Join the California Democratic Party, California Republican Party, workers, doctors and civil rights organizations
– Vote No on Prop. 60 –
1) Prop 60 was written by Michael Weinstein, CEO of the LA Based AIDS Healthcare Foundation
2) It incentivizes any California resident to file a lawsuit against an adult worker when a condom is not visible in an adult film, and reap 25% of the settlement, plus legal fees.
3) This is where it gets more convoluted. Prop. 60 backers insist that it’s only producers who are being targeted, and that performers are exempt from liability provided they have no “financial interest” in the film. But, today it is estimated that over 75% of the performers are producing their own content, and would be considered producers, and therefore liable under Prop. 60. Even a Monogamous Married Couple, making a living by turning on their webcam while having sex in their own bedroom could be sued by any California resident. Anyone with a website or other internet stores can be considered liable. Anyone profiting from the scene could be added to the suit for aiding and abetting. This includes makeup artists, lighting crews and even the caterers. This potential from this goes deeper. (See Diagrams)
4) It says that a suit can only be filed by a private resident after a complaint has been filed with CalOSHA. If CalOSHA doesn’t find any issue or dismisses the claim, then that resident can go over the CalOSHA ruling and file a lawsuit.
5) It says “The People of the State of California, by enacting this Act, hereby declare the proponent of this Act (meaning Weinstein, himself) has a direct and personal stake in defending this Act from constitutional or statutory challenges to the Act’s validity.” Which means that the person who wrote Prop 60 (Michael Weinstein) will oversee its use. Michael Weinstein gets a tax payer funded job to monitor pornography.
6) It says “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, the Act’s proponent (again, Weinstein, himself) shall be entitled to assert his direct and personal stake by defending the Act’s validity in any court …” Which means Michael Weinstein would be able to exert power above the Attorney General, he could hold this position for life. It would take a majority vote of each house of the Legislature or voters to remove him. Even our governor doesn’t have that provision.
7) It runs the risk of violating privacy by releasing private information of the performers/producers. The way the law is written takes these lawsuits directly into the discovery stage, where legal names and home addresses of all parties involved become a matter of public record-a very scary prospect for those of us who use pseudonyms to protect our identity from stalkers and those that wish us harm.
8) It will cost California Million annually in lost tax revenue
9) It will add to an already over-stressed-court system
10) Every Major Political Party has come out to Oppose Prop 60
11) The Proponents of Prop 60 have spent $1.8 Million of Non Profit funds, raised to help people with HIV to push this legislation. The Adult Industry can’t complete financially with the proponents.
WHAT YOU DON’T KNOW ABOUT THE ADULT INDUSTRY
1) There has not been a transmission of HIV on a self regulated, PASS compliant set in over 11 years
2) The Industry is currently working with CalOSHA to write up regulations that make sense for us.
3) We are the Stakeholders and we should have the voice when it comes to our safety.
4) The majority of performers (majority are women) now produce their own content.
5) When Measure B was passed in Los Angeles Country, shooting permits in LA dropped 95%. Companies began moving out of the county and out of state. We’re shooting a lot more in Vegas. There wasn’t any change in the number of people shooting condom films — production just moved out of LA. With Prop 60, we see the same thing. Except now you have performers being vulnerable to lawsuits and harassment.
I urge California voters to tread lightly passing this or any law like this no matter what industry it is about.
To me this law is like getting into an abusive relationship just because you feel you should have a relationship.
A law should be voted upon because of how it could be used not how you would hope it would be used
You can’t vote for a percentage of a law. If there is anything about a potential law that is bad, the whole law is then bad.
JUST SOME OF THE GROUPS OPPOSING THE INITIATIVE
CA Republican Party
CA Democratic Party
CA Libertarian Party
SF Democratic Party
Senator Mark Leno
SF Young Democrats
San Francisco Medical Society
San Francisco Chronicle
Jose Jose Mercury News
East Bay Times
Alice B. Toklas Democratic Club
Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club
San Francisco AIDS Foundation
AIDS Project Los Angeles
Friends Committee of Legislation of California
Valley Industry & Commerce Association
Los Angeles LGBT Center
Transgender Law Center
Adult Performer Advocacy Committee
Free Speech Coalition
St. James Infirmary
From Mercury News– State and federal laws already protect adult performers, who are routinely tested for sexually transmitted diseases. There’s insufficient enforcement. But this measure could undermine ongoing efforts by the California Division of Occupational Health and Safety (Cal-OSHA) to improve regulation of the industry. Read the whole article. http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/08/18/mercury-news-editorial-vote-no-condom-measure-prop-60/7
More Links for more information:
HOW CAN YOU HELP?
Tell your friends and family to Vote No on Prop 60
Tell people on social media to Vote No on Prop 60
Use the Hashtag #NoProp60
Follow on Twitter @FSCArmy @APAC @VoteNoProp60
Donate to our fight https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/noon60
Thank You so much for your time.
All The Love In The World, Julia Ann