California's Prop 60

[rawTOP]

UPDATE: Based on the polls, Prop 60 will probably pass. So this is serious. Please do what you can to stop this ballot measure!

By now you've probably seen the banner at the top of the page about Prop 60. Let me give you some background on what's going on…

For years now Michael Weinstein of AIDS Heathcare Foundation (AHF) has been trying to stop bareback porn. He's also the person who tried to spread Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt about the effectiveness of PrEP. He's done all of this with money that should have been spent helping people with HIV and AIDS. IMHO, he's not a nice guy.

Anyway, after losing his battles in Los Angeles County to restrict shooting of bareback porn, he's now taken the lessons from that fight and gone statewide. He's got Proposition 60 on the ballot in November. For those of you outside the US or unfamiliar with ballot propositions – these are a form of direct democracy where voters pass laws. There is no negotiation on the language. It will require a 2/3rds vote in the state legislature and the governor's signature to fix it afterwards, or the courts can strike down the parts that are unconstitutional. However, in this particular instance the remainder of the law remains in effect if part is deemed unconstitutional. Given that it's framed as a "workplace safety" law, most of it will probably stay in effect.

Prop 60 gets worse though… It makes it so any state resident can sue if the State of California doesn't want to pursue the case. AND the person filing the complaint/lawsuit gets a percentage of the winnings. In other words, if passed Prop 60 is free money for sleazy lawyers and anyone who wants to sue bareback porn producers. Actually, even condom producers are at risk if they can't prove that a condom was used. Oh, and anyone in the chain who benefited financially from the film can be sued – including porn stars.

That said, the law only applies to videos shot in California. However, Prop 60 says that any video distributed in the state that doesn't clearly show condoms is presumed to be violating the law. So sites with bareback content will need to block the entire state of California since there could be lots of harassing lawsuits where people have to prove the video or picture doesn't violate the law. [And even that may not avoid all the potential lawsuits.]

Producers who continue shooting in California will be royally screwed if this passes, even if they try to stop distribution in the state. Someone can steal their content, upload it illegally to a tube site that then serves the video to a user in California and the producer will have a lawsuit on their hands even though the video was distributed illegally without their consent. Also screwed are the "sponsors" who run the pay sites for the producer and distribute the videos.

Because I'm at the end of the marketing chain, if things get really bad I might be able to protect myself somewhat by blocking/redirecting traffic from California. [No one really knows until there are cases settled by the courts on this.]

As a result, if it passes, nearly all of my sites will block users from California. Actually, I'll be redirecting the traffic to Male Prime, my "Safe-For-Work" site. I'll have to refuse content from sponsors if it was shot in California after 11/9/16 and put disclaimers next to everything saying the content is exempt.

If you're in California, PLEASE vote NO on Prop 60. And everyone needs to get the word out to their friends and family in California to vote No on Prop 60. AHF is spending $4.1 million to get people to vote YES (money most likely taken from the care of people with HIV and AIDS). So far the porn industry just hasn't been able to compete money-wise.

[SugarWalls]

Thank you for putting up the banner and posting this. I have been urging friends and other fellow Californians to vote NO on Prop 60. It's effects are wide spread DAMAGE. 

[Guest]

Fuck Michael Whine-Stein, he needs to stop his whining and submit to the raw dick and ass! That's all fucking bullshit. He is doing it for notoriety & to feel godly, so he can  mitigate the fact that he is a bloody douche rag. It's an illusory correlation where he is falsely making the world believe this idea was derived out of his desire to "make good" for the people, but there can never be any good when the man cums into people's personal spaces and tells them what to do. If it passes I will move out of Calipornication.

[PDX4NIK8ER]

RawTop: Thanks for sharing this info. Do you have (or can you put up) a page somewhere where this exact explanation is available (because it is really good!) but not linked to the Breeding Zone site/address/content? I would post the link to Facebook,Twitter, and other social media accounts and help get the word out (as would others, I suppose) but I can't have my name linked publicly to any breeding/bareback site. Just an idea to help leverage social media exposure and give many of us a chance to help while maintaining a "socially acceptable" face to the community. Thanks!

Edited October 12, 2016 by PDX4NIK8ER

[gaynudist61]

If I lived in California I would vote no on prop 60

[pozcubsf]

so, what can those of us that live in California do if we can't vote? if this bullshit prop does pass, is there a way to access this site or what? i LOVE this site and every bb site

[pozpig]

I would imagine you can do the same as those of us who can vote on it. Get the word out to vote NO! The more people who are aware of how broad stroked this proposition is, and how it effects ALL Californians negatively, the more likely it will fail to pass. I know so many people complain about government intrusion into the bedroom and this is a direct example of their attempts to do so. 

[rawTOP]

RawTop: Thanks for sharing this info. Do you have (or can you put up) a page somewhere where this exact explanation is available (because it is really good!) but not linked to the Breeding Zone site/address/content? I would post the link to Facebook,Twitter, and other social media accounts and help get the word out (as would others, I suppose) but I can't have my name linked publicly to any breeding/bareback site. Just an idea to help leverage social media exposure and give many of us a chance to help while maintaining a "socially acceptable" face to the community. Thanks!

 

Here's a good, "Safe-For-Work" site that explains what's going on…

 

http://DontHarassCA.com/

[Guest PozGoat]

To me, requiring condoms in porn(or anywhere really) IS A VIOLATION of freedom of expression, freedom of artistry, freedom of creativity, free speech etc.

 

It IS an UNCONSTITUTIONAL violation of said freedoms.

 

I hope it goes down in flames and Cali defeats the measure in Nov but if it passes, will it withstand court challenges? Let's hope it doesn't get that far by the No's defeating it in Nov.

 

Thanks Rawtop for bringing this issue up here. We need to get more political and get out the vote.

[gaynudist61]

I don't think condoms should be required in porn

[pozpig]

so, what can those of us that live in California do if we can't vote? if this bullshit prop does pass, is there a way to access this site or what? i LOVE this site and every bb site

 

I would imagine the only possible way would be to use a proxy server which is what I use when websites don't allow users from US IP's (online gambling mostly comes to mind). 

 

As for protection, I truly feel that should be up to the individual. Granted, I'm sure there is a level of pressure from the studio, especially if they focus on barebacking videos, but lets face facts, you're not going to get into a production with say TIM if you only play safe....Their core audience chooses their videos exactly for the reason that they depict REAL sex as it was meant. I truly feel that if initiatives like this pass, it's only a matter of time before actors are required to don hazmat suits.....and not because they're filming a fetish scene. 

[seaguy]

To me, requiring condoms in porn(or anywhere really) IS A VIOLATION of freedom of expression, freedom of artistry, freedom of creativity, free speech etc.

 

It IS an UNCONSTITUTIONAL violation of said freedoms.

 

I hope it goes down in flames and Cali defeats the measure in Nov but if it passes, will it withstand court challenges? Let's hope it doesn't get that far by the No's defeating it in Nov.

 

Thanks Rawtop for bringing this issue up here. We need to get more political and get out the vote.

Well said.  Weinstein is like the gay community's Donald Trump he is a vile awful man who lies and uses misinformation to further his own agenda which for a while now has been to run the porn industry out of the state of CA basically.  He should be removed from his position at the AHF due to the mismanagement of funds from his spending millions to pursue a vendetta against porn instead of trying to find a cure, vaccine, or educate people.  All of which would prevent way more HIV infections than making condoms mandatory in porn.

[rawTOP]

More info…

 

Eric, the head of Free Speech Coalition (who's leading the fight against Prop60), chimed in on an adult webmaster board and said the following:

 

1) Are affiliates affected - YES
- any CA resident who sees content where a condom is not visible can first file a claim with OSHA, and if OSHA dismisses it or doesn't act in time, a lawsuit can be filed. The reason for that is a 'rebuttable presumption' that if a condom is not visible in every frame, a condom may not have been used.
- further, proof of where the production took place, when, and whether condoms were or weren't used will have to be presented during discovery when you are already in court and have had to hire an attorney

 

2) attorney fees for the defendant - VERY HIGH BAR
- "...in order for a defendant to recover attorney's fees from a plaintiff, the court must first find that the plaintiffs pursuit of the litigation was frivolous or in bad faith."
--> frivolous or in bad faith are an incredibly high bar and highly unlikely to be attained in these proceedings. it is highly unlikely that any defendant will be able to claim any attorney fee reimbursements
- a Prop60 lawsuit will cost anywhere between $10-$25k to defend against - per defendant

 

#1 is relevant because that's my situation exactly. The issue here is that documentation exists, but I'm not the one who holds it. Meaning I'm reliant on someone else to help me disprove the elements of the case, if one is brought against me.

 

#2 is relevant because it means it will be very difficult to get my legal costs back.

 

What that means is If Prop 60 passes I will probably block California users from accessing my bareback sites (rawtop.com, raunchyfuckers.com and breeding.zone, etc.. Meaning, if you want to continue to access this site, make sure it doesn't pass!

[pozpig]

Promising news for defeating prop 60!

 

https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2016/10/21/881758/0/en/FSC-Voters-Turn-Against-Prop-60-In-New-Poll.html

 

Looks like voters may be waking up to how damaging this piece of legislation can/will be. 

[rawTOP]

On 10/25/2016 at 9:32 PM, pozpig said:

Promising news for defeating prop 60!

https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2016/10/21/881758/0/en/FSC-Voters-Turn-Against-Prop-60-In-New-Poll.html

Looks like voters may be waking up to how damaging this piece of legislation can/will be. 

If you look at the details of the poll, it depends on how the propositions are displayed on the ballot. In the most likely formatting Prop 60 will pass.