Awareness on Prop 60

[EllaGray]

Posting this because everyone needs to understand the ramifications that this bill has for the entire adult industry. Even cammers who cam together will have to comply.

This post is on Xbiz.com and was written by Eric Paul Leue of FSC. (http://www.xbiz.net/index.php?c=discussion.view_thread&id=19273) for the original link. I've used it here in its entirety because it is very informative. All credit goes to FSC.

"Hi All,

Here is an overview of who will be liable under Proposition 60. FSC Is raising money to fight this. This will be the last political battle AHF can fight on this, they have been discredited on this issue over and over.

We have never had better chances of winning. We have all major parties on our side as well as an ever growing coalition opposing Prop 60 - see http://dontharassca.com/

But the PAC fighting this needs money. We need to be able to reach the voters, buy pamphlet spaces, radio, maybe even TV. Use your social media, your websites, your email lists to send info to CA voters. Some companies are targeting banners to CA IP, some put up lightboxes when CA IPs open their sites, others use twitter to raise awareness by changing avatars and using #NoProp60, again others are sending emails directly to consumers, and people are sharing the videos we are putting out:

We need the industry's help in this. As you see below - everyone will be liable.

You think you are excluded because your company is not based in CA or you don't produce in CA? The threshold of getting involved in lawsuits is simply that if CA IPs can access content that you are somehow connected to (produce, distribute, affiliate, webhosting, process payments, perform in, did the wardrobe for, etc) -- you are liable.



Who is liable? Anyone who has a financial interest, and/or anyone who aids and abets the production and/or distribution of adult content will be liable to lawsuits by ANY of the 38 million residents of California.

For How Much? Fine Amounts of $1,000 to $1,500,000

How do I fight? Legal Costs of $10,000 to $25,000 minimum.


Performers with any financial interest in a scene:

Labor Code §6720.8(a)(2)


On-Set Workers/Employees of a Production Company or Distributor:

Labor Code §6720.4(b)(4)

Labor Code §6720.8(a)(5)


Distributors, Affiliates, Cam Companies, Payment Processors:

Labor Code §6720.5(a)

Labor Code §6720.8(a)(10)

Includes Sales or Distribution within California for Commercial Consideration
Includes “real time” broadcast (i.e. camming)
Penalties related to Commercial Consideration (exchange of $$$)
Distributors and platforms are “aiding and abetting”

Licensed California Talent Agents:

Labor Code §6720.5(b)

Labor Code §6720.7

Labor Code §6720.8(a)(5)


Internet Providers including service bundlers:

Labor Code §6720.5(a)

Labor Code §6720.8(a)(10)


Hotels Chains:

Labor Code §6720.5(a)

Labor Code §6720.8(a)(10)


Adult Novelty Stores:

Labor Code §6720.5(a)

Labor Code §6720.8(a)(10) "

 

[Lelo1]

Honestly I think you could use a summary at the top. What's the skinny?

Is it Proposition 60 would make California into a hostile state for adult industries? Any company in California would get sued for any thing related to adult industries?

 

[Guy]

I'm not a fan of hardcore pornography, but I am curious, who is behind proposition 60?

 

[DonaDiabla]

Ummm...this Prop does not only affect those in hardcore porn industry. It also hurts Californian cam models and clip makers as well. Mainly, if couples want to cam and make clips they will be affected. This prop will allow for is anyone with a California IP address to take action against performers,porn companies, cam sites, and etc. Who is behind this law is Aids Healthcare Foundation who got sick of the outbreak of HIV and other STDS on porn sets. Despite, HIV and Stds outbreaks happening in porngraphy since the early 1980s. However, this bill was transformed into making sure that couples wear protection if they film clips, do camming, and shoot adult films. If not they will get sued. It does not hurt non-nude models like myself, solo performers, or people who already use protection each time. It make shooting porngraphy harder to do in California and it will hurt California's sex industry. All Californian lawmakers wants to do is making being a sex worker harder in this state.

I'm not a fan of hardcore pornography, but I am curious, who is behind proposition 60?

 

[Guy]

Ummm...this Prop does not only affect those in hardcore porn industry. It also hurts Californian cam models and clip makers as well. Mainly, if couples want to cam and make clips they will be affected. This prop will allow for is anyone with a California IP address to take action against performers,porn companies, cam sites, and etc. Who is behind this law is Aids Healthcare Foundation who got sick of the outbreak of HIV and other STDS on porn sets. Despite, HIV and Stds outbreaks happening in porngraphy since the early 1980s. However, this bill was transformed into making sure that couples wear protection if they film clips, do camming, and shoot adult films. If not they will get sued. It does not hurt non-nude models like myself, solo performers, or people who already use protection each time. It make shooting porngraphy harder to do in California and it will hurt California's sex industry. All Californian lawmakers wants to do is making being a sex worker harder in this state.

When I said hardcore pornography I meant pornography showing unsimulated sex, both in the porn industry and the camming industry.

 

[DonaDiabla]

I guess I do not use that term hardcore porngraphy for camming. Anyways, I used the same rating system created in the 70s when it comes to porngraphy. X-rated is mild porngaphy and XX-rated is softcore. Now, mild porngraphy is glamour films and stuff like that. Also old sexploitation and stag films are in in the X-rated categories.XXX-rated is hardcore.There is a step higher than XXX-rated but that is for extremely hardcore and underground porngraphy. That is pornography without much of a rating

When I said hardcore pornography I meant pornography showing unsimulated sex, both in the porn industry and the camming industry.

 

[EllaGray]

In laymans terms, if this prop passes, any content that a citizen with a California IP address can access, is fair game. So in other words, if a private citizen finds your B/G G/G clips/camshows/porn on the web and finds it to be in violation of the safety stuff laid out in this prop, they have the right to take legal action against you. They can also legally have all of your real details pulled and published. No matter where in the world you live and work.

This prop was made to shake up the whole adult industry. Its not just about porn companies in Cali, its about what Cali citizens can see, so this problem will not be solved by hiring foreign models or shooting abroad, they can still come after those people as well.

 

[Guy]

If this passes, will it kill camsites?

 

[EllaGray]

If this passes, will it kill camsites?

Not the ones that have the overwhelming majority of their cam performs being solo. Solo cammers and clip makers will not suffer as much as couples who cam or performers who like to cam with other performers on occasion.

Basically the prop is blanketed by a set of sexual safety laws that state that if performers are together, utmost safety measures must be taken to ensure no transference of bodily fluids so performers need to have goggles, condoms, gloves, dental dams etc. Basically no visual representation of unsafe sex, but on steroids. in some cases they will also be required to post signage outside their location informing the community that pornogrpahic content is being shot there.

Any failure to adhere to these safety rules and a private citizen from California can take full legal action against you and get all your info.

So while it won't entirely kill cam sites, it will make being a niche performer such as a part of a couple/multi person show very difficult. Citizens might also be able to take legal action against cam site owners should their couple performers be in violation of the prop.

 

[Guy]

Not the ones that have the overwhelming majority of their cam performs being solo. Solo cammers and clip makers will not suffer as much as couples who cam or performers who like to cam with other performers on occasion.

Basically the prop is blanketed by a set of sexual safety laws that state that if performers are together, utmost safety measures must be taken to ensure no transference of bodily fluids so performers need to have goggles, condoms, gloves, dental dams etc. Basically no visual representation of unsafe sex, but on steroids. in some cases they will also be required to post signage outside their location informing the community that pornogrpahic content is being shot there.

Any failure to adhere to these safety rules and a private citizen from California can take full legal action against you and get all your info.

So while it won't entirely kill cam sites, it will make being a niche performer such as a part of a couple/multi person show very difficult. Citizens might also be able to take legal action against cam site owners should their couple performers be in violation of the prop.

Do you think if it passes, Streamate and Chaturbate will ban sex on cam?

 

[Guy]

http://www.desertsun.com/story/news/health/2016/08/25/californias-prop-60-condoms-porn/89110864/

 

[EllaGray]

Do you think if it passes, Streamate and Chaturbate will ban sex on cam?

Personally I think that should they fall foul of a lawsuit they might...but I doubt they'd do it right away. Although I'm not sure actually, your question is very interesting because on the one hand, they might ban it so as not to risk a lawsuit since they won't be able to personally regulate every single couple, but then on the other hand they might always just hope that people won't comb through their couples sections and try find people...so I really can't accurately speculate even haha.

 

[fandango]

Basically the prop is blanketed by a set of sexual safety laws that state that if performers are together, utmost safety measures must be taken to ensure no transference of bodily fluids so performers need to have goggles, condoms, gloves, dental dams etc. Basically no visual representation of unsafe sex, but on steroids.

OK im dressed for my next B/G scene

In laymans terms, if this prop passes, any content that a citizen with a California IP address can access, is fair game. So in other words, if a private citizen finds your B/G G/G clips/camshows/porn on the web and finds it to be in violation of the safety stuff laid out in this prop, they have the right to take legal action against you. They can also legally have all of your real details pulled and published. No matter where in the world you live and work.

This prop was made to shake up the whole adult industry. Its not just about porn companies in Cali, its about what Cali citizens can see, so this problem will not be solved by hiring foreign models or shooting abroad, they can still come after those people as well.

Seriously though that is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard and I'm quite surprised they even have the authority to enforce this law. I can see someone challenging this and it being found to be unquestionably illegal.

 

[EllaGray]

LOL @fandango I love it haha. Hazmat suit bb?

And yes, you are right, it is insane. From what I've heard as well, if it ever does get taken to court or any performer does get sued by a private citizen it will be deemed as illegal so basically it'll form a loop of sorts where citizen sues, case goes to court, court throws it out, performer goes back to production etc and the cycle repeats itself again.

The bigger problem though is the access to performers information during all of this. Even if the case gets thrown out, that performer no longer has any anonymity and it is so hard to thrive in the adult industry without anonymity. Plus the fact that anyone with an internet connection in Cali can go after anyone, anywhere. That's just a recipe for harassment waiting to happen.

 

[fandango]

The bigger problem though is the access to performers information during all of this. Even if the case gets thrown out, that performer no longer has any anonymity and it is so hard to thrive in the adult industry without anonymity. Plus the fact that anyone with an internet connection in Cali can go after anyone, anywhere. That's just a recipe for harassment waiting to happen.

I'm not American so I don't fully understand how your state and federal court system work but if I was working for or owned a company registered in another state, much less another country, why would I even have to comply with any court order from a Californian court which would have no jurisdiction over me? Or does a Californian court have the power to force anyone in another state to comply and hand over their real identities?

 

[Guy]

I'm not American so I don't fully understand how your state and federal court system work but if I was working for or owned a company registered in another state, much less another country, why would I even have to comply with any court order from a Californian court which would have no jurisdiction over me? Or does a Californian court have the power to force anyone in another state to comply and hand over their real identities?

Yeah. How on earth would they even be able to do that?

 

[Lintilla]

I'm not American so I don't fully understand how your state and federal court system work but if I was working for or owned a company registered in another state, much less another country, why would I even have to comply with any court order from a Californian court which would have no jurisdiction over me? Or does a Californian court have the power to force anyone in another state to comply and hand over their real identities?

If you do business with another state, even over the internet, it may gain jurisdiction.

Another country... they could try to extradite you, buuuuuut, yeah, I don't think that'd be a risk here.

 

[nzhere]

Isn't it more likely that cam sites will just to to ban all California i.p addresses?

 

[Guy]

Isn't it more likely that cam sites will just to to ban all California i.p addresses?

That would hurt them a lot in revenue and people could bypass that by using a VPN.

 

[Osmia]

OK im dressed for my next B/G scene

...

I think you may have started a new fetish with that photo.

Seriously, though, I've been only vaguely aware of this, and after reading the posts above, I still did not have a good understanding of the basic facts, such as whether it was even in effect yet (it's not). I found this resource, which gives all the details.

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_60,_Condoms_in_Pornographic_Films_(2016) I was trying to find poll numbers, but didn't. Ballotpedia does show that the pro-60 PAC spending far exceeds the anti-60 spending. Maybe someone in California knows about the current polling numbers.

Here's a very interesting editorial against prop 60 from the San Jose Mercury News.

 

[marlasinger]

any content that a citizen with a California IP address can access,

That's actually really interesting. As a Canadian I try to be safe and use a VPN when I can. It always sets my IP address to California. Totally not the point of the convo, but I'm wondering if I could somehow get in trouble for that.

 

[Lelo1]

Maybe I'm missing reading it, but it seems to effect more then just porn producers. It seems like any part of the adult industries in California could be effected. Wouldn't that include includes credit card processing companies?

 

[DonaDiabla]

No, it does not affect some parts of California's sex industry including phone sex companies and strip clubs. However, it could affect some of the peep show performers in California. It only really affects porn actors, porn producers, cam companies, clip producers, clip companies, and cam performers. It also affects adult affiliates such as myself who promote cam couples, cam girls, and cam guys..

Maybe I'm missing reading it, but it seems to effect more then just porn producers. It seems like any part of the adult industries in California could be effected. Wouldn't that include includes credit card processing companies?

 

[EllaGray]

That's actually really interesting. As a Canadian I try to be safe and use a VPN when I can. It always sets my IP address to California. Totally not the point of the convo, but I'm wondering if I could somehow get in trouble for that.

I don't think so, since having a VPN is not illegal at all and if the country you live in has no restrictions on internet you should be fine.

Should one however choose to sue someone under the guise of having that California IP I assume that there would be ramifications, but I don't think that it would be long before it was found to be false and the claims therefore dismissed.

 

[lightbulbee]

I’m not from the US, not a native English speaker and I’m definitely not familiar with the judicial system in the US (I’m not even a cam girl YET, but I’ll make sure to introduce myself properly after posting this), but I was curious what this is all about and read the proposition. You can find it here: http://cainitiatives2016.com/2016/07/08/prop-60-condoms-in-pornographic-films-initiative/

Although there are many aspects of the initiative worthy to discuss I will just focus on two of them.

1.) I don’t think, the proposition has any influence on porn producers outside of California as the paper (Section 6720.5.) states that:

"(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 distribute, or does distribute, such film(s) for commercial purposes, shall be assessed a penalty..."

In laymans terms, if this prop passes, any content that a citizen with a California IP address can access, is fair game. So in other words, if a private citizen finds your B/G G/G clips/camshows/porn on the web and finds it to be in violation of the safety stuff laid out in this prop, they have the right to take legal action against you.

Isn't it more likely that cam sites will just to to ban all California i.p addresses?

My interpretation of the proposition is that adult related companies / producers are just to be held liable for content which is/was produced in California, not for what’s being watched in California if produced somewhere else. Hence, if cam sites were to ban I.P. addresses, I think they would ban the models addresses. But I guess they would just generally not allow Californian citizens to perform/ sign up for couple/ group shows. Or maybe they force them to wear neon coloured condoms, so it’s easily detectable whether they comply with the rules or not In this case, Chaturbate wouldn’t have to ban so many people for looking underage anymore, they could just claim “sorry, your curtains indicate you’re performing in OC”


Back on topic: There’s another part in the document that reeeally boggles my mind:

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, 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 commencement of a civil 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 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 may file a civil action.

I mean, what are they implying with this? It seems a bit like “yeah we know the administrative enforcement process has its flaws and there’s not enough resources, so – instead of trying to improve those processes - let’s give every self- proclaimed morality sheriff the opportunity to go to court.


Just my two – very long- cents. Maybe @EllaGray has some other references about the I.P. addresses? Not trying to proof you wrong or anything, but maybe there’s more to it that I haven’t read or misinterpreted. I’m just curious how this could possibly be incorporated in a legal paper, let alone be enforced by the authorities.

 

[Issa]

I'm going to link you all over to this post made by a major cam model over on StripperWeb's forum:

https://www.stripperweb.com/forum/s...n-prop-60!!!&p=2912677&viewfull=1#post2912677

It's the Dummies Guide To Prop 60, courtesy of big names in the industry on twitter.




As a side note, the guy who got this proposal put on the ballot? It's about his fourth attempt to destroy the adult industry and/or other major companies with such legislation (all prior attempts have been voted down). He has no interest in helping the industry and, let's be honest, not much in helping HIV+ peeps either. Seriously, please enjoy these articles on how much he isn't a good guy, below:

http://www.hivplusmag.com/opinion/2...aids-healthcare-foundations-michael-weinstein

http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2016/8/17/suing-porn-stars-will-not-lead-less-hiv





On another note, Chaturbate and ManyVids are both based in California. They are big names in the adult industry for solo and amateur performers. Also, theoretically, any white label site of Streamate, Chaturbate, etc., owned by someone in California would fall under the jurisdiction of this law which could then--possibly--impact the home site's ability to stream there unless they shut down their white labels.

Basically, that means this doesn't just impact people based in California. Anyone who works for anything based in California gets hit.





And of course the online harassment/stalker potential. That one is super fun.





Oh, and we have no idea if this applies to things retroactively, i.e. would sites have to pull off any and all content filmed prior to Prop 60 from view in California? Would things that were previously filmed in California that didn't meet the criteria in Prop 60 be open to lawsuit? Legally it seems likely such cases would be thrown out, but that's after the shit show of having to legally defend oneself against a lawsuit and having ones personal information given to total strangers.


FYI -- I'm on a work break, so I attempted to cohesive with my thoughts and probably missed the mark by a mile. Sorry if there's confusion up in that wall of text.

 

[Guy]

If prop 60 passes, the entire porn industry will almost certainly exit California and relocate asap.
Based on that, I doubt that prop 60 would stay on the books for long.

 

[Issa]

If prop 60 passes, the entire porn industry will almost certainly exit California and relocate asap.
Based on that, I doubt that prop 60 would stay on the books for long.

At my core, I'm inclined to agree with you. That said, people/governments are often ridiculous about anything related to pornography, even to the point of it overwhelming their tendency towards greed.

Also, let's be real, the damage will be done even in a short amount of time. Even one model losing their privacy to this shit show is too much in my mind.

 

[EspiKvlt]

And the people voting just see "make porn performers wear condoms," think it's a great idea, and will vote yes.

 

[Guy]

And the people voting just see "make porn performers wear condoms," think it's a great idea, and will vote yes.

And lets be honest. Most Americans dont care about sex workers or their feelings.