is entered against one or more defendants in an action brought under this section, penalties recovered by the plaintiff shall be distributed as follows: 75 percent to the State of California and 25 percent to the plaintiff. The court mayshall award to a plaintiff or defendant other than a governmental agency who prevails in any action authorized by this Act and brought pursuant to this section the cost of litigation, including reasonable attorney’s fees. However, in order for a defendant to recover attorney’s fees from a plaintiff, the court must first find that the plaintiff’s pursuit of the litigation was frivolous or in bad faith.
So what’s the problem? Remember all that money the Proponent decided would be owed if a producer is found in violation of the Labor Code? If Mike wins his lawsuit, he gets 25%.
That’s what we call a monetary incentive.
And the burden of proof is on the defendant, because that’s how the Proponent thinks the justice system works, I guess.
Is THIS where the Proponent will find the money to enforce and defend this Act?

 

PAGE ELEVEN SECTION 4 (The California Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act shall be codified by adding the following provisions to the California Labor Code)
Section 6720.8. Definitions
(a) For purposes of California Labor Code (“Labor Code”) sections 6720 through 6720.8, the following definitions shall apply: 
 (1) “Adult film” means any recorded, streamed, or real-time broadcast of any film, video, multimedia, or other representation of sexual intercourse in which performers actually engage in vaginal or anal penetration by a penis. 
 (2) “Adult film performer” shall mean any individual whose penis penetrates a vagina or anus while being filmed, or whose vagina or anus is penetrated while being filmed. 
 (3) “Adult film producer” means any person that makes, produces, finances, or directs one or more adult films filmed in California and thatwho sells, offers to sell, or causes to be sold such adult film(s) in exchange for commercial consideration. 
 (4) “Adult film regulations” shall mean all regulations adopted by the Board in accordance with the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act that are reasonably germane to the purposes and intent of this Act. 
 (5) “Aided and abetted” or “aids and abets” means knowingly or recklessly giving substantial assistance to a Pperson. 
 (6) “Beginning of filming” means the point at which an adult film begins to be recorded, streamed, or real-time broadcast. 
 (7) “Board” means the California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board. 
 (8) “Commercial consideration” means anything of value, including but not limited to, real or digital currency, or contingent or vested rights in any current or future revenue. 
 (9) “Commercial purposes” means to sell, offer to sell, or cause to be sold, in exchange for commercial consideration. 
(10) “Distribute” or “distributed” means to transfer possession of in exchange for commercial consideration. 
 (11) “Division” means the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA). 
 (12) “Filmed”and “filming” means the recording, streaming, and real-time broadcast of any adult film. 
 (13) “License” means Adult Film Producer Health License. 
 (14) “Licensee” means any person holding a valid Adult Film Producer Health License. 
 (15) “Other potentially infectious material – sexually transmitted infections” (“OPIM-STI”) means bodily fluids and other substances that may contain and transmit sexually transmitted pathogens. 
 (16) “Person” means any individual, partnership, firm, association, corporation, limited liability company, or other legal entity. 
 (17) “Sexually transmitted infection” (“STI”) means any infection or disease spread by sexual intercourseconduct, including, but not limited to, HIV/AIDS, gonorrhea, syphilis, chlamydia, hepatitis, trichomoniasis, genital human papillomavirus infection, and genital herpes.
So what’s the problem? This is just for reference. Oh, and to give you the good news: it turns out girl/girl pornography is excluded from this measure. Interesting.
JIZ LEE EDIT: We cannot test for HPV because there is no test.

 

PAGE TWELVE; SECTION 6 (Conflicting Measures)
This Act is intended to be comprehensive. It is the intent of the People of the State of California that in the event this Act and one or more measures relating to the same subject shall appear on the same statewide ballot, the provisions of the other measure or measures shall be deemed to be in conflict with this Act. In the event that this Act receives a greater number of affirmative votes, the provisions of this Act shall prevail in their entirety, and all provisions of the other measure or measures shall be null and void.
So what’s the problem? Was the Proponent paranoid someone who has a more direct interest and personal stake might write a bill that eclipsed his? I guess that’s common when extremists write bill proposals.

 

PAGE TWELVE; SECTION 7. (Proponent Accountability)
The People of the State of California hereby declare that the proponents of this Act should be held civilly liable in the event this Act is struck down, after passage, in whole or in part, by a court of law for being constitutionally or statutorily impermissible. Such a constitutionally or statutorily impermissible initiative is a misuse of taxpayer funds and electoral resources and the Act’s proponents, as the drafters of the Act, must be held accountable for such an occurrence. In the event this Act, after passage, is struck down in a court of law, in whole or in part, as unconstitutional or statutorily invalid, and all avenues for appealing and overturning the court decision have been exhausted, the proponents shall pay a civil penalty of $10,000 to the General Fund of the State of California for failure to draft and sponsor a wholly constitutionally or statutorily permissible initiative law. No party or entity may waive this civil penalty.
So what’s the problem? This is fantastic. Accountability! Yes! You should be punished if you waste taxpayer funds and electoral resources. I mean, considering the sums of the fines in this proposal, $10,000 seems a bit low… but an accountability clause? That deserves a thumbs up!

 

PAGE TWELVE; SECTION 8. (Amendment and Repeal)
This Act may be amended to further its purposes by statute passed by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the Legislature and signed by the Governor.
So what’s the problem? Repeal?

 

PAGE THIRTEEN; SECTION 9. (Severability)
If any provision of this Act, or part thereof, or the applicability of any provision or part to any person or circumstances, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, the remaining provisions and parts shall not be affected, but shall remain in full force and effect, and to this end the provisions and parts of this Act are severable. The voters hereby declare that this Act, and each portion and part, would have been adopted irrespective of whether any one or more provisions or parts are found to be invalid or unconstitutional.
So what’s the problem? This sounds as though it overrides that section on accountability. The Proponent strongly feels the voters would have adopted this bill despite its flaws, unconstitutional and otherwise. So you can just take that stuff out and not bother holding him accountable.
CASEY CALVERT EDIT: This section says that the act can be found entirely unconstitutional/invalid, but can also be found unconstitutional/invalid piecemeal. Essentially, this is the way to ensure that litigation takes an eternity, costs us a fortune, and never fully declares the act unconstitutional. For example, the private citizens suing part could be declared unconstitutional (since it is) without invalidating the rest of the bill. 
This is what happened with Measure B. It was declared unconstitutional to the point of unenforceablity, but it’s still technically on the books because not every word could be declared unconstitutional.

 

PAGE THIRTEEN; SECTION 10. (Legal Defense)
The People of the State of California desire that the Act, if approved by the voters, and thereafter challenged in court, be defended by the State of California. The People of the State of California, by enacting this Act, hereby declare that the proponents of this Act hasve a direct and personal stake in defending this Act from constitutional or statutory challenges to the Act’s validity. In the event the Attorney General fails to defend this Act; or the Attorney General fails to appeal an adverse judgment against the constitutionality or statutory permissibly of this Act, in whole or in part, in any court of law, the Act’s proponent(s) shall be entitled to assert hisits direct and personal stake by defending the Act’s validity in any courtof law and shall be empowered by the citizens through this Act to act as an agents of the citizens of the State of California subject to the following conditions: (1) Tthe proponents shall not be considered an “at-will” employee of the State of California, but the Legislature shall have the authority to remove the proponent(s) from theirhis agency role by a majority vote of each house of the Legislature when “good cause” exists to do so, as that term is defined by California case law; (2) Tthe proponent(s) shall take the Oath of Office under California Constitution, Article XX, §3 as an employee of the State of California; (3) Tthe proponent(s)shall be subject to all fiduciary, ethical, and legal duties prescribed by law; and (4) Tthe proponent(s) shall be indemnified by the State of California for only reasonable expenses and other losses incurred by the proponent, as agent, in defending the validity of the challenged Act. The rate of indemnification shall be no more than the amount it would cost the State to perform the defense itself.
So what’s the problem? This isn’t a problem. It is a C A T A S T R O P H E.
This left me speechless, so I’ll need to go through it slowly.
Remember Prop 8?  Prop 8 banned gay marriage in the State of California. Prop 8 passed and began a legal nightmare. Once the State refused to appeal a decision that stated the proposition was unconstitutional, the proponents of the measure went bananas. They went to the Supreme Court and demanded they be able to defend the measure themselves. The Supreme Court granted them the authority to defend the measure. Direct and personal stake. They appealed and lost. They tried to appeal that loss in Federal Court and were denied. That played out over five years.
If the State of California is required by the language in the bill to defend the bill, the State of California cannot find the bill unconstitutional. The State cannot take itself to court.
And, to make sure that the State doesn’t side-eye him about this, the Proponent has written himself a new position in opposition to the Attorney General. And- on behalf of the citisens of the State of California, of course- the Proponent must take the Oath of Office, as an employee of the State of California, and can only be removed by a majority vote from the Legislature- and only under “good cause.” Oh, and the State has to reimburse the Proponent for defending his own bill- at most, what it would cost for the State to defend the bill.
Even if you somehow managed to find no real fault with any above section, this is MAD. This is an unparalleled, unprecedented power play. And it is dangerous. Please understand how wicked this is.
Let’s go through it again.
This section prevents the State of California from challenging the bill, if it becomes law. It also holds the State responsible for defending the bill against anyone who challenges it. The State will also be fully responsible for the cost of defending this bill. If the Attorney General does not protect this bill, the Proponent takes the Oath of Office and is stationed in opposition to the Attorney General. And the Legislature has to have good cause to remove him- with a majority vote.
And he’s voted in indirectly by the language in this bill.
This is horrendous.
CASEY CALVERT EDIT: Re: (1), the “at-will” bit – this section is an attempt to supercede CA state law. In CA, every hire is an at-will hire. This means that an employer can terminate a hire for any reason (or no reason).

PAGE THIRTEEN; SECTION 11. (Effective Date)
Except as otherwise provided herein, this Act shall become effective the day after its approval by the voters. 
So what’s the problem? If you vote yes, this is the total of what you will receive. If you’ve read through this entire analysis and you support this, please understand the precedent you will be setting. If this measure passes, there is no foreseeable way out.
This isn’t about adult performers. This is about the megalomania of the Proponent. We have a responsibility to protect each other from the atrocious manipulative behavior of the power-hungry. Stand up. Say no. Vote no.