Porn company's condom policy a big part of fine
-
February 2, 2014
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A San Francisco pornography company that specializes in films featuring scenes of dominance and submission was fined more than $78,000 this week by state safety officials for maintaining dangerous workplace conditions, among them allowing performers to have sex on camera without using condoms.
Cybernet Entertainment, the parent company of Internet porn producer Kink.com, argued that many of its performers prefer not to use condoms and that the fine announced Friday is the result of a long-running campaign by those who oppose the adult film industry.
"The fines are excessive and, we believe, politically motivated," Cybernet founder Peter Acworth said in a statement. "The complaints which prompted the inspection were not made by actual employees, but by outside groups with a long history of opposition to adult film. We'll be appealing the decision."
Records show that the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration cited Cybernet for a number of violations after an inspection last August. The largest part of the fine — $75,000 of it — targeted Cybernet's policy allowing its performers to choose whether or not to use condoms.
CalOSHA spokesman Peter Melton said there had been several complaints against Kink.com last year, and he described the fine as "significant."
The inspection was prompted by a formal complaint filed against Kink.com by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, a Los Angeles-headquartered advocacy group.
Previously, AHF Foundation successfully lobbied for condom requirements on porn sets in the city of Los Angeles and later for all of LA County in 2012.
The group has remained a driving force behind the regulations, successfully defending the county measure in court when the county declined to, reporting suspected violations to government officials, and suing companies who try to move parts of their productions outside the area.
"We're all for sensible regulation that protects performers," Mike Stabile, a spokesman for Kink.com, said in response to the foundation's complaints, "but this essentially amounts to a moral crusade. It's a solution in search of a problem."
The foundation filed the complaints after two Kink.com performers who were romantically involved tested HIV-positive last year.
The company said testing determined that the performers contracted the infection in their private lives rather than on set.
For the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, whether the performers contracted HIV on set or in their private lives is of little consequence.
"That's neither here nor there," foundation spokesman Ged Kenslea said, "because OSHA requires that condoms be used."
"An HIV test is not a form of prevention," he added.
Earlier this month, another Bay Area adult film company, Treasure Island Media, lost its appeal of a similar OSHA citation and was fined close to $9,000.
Last September, California lawmakers voted down a bill that would have required porn actors to use condoms during filming, but CalOSHA rules require companies to minimize employees' exposure to blood and other potentially infectious bodily fluids.
The last confirmed on-set HIV infection was in 2004, after which the adult film industry adopted testing of all active performers biweekly for a range of sexually transmitted diseases, including syphilis, hepatitis and HIV.
-
The group has remained a driving force behind the regulations, successfully defending the county measure in court when the county declined to, reporting suspected violations to government officials, and suing companies who try to move parts of their productions outside the area.
I don't see how they have any legal standing in these court cases.
It's like when the state of California refused to defend Prop 8 and the homophobes tried to defend it. The case was thrown out because the people defending it had no legal standing to do so.
-
Let people fuck the way they want, condom or not!
-
i went on their web site it looks like they continue not using condoms…
-
February 2, 2014
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A San Francisco pornography company that specializes in films featuring scenes of dominance and submission was fined more than $78,000 this week by state safety officials for maintaining dangerous workplace conditions, among them allowing performers to have sex on camera without using condoms.
Records show that the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration cited Cybernet for a number of violations after an inspection last August. The largest part of the fine — $75,000 of it — targeted Cybernet's policy allowing its performers to choose whether or not to use condoms.
The inspection was prompted by a formal complaint filed against Kink.com by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, a Los Angeles-headquartered advocacy group.
Previously, AHF Foundation successfully lobbied for condom requirements on porn sets in the city of Los Angeles and later for all of LA County in 2012.
The foundation filed the complaints after two Kink.com performers who were romantically involved tested HIV-positive last year.
Well, no wonder… They were using HIV + performer...
About policy allowing its performers to choose whether or not to use condoms, I think its completely on the actor's side, because they are who do the acts. So, whether they're using condom or not, its up to them. I think, with the all information we got about HIV/AIDS now days, they understood the risk clearly.
-
Ugh. The anti-bareback crusade.
It's sometimes hard to speak out against a charity that actually does some good things, but unfortunately the AIDS Healthcare Foundation is no stranger to ridiculous litigation and other disgusting tactics.
For example, they (tried) suing Pfizer in 2007 over Viagra, claiming the the ads for it were indirectly a major factor in the AIDS epidemic. This followed their request to Pfizer to give millions of dollars to an anti-meth education program, which Pfizer didn't even really decline– the AHF submitted the request to the marketing department, and when told there was a specific department for grant requests and that they should submit it to that department, they chose litigation, instead of, you know, calling up the right department. Clearly frivolous litigation. Not sure what the status of that is-- can only find mentions of the lawsuit being filed, but nothing after that. I'm assuming it was probably dismissed.
They have sued the city and county of Los Angeles multiple times, trying to force them into adopting anti-bareback porn laws before they finally resorted to collecting signatures for a ballot measure, which was passed due to popular support, even though the city/county of LA refused to enact it themselves, because, of course, it's ridiculous.
Their main conviction against bareback porn is not really that the stars in the film should be 'protected', but rather that they feel guys who watch bareback porn are more likely to bareback themselves, which is not really supported by anything but looking at a graph of the number of bareback films and the rate at which guys are infected with HIV. Of course, this view ignores the fact that there is a greatly diminished fear of barebacking in general now that HIV is no longer a 5-10 year death sentence, that drugs are definitely a major part of the increases in transmission, and that a growing percentage of new infections is between heterosexual couples (in fact, estimates are that new cases are split almost half and half between gay and straight transmissions-- a telling tale given the much lower possibility of transmission with vaginal sex).
But, of course, they are well funded because they really do help people infected with HIV/AIDS get access to medication, hence why they are able to litigate in this manner.
