In a move that reportedly came as a complete surprise to attorneys for the Free Speech Coalition and other plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the federal recordkeeping and labeling law, 18 U.S.C. §2257, as well as those for the defendant, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, Judge Michael Baylson today sent a letter to counsel stating that he would deny the Motions for Summary Judgment that each side had filed in the case last Friday.

…

At issue at the trial will be whether the 2257 law is unconstitutionally overbroad, in that it includes sexually explicit videos and web fare of persons who are unquestionably adults and would never be mistaken for minors, and also encompasses far more material than just that produced by the adult entertainment industry. Some of the imagery covered by 2257 and its companion 2257A include sexually explicit photos sent via cellphone (“sexting”); home videos made by husbands and wives, or girlfriends and boyfriends, which are meant to be used either for their own private pleasure, or to be traded with other like-minded couples; websites that allow couples or singles to stream sexual activities for the enjoyment of other remote viewers; photos and videos that appear on social networking sites; privately-commissioned sexy photographic portraits; internet webcasts of the yearly Masturbat-a-thons; documentaries of adult performers or others whose stories involve explicit sexual activities; and many more. All of the above are technically covered under 2257 or 2257A, thus requiring recordkeeping of the participants and labels affixed to the end products identifying who keeps those records and where, but at this point, the laws have only been applied to adult video producers and webmasters.

The hope, of course, is that this burdensome law will be done away with altogether. The article talks about Fourth Amendment issues; agents showing up to conduct inspections without a warrant, etc. This has been a highly problematic law for years now.

In AHF: Forcing People to Wear ‘Barriers’ Doesn’t Affect Speech, Kernes addresses a statement by AHF he says is misleading.

Apparently, AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) is hoping that Judge Dean D. Pregerson hasn’t actually read Los Angeles County’s Measure B in its entirety, because nothing else would explain the argument which forms the basis of their Brief in Opposition to the Preliminary Injunction against the measure’s enforcement which is being sought by the Plaintiffs in the Vivid Entertainment lawsuit.

…

But as any researcher can tell you, relying on a summary of the contents of an article—or in this case, a proposed law—is a bad idea, because that summary may leave out important parts of the full contents of, in this case, Measure B, the text of which was adopted as law by voters and can be found here.

For instance, while the summary states, “The measure would require use of condoms for all acts of anal or vaginal sex during the production of adult films, as well as the posting of the public health permit and notice to performers regarding condom use,” one has to read Section 11.39.110(A) of the law to find out how misleading that statement is.

He goes on to point out that the law references section 5193 of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations.

As AVN has previously noted, California Code of Regulations Title 8, section 5193 requires not only the use of condoms in situations where a person (such as an adult performer) may be exposed to blood or “other potentially infectious materials” (OPIM), but also what’s called “personal protective equipment.” And what is that “personal protective equipment”? Well, the operative portion of Section 5193 says, “Where occupational exposure remains after institution of engineering and work practice controls, the employer shall provide, at no cost to the employee, appropriate personal protective equipment such as, but not limited to, gloves, gowns, laboratory coats, face shields or masks and eye protection, and mouthpieces, resuscitation bags, pocket masks, or other ventilation devices. Personal protective equipment will be considered ‘appropriate’ only if it does not permit blood or OPIM to pass through to or reach the employee’s work clothes, street clothes, undergarments, skin, eyes, mouth, or other mucous membranes under normal conditions of use and for the duration of time which the protective equipment will be used.” [Emphasis added}]

That’s what AHF’s “summary” of Measure B leaves out—and obviously, it’s a biggie.

I don’t want to copy and paste the entire article, but it’s worth also noting that further down Kernes highlights the statement made by AHF:

“In this case, Plaintiffs attempt to improperly conflate the process of making a film with the actual contents of a film, in order to claim that a law designed to protect the public health by preventing disease transmission at a workplace is actually an impermissible content-based regulation of speech. They make this claim despite the facts that (1) the law at issue makes no reference to the content of any film, nor regulates what films may be shown in Los Angeles County, and (2) Plaintiffs state that the most objectionable (to them) feature of the law—requiring utilization of prophylactic protection when engaging in certain sexual acts during the making of films—is already required under California State law.” [Emphasis in original]

So, here we are again with AHF pressing the issue that adult production is bound by regulations created for health clinics in the early 1990s. And they are not anti-porn? Someone please explain to me how that could possibly be.

You may quote this site's original content in incomplete excerpts with credit to © Julie Meadows Entertainment and a direct link to quoted material. Thank you!

Hello,

I recently saw the interview with Melissa Monet. I have a mild physical disability. Hearing her speak about sex and disability was very meaningful for me. I’m really impressed that she has written a short on the subject.

I was wondering what is the best way to contact Melissa? I don’t have a twitter account and mailing a letter is tough because of privacy concerns. Is there a fan-email address I could write to? Facebook page? If not, a snail mail address will have to do.

I’d really like to thank her for speaking up about such an important issue and also let her know I enjoy her work. I’m a big fan of hers.

“Sarah”

To revisit the interview where Melissa talks about her upcoming project, watch the video here!

You may quote this site's original content in incomplete excerpts with credit to © Julie Meadows Entertainment and a direct link to quoted material. Thank you!

‘Purity’ culture: bad for women, worse for survivors of sexual assault:

Where does a woman’s value lie? In her brain? Her heart? Her spirit?

According to right-wing culture warriors, “between her legs”. That’s what underlies the emphasis on virginity as “purity”, and the push for abstinence-only education. And it has very real consequences, most recently articulated by Elizabeth Smart.

Smart, who was kidnapped and held for months while her captor repeatedly raped her, recently discussed how her religious background made her feel worthless after the first rape – how she understands why others wouldn’t even try to escape, if, like her, they were taught that a sexually “impure” woman had nothing to offer.

…

Smart’s case is an extreme example. But right-wing purity culture damages all women, not just survivors of sexual assault. Feminists have been making this point for decades, perhaps most comprehensively in Jessica Valenti’s book The Purity Myth. Valenti notes that the cultural emphasis on virginity teaches young women that their moral center is in their crotch, not in their minds or hearts.

This culture tells women that their bodies aren’t really theirs; bodies are only bargaining chips, which can be devalued like a new car driven off the lot. Women aren’t inherently valuable, the thinking goes, except so long as we have untouched vaginas to give our husbands (because our partners are always husbands). Virginity trumps intelligence, humor and compassion. The notion that both partners might benefit from having dated around, experimented, and figured out what they enjoy and want from a healthy relationship? It doesn’t even register.

Read more here…

This is so much more than I like to copy and paste, but it’s soooo good! Please read the entire article. Seriously, what century do we live in???

Deborah Anderson’s documentary Aroused got a nice writeup at the New York Daily News website.

Deborah Anderson’s book and film ‘Aroused’ looks at the people behind the porn industry:

Anderson says she was impressed by the strong women she encountered in a world normally associated with small brains and big implants.

Interviewing 16 of the top female names in porn, the director got them to reveal much about their lives, dreams and struggles. And to keep things interesting, each of the women shot her interview nude, save for a pair of high heels.

“I wanted to trim away their peacock feathers and show the real girls underneath,” says Anderson. “By peeling away these women’s personas, I show that there is a human being behind the characters they play. And these human beings revel in their sexuality. That’s something everyone can learn from.”

Read more here…

You may quote this site's original content in incomplete excerpts with credit to © Julie Meadows Entertainment and a direct link to quoted material. Thank you!

[There is a page above entitled APC4C with links and videos.]

Measure B is a “condom law” that passed last year; a county-wide mandate that has found the adult industry shooting outside of Los Angeles. It focuses on condoms, but references other protective barriers, as does its state-wide equivalent Assembly Bill 332 (AB-332).

Performer, Ela Darling, speaks to her experience as a performer, the repercussions of the condom ordinances, existing protocols, and her preferences as a member of the adult community.

If you are in the adult industry and in favor of choice, sign up to join Adult Performers Coalition For Choice at http://APC4C.com.

Donate to www.StopCondomLaws.com.

Let Your Voice Be Heard!

Thank you, Ela!!
http://DarlingEla.com, http://twitter/com/ElaDarling
http://APC4C.com, http://twitter.com/APC4C
http://www.StopCondomsLaws.com, http://twitter.com/StopCondomLaws

You may quote this site's original content in incomplete excerpts with credit to © Julie Meadows Entertainment and a direct link to quoted material. Thank you!

First of all, congratulations to legend Amber Lynn for having her very own radio show. She and Bill Margold–who helped her get the Friday evening spot, and with the help of Alesia Pleasure–were off and running, interviewing adult industry legend/goddess/superstar Seka, Mike Kulich of Monarchy Distribution, Free Speech Coalition’s Joanne Cachapero, myself, and performer Savannah Jane.

I am honored to be part of Amber’s first show. Seka talked about her book coming out entitled Inside Seka. She reminisced with Amber and Bill about the early days of her career and throwing a shoe at John Leslie’s head. Mike Kulich talked about Monarchy Distribution, speaking at the Center for Jewish Culture, and a new project compiling scenes for performers from a vast library of their footage. Joanne from the FSC talked about Measure B, where AB-332 stands right now and how fans of the industry can support fighting the condom mandates by donating at the StopCondomLaws.com website. I spoke about going to Sacramento to speak against AB-332, Adult Performers Coalition For Choice (APC4C), and how people can get involved. Savannah Jane–who is legally deaf–talked about getting a cochlear implant to improve her hearing.

I got to thank both Bill and Amber; Bill because he has always been supportive; Amber for having me on and because she is a strong, outgoing woman who cares about her industry. I adore them both. Thank you!!

Regardless of your level of involvement in APC4C, there is always something you can do. I don’t begrudge people who can’t drive and fly out to Sacramento every time a hearing takes place, but I would encourage everyone against these condom ordinances to sign up to APC4C and get involved because we can put a human face on this industry as a collective of concerned and thoughtful individuals and make our voices heard.

Please listen to Amber’s first show here: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/allpleasurenetwork/2013/05/10/amber-lynn

Other links:

XXX Porn Star Radio: http://xxxpornstarradio.com/new/
Seka’s website: http://seka.com
Monarchy Distribution: http://twitter.com/XXXMonarchy
Free Speech Coalition: http://fscblogger.wordpress.com/
Adult Performers Coalition For Choice: http://apc4c.com
Savannah Jane Twitter: http://twitter.com/savannahjanexxx
Svannah’s website: http://clubsavannahjane.com

You may quote this site's original content in incomplete excerpts with credit to © Julie Meadows Entertainment and a direct link to quoted material. Thank you!

Adult industry legend, Amber Lynn, has a new show on XXX Porn Star Radio [here], and myself and Joanne Cachapero will be interviewing about the newly formed Adult Performers Coalition For Choice (APC4C). We’re all friends, so it should be a lively chat.

As Lila Gray reported earlier in the week at XBiz.com [here], APC4C was inspired by the performer turnout against Measure B and AB-332. Performers are not anti-condom, though some performers cannot work with condoms due to allergies, etc. We are pro-choice. There is a big difference.

I’m excited to be speaking with my friends about this, and I’m happy for Amber that she has her own show at XXX Porn Star Radio!

You may quote this site's original content in incomplete excerpts with credit to © Julie Meadows Entertainment and a direct link to quoted material. Thank you!

I want to highlight the people who usually give realtime commentary as the hearings unfold. Obviously, these people are against AB-332.

Mo Reese (@MOXXX) of TheAverageMo.com has always been been very vocal about these issues. He’s a master twitterer. (Is that an official term?) And he’s funny and informative.

“I am tired of being compared to an animal in a mainstream movie, no one is forced to work in this industry” – JulieMeadows #AB332

Think it’s pointless to tweet to Assembly Members during committee meetings? Well… One of them tweeted me back during the meeting.

Do the people of Compton realize that Assemblymember @isadorehall cares more about what goes on in the SF Valley than his own district?

If @AIDSHealthcare is so concerned about public health, why are they not listed as a supporter of condoms in CA prisons? #AB999

PERFORMERS! Are you one of the big bad #Pornographers that @AIDSHealthcare Pres. Michael Weinstein talks about? Do you own a website?

Female Performers! If a glass toy breaks in your butt, there isn’t a condom or protective barrier that will fix that. No on #AB332

#AB332 isn’t just about big adult companies, under the law individual PERFORMERS that shoot their own content will be breaking the law.

Just so everyone knows, @isadorehall blocked me on Twitter, next time I see him in Sacramento, I’m going to ask him to unblock me.

Also, Mo wrote a thoughtful piece asking AIDS Healthcare Foundation why they are not behind AB-999 here: http://www.theaveragemo.com/?p=1490

Attorney Karen Tynan (@KarenAttorney) tweeted from Sacramento with Princess Donna (@PrincessDonna).

Working at the Capitol with Princess Donna …. No on AB322 pic.twitter.com/INvjJpgcyz

Thank you, Karen and Donna, for being there!

Steven St. Croix (@StevenStCroix1) tweeted about APC4C:

Join Adult Performers Coalition for Choice – We Need YOU! http://bit.ly/12Lzl8q

ADULT PERFORMERS COALITION FOR CHOICE- VOICING OUR RIGHTS AS INDIVIDUALS, NOT ANIMALS http://wp.me/p1lnK9-cS

Dr. Chauntelle has always been an avid twitterer, as well.

all these bills are so important, but let’s get to #AB332… CA state assembly meeting LIVE here NOW –> http://apro.assembly.ca.gov/hearings

I don’t want to make this long, but when these hearings come up, these are people to follow for information. Also, Darryl Hanah (@daRRyLhaNahXXX), AnthonyJK (@rgc_bppa), Liberty Prospers (@lPNPAC) and obviously APC4C (@APC4C), FSC (@FSCArmy) and Stop Condom Lawz (@StopCondomLawz).

If I have missed anyone, please let me know and I will update this list. If any links are incorrect, again, let me know.

If you are a performer for CHOICE and understand implicitly that neither Measure B nor AB-332 are the way to go, sign up at APC4C.com and let your voice he heard!

You may quote this site's original content in incomplete excerpts with credit to © Julie Meadows Entertainment and a direct link to quoted material. Thank you!

Mark graduated from New York University with a Liberal Arts Degree in English. He became tired of school, so his father–a court reporter–suggested he go to a stenotype academy. After graduating in 1971, Mark began taking freelance court reporting jobs and continued to do that for the next twenty years, until Fishbein asked him to move to L.A. and become AVN’s legal affairs editor.

Lydia Lee: A distinct aspect of your articles is how much of yourself you put into them. They are filled with passion and opinion, which is good. I think if you’re going to read about legal issues, it’s nice to get a perspective to go with it. Anytime you’ve written about Shelley Lubben or the condom laws, you’ve always been very forthright about your feelings about these things.

Mark Kernes: There are a lot of journalists out there, very few of whom cover sexual subjects. And there are an awful lot of pundits out there, most of whom are anti-sex in some way or another. They are definitely ‘anti-porn industry’, for the most part. You’ve got a few good ones. You’ve got Violet Blue, Susie Bright, Tracy Clark-Flory; all of whom are what I would call sex-positive journalists. But there are very few. So it seemed to me that somebody had to call these people out. We have a daily website and there’s always something going on in the sexual world worth commenting about. And I’ve got this legal background because I’ve read legal opinions, and people are scared of them. You say to someone, “Well, the Supreme Court came down with this decision,” and you’re kind of met with a blank look, especially if you say, “Well, if you want to know what it’s about you ought to read it.” They don’t want to read it. They’re scared of legal language. I don’t know why this is, but I got over that pretty quickly, and so I can then take these things and digest them and say, ‘Okay, this is what it says; this is what it means.’ When you get to the ‘this is what it means’ part, a certain amount of me is going to come into it.

LL: I think it’s brave that you log onto insider blogs and go out of your way to point things out when someone lies or name-calls as if that’s some kind of an argument against facts. Does it bother you to go to a blog to defend something or to have to point out, for instance, that the language in AB-332 is problematic because…

MK: A little bit. Obviously, you’re referring to my analysis of both Measure B and AB-332, which, if you read the language and it refers to section 5193 of the health code… Fine. What does that say? Then you go online, go to the health code and read it. And when you read it, you say, ‘Wait a minute. There’s a time bomb here.’ Because if you have to obey everything that’s in section 5193 of the health code, it means you cannot have two people having sex where their skin touches, at all! Of course, AIDS Healthcare [Foundation] says it’s just a law to make people wear condoms, but it’s not. You really have to wear a hazmat suit. That’s the only way you can fulfill the requirements of either Measure B or AB-332. I pointed that out in my article; I’ve talked to the attorneys about it.

People have accused me of using scare tactics. What they are saying is that talking about the reality of what the law means is somehow a losing tactic to defeating it.

LL: That’s ridiculous.

MK: It is. But there are actually people I know that are worried about that exact thing [language in the ordinances]. Measure B was, and AB-332 is going to be sold to the public as a “condom law”. It’s a condom law, but it’s much more than that. People have to know that.

They keep claiming that they’re not against the adult industry, and yet, their legal staff writes these propositions, and I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the text of AB-332 was, if not totally created by AHF, it was at least vetted by them before Assemblyman Hall proposed it as a law. They’re getting a little bit smarter, in the sense that they are waiting until a little bit further down in the text before they talk about section 5193, but it’s in there.

LL: Those of us who’ve been following this since the beginning, we’ve watched the boycotts, we’ve listened to the outrageous language used to shame an industry that understands economics and the risks involved in doing the work they do. When you write a law that includes language that prevents sex altogether and you have a history of presenting an anti-porn/anti-gay activist as the voice of truth about an industry, that’s a problem.

MK: AIDS Healthcare has a very interesting history. In the past they have sued the manufacturers of antiretroviral drugs, I think it is, that you use to treat HIV. And then when those companies made a huge donation to AIDS Healthcare, suddenly, the criticism went away! And if there was a lawsuit, it went away.

I think [Michael Weinstein] knows what the truth is. I think he knows that testing is effective in this industry. I think he knows that the Health Department’s statistics are totally skewed because they don’t differentiate between an initial positive STD test and a number of retests performers are bound to do because they want to go back to work.

LL: And people who attempt to get into the industry for the first time and are prevented from entering because they have something…

MK: Exactly. But, they’re considered performers and the result gets reported to the Health Department, so even though they’ve never performed in a porn movie, “they are porn stars with STDs”.

LL: And there’s street traffic. This isn’t a clinic that excluded the general population.

MK: We’re talking about AIM now, and you’re absolutely right. As a matter of fact, a lot of the non-porn industry people–prostitutes–used to get tested there because they knew it was a safe environment, they knew it was non-judgmental, and they knew that if they did have something they could get treatment for it.

LL: Wasn’t there a UCLA study, some incentive program asking performers to test and get something in return? [Link here--Scroll down to August 10, 2012.]

MK: I don’t think UCLA has done a study. If they have they haven’t published it, that I’ve seen. Apparently one of the testing facilities is providing them with some data currently, but they haven’t published it yet. I don’t know what they’re doing with it. They are closely allied with AIDS Healthcare, so I’m not expecting anything particularly good to come out of it. I’ll take it as it comes, and write about it.

Mark Kernes has a been a board member of the Free Speech Coalition for ten years. He’ll be reporting on the 2257 trial in Philadelphia in June. Mark also participated as the judge in the end run production of The Deep Throat Sex Scandal. He wrote about it here, and you can find all of his articles on Measure B and AB-332 at AVN.com by entering those words into the search engine. This article will get you started: Get It Straight: Measure B & AB 332 Are NOT Just About Condoms.

You may quote this site's original content in incomplete excerpts with credit to © Julie Meadows Entertainment and a direct link to quoted material. Thank you!

Lila Gray at XBiz.com asked me some questions and posted about the newly formed Adult Performers Coalition For Choice (APC4C).

From APC4C Formed to Combat AB 332, Measure B:

Former adult actress Lydia Lee and the FSC’s Diane Duke and Joanne Cachapero have formed the Adult Performers Coalition For Choice (APC4C), an outreach organization dedicated to toppling Measure B and barring the passage of AB 332.

“FSC does a lot on its own, but they are constantly wrapped up in [litigation over federal record-keeping law] 2257 and other pursuits far more specific to the legal side of things,” Lee told XBIZ. “They don’t always have the time to reach out to every specific group. Having spent some time with these two great ladies … it became our understanding that performers should have a coalition of their own.”

The trio has been working on the project since the last AB 332 hearing on April 24, inspired by the performer turnout there and at previous legal battlegrounds concerning AB 332 and Measure B, Lee said.

Read more here…

Lots of people have signed on, which is very exciting! More, more to come soon!

Dr. Chauntelle Tibbals was featured on AVN.com yesterday in Dr. Chauntelle Publishes New Research on Porn, Law and Society.

Sociologist Chauntelle Anne Tibbals, Ph.D., best known to the adult industry as “Dr. Chauntelle,” is pleased to announce publication of her newest research “When Law Moves Quicker Than Culture: Key Jurisprudential Regulations Shaping the US Adult Content Production Industry.”

The article, which appears in The Scholar: St Mary’s Law Review on Race and Social Justice (2013, 15:2), uses historical sociology to explore the research question: Why, in spite of its legal and protected status, is adult content and adult content production still a stigmatizing and polarizing dimension of US culture?

“This is something that’s always confounded me,” Tibbals stated. “Adult content production is legal in the US and we hear endless rhetoric about the adult industry mainstreaming, but we as a culture still seem to struggle with porn.”

Read more here…

To read about it from Dr. Chauntelle’s site, PVVOnline.com, link here.

There’s still time, so don’t forget to fax the Appropriations Committee. The next AB-332 hearing is tomorrow! FSC Blog has a sample letter and the list of Assemblymembers!!

You may quote this site's original content in incomplete excerpts with credit to © Julie Meadows Entertainment and a direct link to quoted material. Thank you!

I received a few letters yesterday from people who are under the impression that forcing condoms on people in this way is a good idea, but I would just like to remind those who feel that way that it’s not that simple.

This law is about far more than just condoms. This bill is poorly written and refers to “barriers” that would prevent sex altogether. It’s not ridiculous to be wary of that, it’s ridiculous to know it’s there and ignore it.

Furthermore, the people who are pushing this bill without the industry’s input consider you subhuman. The right approach to caring about this industry would have been working with it to better testing protocols and then working to make sure every performer can choose to wear a condom, if they want one, while present on a working set. As it stands, you don’t have to work in porn, and you do not have to work on a non-condom set. Once this law passes, anyone who won’t or can’t wear condoms is ostracized from working in porn in California. And if you really think this kind of government overreach will end with condoms in porn, then you are not aware that this overbroad bill also talks about simulated sex and a number of other very problematic things.

Also, some people like to say, ‘But hey, the bill now mentions testing.’ It’s true that the opposition has slowly modified its approach, but that’s not cooperation. Cooperation means meeting people at the table and organizing before pushing a bill. This is a shift in strategy, not cooperation. There is a very big difference.

If you want to be apart of opposing this bill and working towards industry-appropriate regulations; if you are for performer’s choice, sign up to Adult Performers Coalition For Choice today and get involved with us to be heard about saner, less demeaning and less insulting ways to approach what would actually be more beneficial for performers.

You may quote this site's original content in incomplete excerpts with credit to © Julie Meadows Entertainment and a direct link to quoted material. Thank you!