egafd.com

I am beginning to wonder if the very serious and sad situation in the United States regarding the number of actors testing positive for hiv, may have a really serious knock on effect for the adult industry in the USA. There can be no doubt that administrations in the US have been unhappy about the adult film industry. Many US Presidents, particularly Republican ones, stand on 'family value' tickets. This is certainly the case with the present President. They have never been able to tackle the adult industry effectively because of the United States constitution. However, I do wonder if the present situation may not be used as an excuse to by pass the constitutional restrictions and severely restrict the industry's ability to efficiently distribute their products. The situation in Europe is substantially different because, with the possible exception of the UK, there are few votes to be gained by kicking the adult industry when it is down. That is not the case in the USA.

I think you might be right. The right-wing madmen who are running the country have very close links to Christian Fundamentalist movements, who are in fact behind their quest for World Domination and exporting "American Christian Values everywhere" on the basis of "If you don't like it we'll bomb you in the name of Gard", They would just love to destroy the porn industry and this could be the moment they start. Trouble is Blair is also a Christian and so might be tempted to follow suit over here.

I am so pleased that someone with as great a knowledge of the industry as you also sees this danger. You are right about Blair of course, but fortunately we are signed up to the European Convention of Human Rights. This of course has nothing to do with the EU, although our anti European press pretend that it does. The industry is also protected to some extent by EU legislation on free trade. However we certainly cannot be complacent.

David, Although I agree with the notion that the US industry is going to come under close governmental scrutiny, I'm not convinced that they will "restrict DISTRIBUTION of product" [sic]. Rather, I believe they will apply and enforce safety and health legislation (OSHA), putting extreme onus on producers making it hazardous and risky for them to produce... Interfering with distribution, i.e. trade, would be difficult (in my opinion) - there are much easier ways for them to exert influence - not least through OSHA, but I don't doubt there may well be some new legislature on the books.

I would also agree that the moralistic "christian fundamentalist" sorts hold the aces both here (Blair) and in the US (Bush). However, there are big question marks hanging over them with regards to their ethical and moral standards so I dare say there could be some treading carefully on these sorts of issues. You only have to look at the condemnation of the current government that has come from the Archbishop of Canterbury - only last week he seemed to endorse public defiance.... These are tricky times.

Having said all of this - of course the industry will survive; both here and over the water. The industry is TOO BIG to be killed off. There is no question of the fact that pornography is gaining wider acceptance and that as a whole we are becoming increasingly more liberal. To try to reverse such a large industry in view of this would be doomed to failure... it would drive it all even further underground, increase the risks and criminalise millions... It's gonna survive but I don't doubt they'll have a field day making it difficult.

Actually, Jack, thinking about it, it might be the possibility of enormous law suits being taken out against producers, that could in fact kill off porn over there.If a Christian group financed a lawsuit on behalf of one of the infected party, the payout could be hundreds of millions of dollars.
Over here of course a similar law suit would net about ?9.99 for the victim, before costs!

Absolutely true David... It's an ifinitely more organised industry over there and the litigious nature of the country as it is, I think there is every possibilty.

In truth, I'm not sure how effective such a claim would be. It all boils down to the test of "reasonableness"... Have producers taken ALL REASONABLE PRECAUTIONS TO PROTECT THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THEIR 'EMPLOYEES'.

There is also a question as to what constitutes an employee or a freelancer/sub contractor... I suspect it would be deemed the responsibilty of a freelancer to take responsibility for themselves.

If a producer has ensured the performers have valid certs, if the models have consented to what they undertake - I'm not entirely sure producers could be held responsible... I'd say they'd taken reasonable precautions.

I think the person most likely to be victim of the lawsuit is the performer and I think they'd have to prove negligence on their part. There's also contributory negligence to consider... all parties know the risks they're taking...

I would be surprised if all this didn't end up in court though - very surprised.

Hi,

Speaking from grass roots and having recently attended an industry meeting at the Hustler studios, I can confirm that things in the US are nothing less than chaotic and affecting all levels of the biz.

- Talent has suddenly become aware that this shit is for real and is petrified
- Some studios/major producers are going condom-only (e.g. Seymore Butts)
- Some studios considering jumping state if board of health imposes use of condoms
- AIM worried about ability to contain outbreaks if studios jump state
- The potential effect of the creation of a talent union is creating uncertainty

Only one thing is remaining absolutely steadfast:
The ongoing and committed support by all members of the industry towards AIM.


Joanna Jet
xxx

Always remember, "Where's theres's blame there's a claim!", Ernest B Schnosleburg. US Attorney at Law.

True... And like I said, I can quite feasibly foresee legal action - I'm just not sure how it would pan out. If a producer has willing, consenting models who have their valid certificates - they've taken reasonable measures...

It's the performers, I think, who are most at risk of action.

If it can be proven that they have risked compromise of their certificate, if they have been "negligent" and consequently put their co-performer/s a risk... well, it is THEY who will be deemed to have acted unreasonably.

But then, when you consider what a performer is worth in financial terms - would a lawsuit against them achieve much?

I think the arguments you have put forward Jack, are sensible and reasonable if you are talking about a country that has a sensible and reasonable legal system. The trouble is we are talking about the United States. Tobacco companies being sued for millions by people who claim that they didn't know smoking could damage their health, even though this has been known about for fifty years. People suing burger companies because they have become fat through eating too many. No I am afraid there is certain to be cases going through the US courts over this, and the way they drag things out, we may not see a resolution in our lifetime.