NEW YORK CITY—Holly Van Voast is a celebrity photographer—a paparazza, if you will—whose schtick is to attend events and photograph them ... while topless and sporting a brown fedora, a Marilyn Monroe wig and a penciled-on "Don Juan" mustache. She calls that character "Harvey Van Toast."

For her profession, it's a guise that makes almost perfect sense. Although Van Voast has said that her attire (or lack of it) "is partially to gain exposure for her friends in the 'punk drag' community" like drag queens Charmin Ultra, Misty Meaner, Mary Jo Cameltoe, Heidi Glum and Cherry Poppins, there's no denying that when she's behind a barricade, trying to photograph celebs on a red carpet walk or in a parade, being female and topless (especially with a hat and mustache) is a surefire attention-getter—and the best shot is almost always the one where the subject is looking directly at the camera!

But the New York City Police Department (NYPD) hasn't exactly seen it that way. Over the past couple of years, Van Voast has been "stopped, detained, harassed, arrested, summonsed, charged and/or prosecuted" 11 times for such horseshit as "indecent exposure," "public lewdness" and appearing topless "without a permit." Most egregiously, however, was the incident on March 14, 2012, when Van Voast chose to doff her top on Manhattan's ritzy Upper East Side ... right outside the P.S. 6 elementary school. For that, the cops not only arrested her, they had her committed to the psych ward at New York Presbyterian Hospital, where she was held "for observation" for six days!

"Plaintiff chose that location to stand specifically to express her opinion that the sight of women's breasts is not dangerous to children, and that claims of 'protecting' children from toplessness were misplaced," her recently filed complaint against the NYPD states.

But that's not all. According to the report on CourthouseNews.com, "[a]fter she appeared topless at the Bronx Day Parade on May 20, 2012, police sent her for evaluation at Montefiore Hospital, where she was handcuffed to a bed for 'an extended period of time,'" and later, "NYPD officers sent her to St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital for being topless in front of a Hooters restaurant in Midtown Manhattan."

So, yep, she's suing—and if the city's legal department has any sense, they'll try for a quick settlement, since it hasn't been illegal for a woman (or man) to walk around the city topless for more than 20 years.

Specifically, the case is People v. Ramona Santorelli and Mary Lou Schloss, a 1992 decision by the New York State's Second Appellate Division, involving two women who bared "that portion of the breast which is below the top of the areola" in a Rochester public park. In that case, the appeals court found that Penal Law §245.01, originally enacted in 1967 to "discourag[e] 'topless' waitresses and their promoters," was discriminatory in that it banned public displays of upper-body exposure for women but not for men.

"The statute, they [defendants] urge, is discriminatory on its face since it defines 'private or intimate parts' of a woman's but not a man's body as including a specific part of the breast," the appeals panel wrote. "That assertion being made, it is settled that the People then have the burden of proving that there is an important government interest at stake and that the gender classification is substantially related to that interest. In this case, however, the People have made no attempt below and make none before us to demonstrate that the statute's discriminatory effect serves an important governmental interest or that the classification is based on a reasoned predicate."

But sadly, that case didn't stop the cops' harassment, etc. of Van Voast, so she's filed suit against the city, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, the Metropolitan Transit Authority and dozens of police officers in U.S. District Court in Manhattan—and her attorneys are prominent civil rights attorneys Ron Kuby and Katherine Rosenfeld.

So not only does Van Voast have an excellent chance of winning the suit (or a large settlement in lieu of a trial), but recently, the NYPD has taken to reminding its patrol personnel during morning roll call—10 consecutive times since February—that  "[i]f they happened upon a topless woman, they were not to arrest her," according to a report published in The New York Times on Wednesday.

In fact, the roll-call reminder was the result of a memo, presumably authored by the city's law department but which is in fact unsourced, that was included in Van Voast's suit.

"Even if the topless display draws a lot of attention, officers are to 'give a lawful order to disperse the entire crowd and take enforcement action' against those who do not comply," reported The Times' J. David Goodman. "Whether the individuals are clothed is not a factor in making a determination about whether the above-mentioned crowd conditions exist."

And it's a good thing the cops are taking this law (and Van Voast's lawsuit) to heart: Seems that, according to the website GoTopless.org, National Go Topless Day this year is Sunday, August 25—and you'd better believe that plenty of New Yorkers are ready to celebrate it!

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers. Five Filters recommends: 'You Say What You Like, Because They Like What You Say' - http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/alerts-2013/731-you-say-what-you-like-because-they-like-what-you-say.html

Posted May 17th, 2013 04:23 PM

LOS ANGELES—Reigning AVN Female Performer of the Year turned new director Asa Akira's debut directorial effort, Gangbanged 6, stars Alexis Ford in her first-ever gangbang.

Akira told AVN that Ford took on seven lucky studs in her scene, as did Chastity Lynn, who also stars in the movie. Lynn's group scene is the first gangbang she's performed on camera outside of a bondage scenario. 

Two girls taking on a total of 14 guys definitely is the right recipe for some gangbang fun, Akira reports.

"Both girls went hard," Akira said. "I got home from the first scene and was like, 'Damn! That was more exhausting than getting gangbanged!' And I should know."

Akira seemed to be particularly proud of Ford, who has been consistently upping the ante on her performances as of late.

"Alexis is in the greatest place right now when you want to try everything," Akira said. "It's kind of awesome to watch someone else go through that phase. I feel nostalgic."

Akira also revealed plans for her next directing gig for Elegant Angel, which will be a Club 59 lesbian title. Of course, as the director Akira calls the shots, and decided to perform herself in the movie.

So, Asa, tell us who you're going to be working with…

"I can't say yet, but I texted the girl's agent 'She'll be working with…me! Not joking." 

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers. Five Filters recommends: 'You Say What You Like, Because They Like What You Say' - http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/alerts-2013/731-you-say-what-you-like-because-they-like-what-you-say.html

LOS ANGELES—Bear Manor Media has just released an autobiography by top adult actress Seka, Inside Seka: The Platinum Princess of Porn, written with Kerry Zukus, a veteran of over 40 books.

All fans of classic adult films know who Seka was: The Virginia-born platinum blonde who entered the adult industry by running a chain of adult bookstores, but who in the early 1970s began doing nude modeling, gradually started acting in loops, and eventually graduated to hardcore features in 1977 when she and husband-to-be Ken Yontz moved to Los Angeles, which was not then quite the center of adult filming that it would become a decade later.

Seka starred in nearly 100 adult movies, the first of which with any information available about its contents being 1977's Love Notes, directed by Rik Taziner and also starring Rhonda Jo Petty. But the busty blonde quickly caught the attention of several major producers of the time, including Gourmet Video Collection, VCA, Caballero Home Video, Essex Video and Arrow Productions, as well as some of the industry's top directors.

Some of Seka's more popular titles have included Bob Chinn's Blonde Fire and Prisoner of Paradise, Svetlana's Ultraflesh, Anthony Spinelli's Between the Sheets, her self-directed Inside Seka (why does that name seem so familiar?), and her final film, Henri Pachard's American Garter (co-directed by Gloria Leonard).

"Seka’s real life story, though, is as enigmatic as her screen persona," reads the blurb on the Bear Manor website. "She was never a victim—on-screen or off. This is no tale of remorse, abuse, or self-destructive behavior. Seka was post-feminist before the term was born. Inside Seka is the story of a survivor, a trailblazer, and an icon—still one of the most popular and famous porn stars ever; the last of the natural beauties."

Several famous adult stars and personalities—including Bill Margold, who would place her on a "Mount Rushmore of Adult Entertainment"—have also praised the book.

"Before the Jennas, the Bree Olsons, or the Savannas, the undisputed blonde bombshell of XXX movies was Seka, which makes her story so important in the history of adult entertainment," said Ron Jeremy.

"From calling the shots in a film genre in the days when it was completely controlled by men, to standing and being heard at the infamous Meese Commission, Seka shatters the myth of the poor little victim who lost her way," assessed Candida Royalle. "Don’t expect excuses and apologies. This is one blonde bombshell who lives by her own rules."

Even Larry Flynt called her "one of the hottest girls in the XXX business, able to seduce any man she wanted."

Inside Seka can be purchased here, either in softcover or as an e-book.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers. Five Filters recommends: 'You Say What You Like, Because They Like What You Say' - http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/alerts-2013/731-you-say-what-you-like-because-they-like-what-you-say.html

LOS ANGELES—Bloomberg News posed a good question today: “If Yahoo Buys Tumblr, What Will It Do With All That Porn?” The Marissa Mayer-run company is reportedly interested in acquiring the popular social network for a cool billion. At any rate, that’s what they apparently think it will cost them to become cool again.

So, if the sale goes through, what will happen to all that porn? Are we supposed to believe they have considered the more subtle ramifications of a sale? We’re not so sure. Tumblr has been friendly to porn for a long time, but TechCrunch detailed back in August of last year that the bloom was starting to come off the rose as the site was experiencing meteoric growth, most of it the result of new mainstream subdomains.

Tumblr protested at the time, saying it was not so, it still loved its porn; shuttered sex sites countered it was so, and after a while everyone kind of went back to sleep.  But now the question has raised its ugly head again in the aftermath of the sale rumor. At least it did with Bloomberg’s Joshua Brustein, who quipped, “It will be fun to see how these [porn subdomains] are integrated into Yahoo News.”

For many in the industry, however, the question of what might happen to adult-oriented Tumblr pages is not an idle curiosity, but a matter of livelihood. Many performers have pages that they use frequently to post photos of themselves at work or play that they then disseminate to the universe as another prong of their self-marketing. The same, of course, goes for businesses.

In Brustein’s view, however, there might not be that much to worry about. Yahoo! is no Tumblr, but it is certainly not an Apple. Similar to Tumblr, he writes, “Yahoo’s terms of service also warn users that they might encounter adult material in the company’s products, although it does so without using profanity. And like any service that includes user-generated content, Yahoo has had to deal with people indulging in sexual interests that not everyone would approve of.”

If the sale goes through, he concludes, “It’s hard to see the environment getting any friendlier for pornographers on the network. On the other hand, Yahoo may have to tread carefully with suggestive content. There are reasons why Tumblr is popular with young people. Prudishness is not high on that list.”

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers. Five Filters recommends: 'You Say What You Like, Because They Like What You Say' - http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/alerts-2013/731-you-say-what-you-like-because-they-like-what-you-say.html

LOS ANGELES—Wednesday, we wrote about the travails of soft-porn king Marc L. Greenberg at the duplicitous hands of JPMorgan Chase. We didn’t know the half of it. It turns out Greenberg is not the only individual to have been thwarted recently in otherwise run-of-the-mill banking because of the institution's reluctance to deal with members of the adult industry. CNBC reported today that adult performer Chanel Preston says she too has been discriminated against by a bank, and it sounds from the article as if there are others.

“Preston recently opened a business account with City National Bank in Los Angeles,” wrote Chris Morris for the network. “When she went to deposit checks into the account days later, however, she was told it had been shut down, due to ‘compliance issues.’

"[The loan officer] asked me 'are you affiliated with the adult entertainment industry?' When I said yes, she said, 'We will not give you a loan," Preston said after the incident.

“She found the manager she had originally worked with and asked what had happened," reported Morris. "The bank, she was told, was worried about the webcam shows she had on her site and had revoked the account.

“Preston is hardly the only porn star who has had trouble with the banking industry,” he added. “Several performers and porn insiders (who were afraid to go on the record due to possible repercussions from their banks) said they have been denied accounts from a variety of financial institutions.”

Morris also spoke to the FDIC, which reported back that the banks can pretty much have carte blanche. According to spokesperson David Barr, "The decision to open or maintain an account is up to the individual institution. The rules are not prescriptive, which means that the bank must make its own assessment to determine the risks associated with an account and whether that account should be terminated or not opened in the first place."

Needless to say, the relationship between banking institution and the adult “high risk” industry is long and strewn with previous breakups, making life uncertain and challenging especially for many online adult businesses. Not only banks, but the credit card companies change their policies regularly, often making site owners jump through hoops to bring their sites into compliance in order to avoid the ultimate penalty—the closure of an account. Finding a bank that will not only work with an adult business, but is willing to implement card association policies with humanity, is difficult, to be sure, but it certainly can be done.

But even for those with great relationships with their banks, there is no upside to speaking publicly about it. "The people within my [local] bank have urged me to downplay the nature of my business because corporate frowns on it," an industry veteran told Morris.

The fear of repercussions mentioned by the adult performers who spoke with CNBC is shared by our own contacts, whose only interest, after all, is to stay in business. The good news is that for many businesses, as long as things stay low-key the good relationships can last a long time. The bad news is that some banks appear to be getting ever more skittish.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers. Five Filters recommends: 'You Say What You Like, Because They Like What You Say' - http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/alerts-2013/731-you-say-what-you-like-because-they-like-what-you-say.html

Posted May 17th, 2013 12:30 PM

LOS ANGELES—Male performer Rocco Reed has decided to retire from performing in adult movies. In a statement sent to AVN, Reed said he felt it was time to pursue other business opportunities.  

"I would like to state that my time in the adult industry in every aspect has now come to an end," Reed said. "I will no longer be living in the Los Angeles area and I'm taking the step to start other business ventures. I would also like to state that I am not or never have been gay, just an adult performer. I am retiring not because of any other reason than its time to move on. Thanks."

Reed was a prolific performer during his time in the straight side of the adult industry, shooting more than 300 scenes per year at the height of his popularity. He shot for virtually all of the major companies and also directed for Penthouse Studios. 

Then last June, Reed surprisingly announced that he was moving over to the gay side of the industry and accepted a six-month contract from online gay network Men.com. It was an unprecedented move for such a prolific male performer.

Before hitting the adult entertainment scene, Reed was a mainstream actor, with credits including several independent films and work for such high-profile production entities as HBO. The HBO project, Life on Top, took Reed across the globe where filming took place in Bucharest, Romania. One of his latest independent films, Who I Should Have Been, challenged the actor by playing the part of a man who appears to have everything but realizes he has nothing in his obsession to obtain it all. 

Reed also was seen in print and on the runways modeling for such clients as Structure, MEK, Armani, Calvin Klein, Ed Hardy and Guess. 

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers. Five Filters recommends: 'You Say What You Like, Because They Like What You Say' - http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/alerts-2013/731-you-say-what-you-like-because-they-like-what-you-say.html

LOS ANGELES—Oh, please. Just because Google makes a pair of glasses that contains a camera, everyone assumes it must be God’s gift to porn. Ever since Google Glass(es) were announced, in fact, the GG/porn inevitability has practically become a meme. But it’s a fake meme of sorts, a mainstream meme, if you will, and never forget that whenever the mainstream comes a-calling for a quote, the ultimate media whore industry will oblige.

The virtual reality, however, is that Google Glass represents the epitome of Porn Chic hype, no matter how many people extol the amazing potential of the glasses, especially when it comes to POV shoots. Sorry to burst the bubble, but there already is eyewear available that does the same thing for a lot less money. Take the Pivothead Durango. Reviewed by CNET in June of 2012, they cost $350, compared with $1500 for Google Glass.

“Smack dab between the eyes of the glasses is a lens with an 8-megapixel Sony CMOS sensor behind it capable of capturing full HD MP4 format video at 30 frames per second as well as 8-megapixel stills,” wrote CNET. “And since the storage, battery, and controls are all built into the glasses, there's no extra bits to worry about. Just put them on and start shooting.”

Of course, Google Glass is a lot more than just a camera. Equipped with an operating system, they can do things that no other eyewear even wants to do. According to a review published this month by CNET of the Google Glass Explorer Edition intended for developers and early testers, “Glass takes photos and videos, sends text messages, engages in FaceTime-like Google Hangouts, makes phone calls, searches Google, and gets turn-by-turn navigation with maps. It can show the weather, the time, and headlines from The New York Times that have been pushed to the device, with spoken headline summaries. For now, anyway, that's about it. Some features require tethering -- GPS-based functions that use the phone, such as turn-by-turn directions. Others, like Google Hangouts and Google Search, can also be performed over Wi-Fi. When offline, Glass only takes photos and videos.”

The consumer version of Google Glass, adds CNET, will arrive sometime in 2014. In the meantime, “App developers and Google will be using this model to develop software and experiences that will be incorporated into the consumer version.”

In the end, Google Glass use by producers in the adult industry will probably be determined by whether these other functions are porn-shoot useful. But whether they are used professionally or not, expect a number of people in the business to purchase them the second they are available, even if it is just to play with them. The reason for that is simple. They won’t be able to help themselves.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers. Five Filters recommends: 'You Say What You Like, Because They Like What You Say' - http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/alerts-2013/731-you-say-what-you-like-because-they-like-what-you-say.html

CHATSWORTH, Calif.—The debut title from director Harry Sparks' new production studio Sparks Entertainment, long in-the-works epic The Vampire Mistress, begins shipping through Exile Distribution May 29 and becomes available at online and brick-and-mortar retailers June 5.

This is the first title to be distributed under Sparks' exclusive two-year deal with Exile. To celebrate the movie's impending release, star Dani Daniels hosts a party tonight at Eden Nightclub in Hollywood from 10 p.m. to 2 a.m. The party is presented by Jamie Barren, with DJ Five Star spinning music. Ten guests will win Vampire Mistress posters signed by Daniels. Eden is located at 1650 Schrader Blvd. Attendees must be 21 or over. To RSVP, email info@therubpr.com with your name and the number of people in your party.

See the trailer for The Vampire Mistress here.

For sales inquiries, contact Howard Levine at (800) 584-2960 or howard@exiledist.com.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers. Five Filters recommends: 'You Say What You Like, Because They Like What You Say' - http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/alerts-2013/731-you-say-what-you-like-because-they-like-what-you-say.html

COLUMBUS, Ohio—Last month, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in USA v. William Conner that people who use peer-to-peer networks cannot expect the same level of privacy they have when sending or receiving emails. In fact, they can’t expect any real privacy at all. The decision affirmed a lower court ruling handed down against William Conner, who was convicted by a jury in 2011 of four counts of receipt of visual depictions of child pornography and one count of possession of child pornography. Connor had made the files available on the LimeWire file-sharing service, which is currently disabled.

Connor was sentenced by Circuit Judge Julia Smith Gibbons to 360 months in prison, after which he appealed the conviction and sentence, arguing that “the district court erred by concluding that he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in files he made publicly available on the LimeWire ‘peer-to-peer’ file-sharing service and finding that Conner’s crimes 'involved . . . distribution' under the Sentencing Guidelines because of his use of LimeWire.” The sheriff’s deputy assigned to monitor child pornography possession and distribution on LimeWire, he said, had committed an “unlawful, warrantless search under the Fourth Amendment” when he “identified a computer connected to LimeWire that was making ‘hundreds of files with titles indicative of child pornography’ available for download,” that was later identified as belonging to Connor.

In addressing the question whether Connor in fact had a “legitimate expectation of privacy,” the three-judge panel had to answer the question only partly in the affirmative. The questions were explicated in a 2000 case, Bond v. United States:

First, we ask whether the individual, by his conduct, has exhibited an actual expectation of privacy; that is, whether he has shown that “he [sought] to preserve [something] as private.” . .. Second, we inquire whether the individual’s expectation of privacy is “one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.”

But the court quickly determined that “Conner’s argument fails because his expectation of privacy is not ‘one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.’”

Connor tried to argue, per United States v. Warshak (2010), that “third-party access to information on one’s computer is consistent with a reasonable expectation of privacy in that information,” but while the court agreed that “the government could not compel a commercial ISP to turn over the contents of a subscriber’s e-mails without a warrant,” the same is not true for files shared via peer-to-peer networks.

Unlike with emails, it reasoned, “Computer programs like LimeWire are expressly designed to make files on a computer available for download by the public, including law enforcement. Peer-to-peer software users are not mere intermediaries, but the intended recipients of these files. Public exposure of information in this manner defeats an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment.”

Perhaps of more direct concern to Connor, the panel also affirmed the lower court’s sentence—240 months for the visual-depictions counts and 120 months for the possession count, to be served consecutively—which included an enhanced prison term for distribution, allowed under Sentencing Guideline § 2G2.2 (b)(3)(F).

Connor argued two points. First, “that the ‘distribution’ enhancement does not apply to him. Second, he asserts that because he ‘did not intend to traffic in, or distribute,’ child pornography, the district court should have awarded him a two-level reduction.”

But the panel determined that both claims lack merit. First, it noted that under the aforementioned section, a defendant engages in “distribution” when his or her conduct involves:  

…any act, including possession with intent to distribute, production, transmission, advertisement, and transportation, related to the transfer of material involving the sexual exploitation of a minor. Accordingly, distribution includes posting material involving the sexual exploitation of a minor on a website for public viewing but does not include the mere solicitation of such material by a defendant.

Second, it found that section 2G2.2 (b)(3)(F) does not require “proof of an ‘intent to distribute,’”  but rather found that, “The offense conduct only needs to ‘involve[]. . . distribution’ for the enhancement to apply, and ‘distribution’ is any act ‘related to the transfer of material.”

The panel concluded, “We agree with the government that knowing use of LimeWire, much like the posting of a file on a website, is sufficient to trigger section 2G2.2(b)(3)(F)’s two-level enhancement.”

The affirmation of the enhanced sentence for such conduct is supported, the panel stated in its ruling, by several other circuits. “While defendants in some of these cases have argued that they had ‘no knowledge that [their] computer[s] [were] equipped to distribute’ child pornography,” it wrote, “courts have not required the government to prove such knowledge.”

Only the Eighth Circuit has “held that the presumption that users of peer-to-peer software understand they are sharing files with others can be rebutted by the defendant… In United States v. Durham, 618 F.3d 921 (8th Cir. 2010), the Eighth Circuit relied on this language to reverse a district court’s imposition of the ‘distribution’ enhancement on a defendant that used peer-to-peer software. The defendant in Durham showed that another person had installed file-sharing software on the defendant’s computer.”

In this case, however, “Conner cannot point to ‘concrete evidence of ignorance’ in the record that would raise the issue the Durham court confronted; the only evidence on this topic that is in the record points in the government’s favor. Conner’s sister testified that [Connor’s niece, Bobby] Lawwell had shown her and Conner how to use LimeWire. Conner made ‘hundreds’ of files available for download, and the forensic computer examiner found numerous child pornography files on Conner’s computer with file paths indicating the images were downloaded from and being shared on LimeWire.”

The panel concluded, “For these reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court.”

The ruling can be read here.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers. Five Filters recommends: 'You Say What You Like, Because They Like What You Say' - http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/alerts-2013/731-you-say-what-you-like-because-they-like-what-you-say.html

Lingerie manufacturer helps Déjà Vu take positive sexuality to new heights in Las Vegas

Posted May 17th, 2013 07:00 AM

LAS VEGAS—Baci Lingerie will help Déjà Vu’s open its newest DV Love Boutique location, inside Las Vegas landmark Stratosphere Hotel and Casino, at an Alice In Wonderland-themed party May 25.

“Baci is thrilled to be a part of the new DV Love Boutique inside the Stratosphere,” said Baci Lingerie Director of Sales and Operations Alicia Sinclair. “The DV Love Boutique brand is synonymous with positive sexuality, and we couldn’t be happier to team up as we take things to the next level. The launch party is going to be so much fun, and we’re looking forward to enjoying the evening and ‘Celebrating Every Woman’ with the public!”

The evening will include complimentary sweets, drinks, and giveaways.

The “Lost in Wonderland” event begins with a Red Carpet at 7 p.m. and a ribbon-cutting ceremony at 8 p.m. A DJ, along with go-go dancers wearing red heart pasties, will perform in the large store windows; cocktail waitresses, dressed as White Rabbits, will pass out champagne and Wonderland-themed cocktails throughout the evening.

Other “Tea Party”-themed foods, treats, and alcohol will be available to attendees. All media attending will also receive a special Media Gift Bag of goodies.

A highlight of the evening is an appearance by 2011 Playmate of the Year Claire Sinclair, who will hold court as the Queen of Hearts. She will be available for autographs and photographs with the public from 8-9 p.m.

For more information about the DV Love Boutique Stratosphere and the “Lost in Wonderland” store launch celebration, visit Facebook.com/DVLoveBoutiqueStratosphere.

“DV Love Boutique Stratosphere opened for business in April of 2013,” said Déjà Vu General Manager Megan Swartz. “Our new location is sure to blow you away with its unique design and whimsical atmosphere.”

The new DV Love Boutique Stratosphere makes available a variety of products; from lingerie, shoes, fetish items, lubricants, and adult films, to games, books, bachelorette party needs, and more – the location offers items fit for all budgets. A prominent display by Baci Lingerie adorns the store’s interior as a Featured Section.

“We felt Memorial Day weekend would be perfect for our Wonderland-themed store launch celebration,” Swartz added. “We have many fun treats in store for the Grand Opening.  Alicia Sinclair of Baci Lingerie and I are working together to put on an event that will definitely not be easily forgotten! She has shown so much support for this store, and her hard work and efforts are truly remarkable. We’re all very excited to share our efforts with the public.”

Throughout the evening, party attendees will be able to view new styles from Baci Lingerie’s Dreams collection (Dreams Volume 2), and the refreshed White Label.

The Dreams 2 collection is the second volume of its acclaimed line of bedroom costumes. The fantasy collection contains 12 new styles of erotic bedroom costumes ranging from naughty maids to sexy schoolgirls. In addition to One Size and S/M and M/L sizing, all styles in Dreams Volume 2, as well as ten of the original best sellers from the Dreams collection, are available in Diva (1X-2X) and Queen (3X-4X) sizing, keeping with Baci’s commitment to release all new collections in plus sizes.

DV Love Boutique Stratosphere is located on the second floor retail level of the Stratospere Hotel and Casino, 2000 Las Vegas Blvd, Las Vegas. To RSVP for the “Hard Opening” store launch party, follow the store on Facebook; for additional information, call DV Love Boutique Stratosphere at (702) 802-5700.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers. Five Filters recommends: 'You Say What You Like, Because They Like What You Say' - http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/alerts-2013/731-you-say-what-you-like-because-they-like-what-you-say.html

PHILADELPHIA, PA—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.

"The judge said that he would deny the Motions and would send the case to trial on the merits," said J. Michael Murray, the lead attorney for the Plaintiffs, "and he indicated that he will issue a Memorandum early next week explaining his reasoning. But we're very excited about the fact that we are definitely going to trial, and the government will not be given summary judgment in this case, and so we're excited about presenting all of our evidence on both our First and Fourth Amendment claims, beginning on June the 3rd."

Judge Baylson's letter was unexpected in part because in most cases, judges spend days or weeks examining all of the arguments presented in Motions, and in particular, Motions for Summary Judgment, because were the judge to decide to grant one side or the other's Motion, the case would end there, subject to appeal. But the issues raised in the Motions were very complex, and with the judge, who had previously granted only a relatively short period for the attorneys to conduct discovery, having already set a firm timetable for the start of the trial, the ruling against both sides' motions could be seen as a sign that he expects the issues raised in the Motions to be argued at the trial in a more dynamic exchange between the parties.

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.

Also dealt with at the trial will be the Fourth Amendment violations committed by those charged with inspecting adult companies' records—at last count, 29 companies, all in 2006, none of which reportedly passed such inspection on the first try. (Some of the "violations" included such minutae as failure to keep the records in alphabetical order.) The 2257/2257A laws provide that the companies to be inspected are given no prior notice of the inspections, and the inspections are done without a warrant having been issued by a judge in response to a law enforcement officer's recitation of probable cause. (Reportedly, out of roughly 2500 adult performers whose records were checked, only one was alleged to be of a minor, and since that claim was dropped by the Justice Department before any legal proceedings could be started, it is likely that on further checking, the identification of a minor turned out to be a mistake.)

Another problem with the law is that any company or person producing sexually explicit content must make his/her/its records available for inspection at least 20 hours per week, and one of the Plaintiffs' allegations is that for individuals who webcam or take photographs that would be covered under the law, it may be nearly impossible for those entities to set aside 20 hours of their week to wait for that possible knock on the door from 2257 inspectors.

There are many other issues dealing with the Plaintiffs' First and Fourth Amendment rights included in the Motions for Summary Judgment, but apparently, those too will now be dealt with at the trial.

Since the costs of freeing the adult industry from the expensive and time-consuming burdens of 2257/2257A are already in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, Free Speech Coalition has asked that all personnel in, and fans of, the adult industry donate however much they can to offset these expenses. Donations can be made online here, or a check or money order can be mailed to Free Speech Coalition, P.O. Box 10480, Canoga Park, CA 91309.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers. Five Filters recommends: 'You Say What You Like, Because They Like What You Say' - http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/alerts-2013/731-you-say-what-you-like-because-they-like-what-you-say.html

Sexually Disturbed Media will be feted with Memorial Day weekend event

Posted May 16th, 2013 03:42 PM

HOLLYWOOD, Calif.—Angelina Valentine has announced a party Memorial Day weekend to officially launch her new production and clothing company, Sexually Disturbed Media.

“I’ve been waiting for months to announce my new company, but the time is right,” says Angelina Valentine. “I see a lot of big things in the future for Sexually Disturbed Media, including some amazing projects and sexy clothes.”

Thrown by Jamie Barren, the red carpet event will take place from 10 p.m. to 2 a.m. Sunday, May 26, at the Supperclub, 6675 Hollywood Blvd.

To promote the company and the event, Valentine has been making the rounds on the interview circuit. She’s appeared on the Naughty Podcast and multiple shows on SiriusXM’s Radio Sex. Her interview with Peeperz Radio that lets her fans get to know her extremely up close and personal has been posted as a featured article this week—listen to it by going to Peeperz.com.

Last week, she was the special guest on Neil Strauss’ Inner Circle. The taped show is airing all weekend starting at 6 p.m. PST/9 p.m. EST Friday, May 17, and will be rebroadcast multiple times throughout the weekend. SiriusXM subscribers can listen to the show “On Demand” at SiriusXM.com or online at m.SiriusXM.

The company will be launching their website soon, but has started a Brand Page on Facebook.com. Make sure to “like” the page to keep up with all the new projects and events.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers. Five Filters recommends: 'You Say What You Like, Because They Like What You Say' - http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/alerts-2013/731-you-say-what-you-like-because-they-like-what-you-say.html

NEW ZEALAND—Megaupload. Remember that? It was the world’s biggest file hosting service back in the day, until the U.S. federal government in January 2012 decided to file criminal charges against its founder, Kim Dotcom, and seize all of its assets and domains with the help of New Zealand authorities, who raided Dotcom’s luxurious homes and seized his expensive cars. Well, the case is still ongoing, and the feds are still fighting in court to get Dotcom extradited to the United States, where they plan to try him on criminal charges related to alleged copyright infringement, money laundering and racketeering. Dotcom is fighting tooth-and-nail to keep that from happening.

In many ways, the Dotcom extradition case is unique and precedential in that it represents the first time that the United States government has sought to reach beyond its borders in such a tangible (i.e., violent) way to hold a foreign national criminally liable for copyright-related crimes. Not only Dotcom, but the New Zealand courts and several NZ legislators have become increasingly troubled by the seemingly extrajudicial manner by which the U.S. and New Zealand authorities have conducted themselves, up to and possibly including engaging in illegal activity.

Today, the New Zealand Supreme Court gave Dotcom a minor victory when it ruled that his lawyers will be allowed to argue before the High Court why U.S. prosecutors should be forced to hand over all the evidence they have gathered against Dotcom. “New Zealand government lawyers,” reported Ars Techina, “have been arguing, on behalf of the US, that he should not be given the right to see those documents and that the extradition issue should be decided without lengthy discovery.”

The hearing is set for July 30, which is perilously close to the extradition trial, which in December 2012 was rescheduled by a New Zealand court for this August. At the time, it seemed like an interminable delay and a victory of sorts for Dotcom, whose antics in the interim have included launching a new file-sharing service in January called Mega and penning an open letter to Hollywood, but now, with August fast approaching, the day of reckoning appears to be nigh.

Unless, of course, the New Zealand Supremes tell the U.S. prosecutors they have to fork over all the evidence. If that happens, look for another year-long delay.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers. Five Filters recommends: 'You Say What You Like, Because They Like What You Say' - http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/alerts-2013/731-you-say-what-you-like-because-they-like-what-you-say.html

HOUSTON—Seven women and one man were arrested this week after undercover officers allegedly saw acts of “improper touching” taking place at the XTC Erotica Cabaret in Houston.

Officers also noticed several permit violations. The brief news report by the local CBS affiliate fails to indicate what sorts of permit violations the officers allegedly saw, but does note that "authorities continue their investigation into possibly more illegal activities at the club," and more charges could be brought in addition to the ones for “improper touching.”

Sounds like “harassment,” actually.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers. Five Filters recommends: 'You Say What You Like, Because They Like What You Say' - http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/alerts-2013/731-you-say-what-you-like-because-they-like-what-you-say.html

LOS ANGELES—We’re doomed. It’s just that simple. There is no compromise possible, no accommodation achievable, no peace on earth imaginable as long as people like former Victoria Secrets model Kylie Bisutti (pictured), of whom there seem to be untold millions, continue to believe that “a very high percentage of men fall into porn addiction through looking at their mom's or wive's lingerie catalogues."

The 23-year-old beauty, who left modeling in 2011 because it wasn't aligned with her Christian beliefs, is actually heartbroken “that images that I took in the past and things that I did in the past could have possibly brought men into [porn] addiction. It’s really a struggle and a hard thing for me.”

Porn also apparently played a role in her decision to stop modeling, about which she once quipped, "I quit being a VS model to be a Proverbs 31 wife." According to the Los Angeles Times, “Bisutti, who has been photographed for FHM and Maxim and was offered a gig in Sports Illustrated's swimsuit issue, said she decided to quit modeling soon after racey images from a lingerie shoot were uploaded to a porn site.”

Now Bisutti lives in Montana with her husband, mentoring young women about life’s perils, marketing the book she just wrote, I’m No Angel, about her ordeal as a “piece of meat” 2009 winner of Victoria Secret’s Model Search, and trying to get over her heartbreak at the thought that she is personally responsible for so many men being forced into porn addiction.

She’s not alone in her pain. The Wall Street Journal also is aghast at the “brain-altering affects of pornography” and the “countless studies [that] connect porn with a new and negative attitude to intimate relationships.” The real culprit, says the Journal, is the “repetitive viewing of pornography [that] resets neural pathways, creating the need for a type and level of stimulation not satiable in real life.”

Fortunately, reports the WSJ, “a no-shenanigans approach” to porn addiction is becoming the “new protocol," and offers as a shining example Utah’s Desert Solace porn treatment centers, which naturally offer a “spiritually-based” curriculum.

Doomed.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers. Five Filters recommends: 'You Say What You Like, Because They Like What You Say' - http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/alerts-2013/731-you-say-what-you-like-because-they-like-what-you-say.html

WASHINGTON. D.C.—The American Civil Liberties Union joined the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Citizen and Public Knowledge in filing an amici curiae brief with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Tuesday in support of appellants Comcast Cable, Bright House Networks, AT&T Internet Services, Cox Communications and Verizon, who late last year appealed an August 2012 ruling by U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell in AF Holdings LLC v. Does 1-1,058 et al that compelled the ISPs to identify 1,058 anonymous subscribers alleged by AF Holdings to have illegally downloaded one adult movie via BitTorrent protocols.

The “friend of the court” brief is necessary, according to the ACLU’s Motion for Leave to File, in order “to inform the Court of the imminent harm the Doe Appellees face before service of process, and the harm faced by other victims of abusive litigation tactics in BitTorrent-related copyright lawsuits against numerous defendants.”

According to Law360, the ACLU in its brief alleged that “AF Holdings' business model is to sue anonymous Web users it believes have downloaded copyrighted adult videos, seek their identity through subpoenas and use the threat of being publicly accused of accessing porn to extract settlements.”

The ACLU further asserted that Judge Howell erred in her evaluation of the Prenda Law methodology. "While other courts have described this as an extortion scheme with the courts as unwitting accomplices," it stated, "the district court in this case believed that it 'serves our system of justice' to allow it. It does not.”

In addition to claiming that AF Holdings, represented by Prenda lawyer Paul Duffy, can show that only a few of the Does allegedly identified by IP address in its lawsuit reside in Washington, D.C., where the suit was filed, the ACLU brief also goes for the jugular by arguing, “A copyright owner must justify its extraordinary use of the court's subpoena power with a minimum showing, providing assurance to the court that the subpoenas will not be used in the service of a shakedown.”

The use of the term “shakedown” by the ACLU is severe but not totally out of left field in light of recent revelations that Duffy, working on another case for Prenda clone Anti-Piracy Law Group, has been sending demand letters to alleged infringers who have not replied to earlier letters, warning them that their neighbors and family members will be contacted as part of a “pre-complaint investigation…to gather evidence about who used your Internet account to steal from our client.” Neighbors and family members are also characterized in the letters as “possible suspects.”

Somewhat ironically, reports Law360, “In their appeal brief filed last week, the ISPs wrote that most other courts handling similar lawsuits have denied requests to identify scores of anonymous Web users, in part because Internet connections are often unsecured, meaning the connection's owner did not necessarily download the allegedly infringing content.”

Law360 in its article also takes notice of the sanctions levied last week by California Judge Otis Wright II against “the law firm Prenda Law, whose attorneys also represent AF Holdings, in a similar case, saying that their porn copyright suits amount to extortion and that the firm deserved to be prosecuted under federal racketeering laws.”

One of the sanctioned attorneys, John Steele, told AVN that he intends to appeal. An extended interview with Steele conducted last week by Ars Technica can be found here.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers. Five Filters recommends: 'You Say What You Like, Because They Like What You Say' - http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/alerts-2013/731-you-say-what-you-like-because-they-like-what-you-say.html

Who knows? Maybe that old warrant from 1994 has been forgotten?

MIAMI, Fla.—Cast your mind back to 1991 (assuming you were even alive then). Underground comic book artist Mike Diana, having just been fired from his "day job" as a school janitor in Largo, Florida, was visited just before Christmas by a couple of FBI agents. They were especially interested in the cover of his comic book Boiled Angel #6, which appeared to depict the deaths of five students found murdered in Gainesville the previous year, which murders remained unsolved at that time. The feds told him that he was a supect in the killings, which were later found to have been committed by Danny Rolling, the "Gainesville Ripper."

After an investigation which included the cops forcing Diana to give a blood sample, he was cleared of the killings ... but his troubles were just beginning. He started getting fan mail from one Michael Flores, who claimed he was a fellow comic artist and wanted Diana to send him copies of his latest issues, Boiled Angel #7 and #ATE.

Turns out, however, that Flores was a cop (though he'd insisted in his letters that he wasn't), and in 1992, he turned those comics over to Assistant State's Attorney Stuart Baggish—who promptly sent Diana a letter informing him that he was being charged with three counts of obscenity under Florida Statute 847.011, for publishing, advertising and distributing his comics.

It was the first time that anyone had ever been busted for drawing an obscene comic book.

Admittedly, his images weren't exactly Nancy and Sluggo; aside from the S. Clay Wilson-style graphics (see reproductions, left) taken a couple of steps further into the absurd, he also did little things like putting a row of "holy bibles" across the top of an image—not exactly the type of stuff that would endear Diana to the average Florida cop ... nor to the jury of elderly retirees who convicted him, despite the excellent defense provided by First Amendment attorney Luke Lirot, with the backing of the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund.

"It was definitely a strange time," Diana recalled to Miami New Times reporter Liz Tracy. "I feel that one thing that upsets me, that I think is obscene, is the jail and prison system. A lot of people are put behind bars who don't need to be there."

One of those, of course, was Diana himself, who spent four days in jail before being released for three years' probation—during which time he took a journalistic ethics course, delivered food to HIV patients, and was not allowed to create any new artworks. Still, his probation officer in New York, where he was allowed to serve his sentence, claimed that Diana had violated same, and had a warrant issued for his arrest, which may or may not still be in force.

But since he completed his sentence, he seems to have made up for lost time by painting in oils, illustrating articles for Wired magazine, drawing posters for Marilyn Manson and The Voluptuous Horror of Karen Black, and drawing new comics like Superfly and Scummy Comix which have been published by Michael Hunt Publishing and Angry Drunk Graphics. A boxed set of Diana's work was recently released by Divus London, and he'll have an exhibit at the Superchief Gallery in New York City. He'll also be speaking and exhibiting at the Miami Art Museum's New Work Miami 2013 show.

However, though he's planning to do a graphic novel about his legal ordeal, it's likely that Diana won't be going anywhere near Pinellas County, where he was prosecuted; they might still hold a grudge.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers. Five Filters recommends: 'You Say What You Like, Because They Like What You Say' - http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/alerts-2013/731-you-say-what-you-like-because-they-like-what-you-say.html

The popular professional social network has revised its T&C to prohibit profiles that promote escort services and prostitution.

CYBERSPACE—Yeah, it was too good to last. Escort and prostitution profiles are no longer welcomed on LinkedIn. Owen Thomas on ReadWrite.com noticed the updated policy while skimming through changes the social network recently made to its privacy policy and user agreement. Most were language clarifications, he said, but this one caught his eye. Among the activities listed under "don't undertake" is the following:

i. Even if it is legal where you are located, create profiles or provide content that promotes escort services or prostitution.

LinkedIn, you see, has always recognized a vast spectrum of professions and skills, including ones that involve sex work where it is legal. As Thomas notes, practitioners have been using the network for years.

“On a site where every action you take is tied to your professional identity,” he writes, “would anyone really take the risk of advertising adult services? Apparently, yes. Prostitution, in fact, is a skill for which you can get endorsed on LinkedIn. (Many self-identified experts on the topic work in law enforcement or religious ministries, suggesting that their experience is with catching or counseling offenders rather than offering such services.)

“Judging by the suggestions LinkedIn's search algorithm offers,” he adds, “LinkedIn members are actively looking for this kind of professional help. Search on ‘escorts,’ for example, and LinkedIn will prompt you to search instead for the following terms:

• Female escorts

• Independent escorts

• Call girls

• Hot girls

• Adult entertainment

• Escort services

• Dubai escorts”

Promoting “unlawful” services has always been prohibited by the network, but the fact that prostitution is not illegal everywhere has allowed wriggle room for many sex workers, and more than a few promoted themselves in locations where it was not legal. The clarification of the policy might mean that some of them were not as subtle as the network would have preferred. Unfortunately, however, the change in policy also penalizes legal sex workers, some of whom are already speaking out.

“What’s the problem?” complained longtime Nevada brothel owner Dennis Hof in an interview Monday with NBC. “We have a license to do this stuff. Our business is legal as theirs. We’re the good guys. We have no reason to be knocked off.”

The Moonlite Bunny Ranch operator said he hopes none of the profiles of his employees are removed by LinkedIn, not least because so many of them rely on it to generate business.

“LinkedIn needs to realize they don’t need to filter out legal businesses in America,” he said. “These are businesswomen, and some of them are making mid-six-figure incomes. If it’s okay to do that, is it okay to drop Dairy Queen too because it serves too much fat and calories?”

For its part, LinkedIn doesn’t seem to quite know how it’s going to respond to the concerns. “I’m not saying we’re going to do a purge, though we very well may,” Hani Durzy, LinkedIn’s director of corporate communications, told NBC. “In a nutshell, as we become aware of profiles that violate our policies we will take the appropriate actions. Does that mean shutting them down on day one? Or giving our members the benefit of the doubt, and telling them that’s a violation and you’ve got to change it? There is no hard and fast rule.”

Good to know.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers. Five Filters recommends: 'You Say What You Like, Because They Like What You Say' - http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/alerts-2013/731-you-say-what-you-like-because-they-like-what-you-say.html

Two federal warrants in a month seize domestic accounts belonging to Mutum Sigillum LLC., a subsidiary of bitcoin exchange Mt. Gox, and mobile payment provider Dwolla.

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Based on an affidavit sworn out May 14 by Special Agent Michael T. McFarland of the Homeland Security Investigations section of Immigrations and Custom Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan K. Gauvey signed a seizure warrant the same day authorizing the seizure of a Veridian Credit Union Account owned by mobile payment provider Dwolla. The seizure prevented the continuation of currency payments the government says were being made to and from the Dwolla account by bitcoin exchange Mt. Gox, via a Mt. Gox subsidiary named Mutum Sigillum LLC.

The gist of the government’s issue, according to the warrant, is that the operation was unlicensed and thus a violation of federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. Section 1960, which sets out the penalties for parties that knowingly operate an “unlicensed money transmitting business.”

This warrant follows on the heels of a May 9 warrant authorizing the seizure of an account Mutum Sigillum had with Wells Fargo Bank. Most of the activity of that account, allege the feds, was wire transfers between the Mt. Gox Veridian account. Bank records also showed, according to the affidavit, “a number of deposits to the Mutum Sigillum account at Wells Fargo originating from international wires sent from Sumitomo Mitsui Bank in Japan,” transferred in the name of Mt. Gox.

McFarland’s conclusion as expressed in the affidavit was that “the Dwolla account was used exclusively to move funds between Mt. Gox and Mutum Sigillum and their customers.” The affidavit also alleges that the person who opened the Mutum Sigillum account at Wells Fargo was Mt. Gox owner Mark Karpeles, who, according to McFarland, replied “no” when answering question on required bank forms, “Do you deal in exchange currency for your customers?” and “Does your business accept funds from customers and send the funds based on customer’s instructions (Money Transmitter)?”

The warrant further states, “Money transmitting businesses are required by 31 USC section 5330 to register as such with FinCEN. According to FinCEN records on May 7, 2013, neither Mt. Gox nor the subsidiary, Mutum Sigillum LLC, is registered as a Money Service Business.”

The same alleged violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1960 that justified the seizure of the Mutum Sigillum account at Wells Fargo was used to authorize the Dwolla seizure.

Mt Gox responded yesterday with Facebook and Google+ posts stating it has yet to receive a warrant in the matter. “Like many who have contacted us,” said the company, “MtGox has read on the Internet that the United States Department of Homeland Security had a court order and/or warrant issued from the United States District Court in Maryland which it served upon the Dwolla mobile payment service with respect to accounts used for trading with MtGox. We take this information seriously. However, as of this time we have not been provided with a copy of the court order and/or warrant, and do not know its scope and/or the reasons for its issuance. MtGox is investigating and will provide further reports when additional information becomes known.”

Speculation is now rampant that this action by the U.S. federal government is but the first step in an inevitable move by this government and others to bring the newly popular digital currency under control. The media, as well, has begun its pronouncement of doom.

“Given that Bitcoin first broke into mainstream attention when Gawker explained how to use it to buy drugs,” declared the Washington Post today, “perhaps the surprise is that it took federal regulators this long to take action against it.”

CNN Money was even more dire in its coverage, announcing apocalyptically in the headline, “Strategist predicts end of Bitcoin.”

According to The Register, “The implications of this action are not yet clear, but it could indicate the beginning of a long battle to bring Bitcoin under the rule of US law. Just last week, America's Commodity Futures Trading Commission confirmed it was looking into Bitcoin and deciding whether regulating the e-cash was possible—or necessary.”

It’s not just the U.S. that is taking a closer look at bitcoin, however. As the Financial Times noted Monday, bitcoin has “come on to the radar of the UK government, with officials gathering in London on Monday to discuss the security threats and tax concerns posed by the digital currency.”

But bitcoin may ultimately be harder to tame than governments think. Wired UK published an article today on its visit to London’s “Bitcoin Squad,” whose spokesperson is a hacker named Amir Taaki, who among other things organizes conferences “in London filled with hackers and anarchists.”

Writer Niki Gomez concludes her piece with a newfound, if somewhat skeptical, appreciation of the group’s intentions. “When I'd first got in touch with Amir it was to speak about how bitcoin will disrupt politics and governments,” she writes. “But this visit has made me discover a lot more. Certainly bitcoin, like hacker culture, is based on freedom. But these hackers' beliefs are bigger than that—they believe in really changing the system. This includes finding different ways of living (squatting and cooperatives) and creating a real culture of communal sharing. Will bitcoin allow them to change things?”

Stay tuned.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers. Five Filters recommends: 'You Say What You Like, Because They Like What You Say' - http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/alerts-2013/731-you-say-what-you-like-because-they-like-what-you-say.html

Posted May 15th, 2013 01:34 PM

LOS ANGELES—Former Hustler Video and Digital Playground employee Jennifer Larsen passed away from an apparent suicide on Mother's Day, AVN has confirmed with the Orange County coroner. The cause of death was a single gunshot wound to the head.

Larsen, who was living in Orange County at the time, previously worked as a talent coordinator for Hustler Video and then in public relations and marketing for Digital Playground. At the time of her death she was in the U.S. Army National Guard.

Hustler's Drew Rosenfeld told AVN that Larsen was with the company for roughly a year and a half and that he hadn't spoken to her since she left Hustler but that the company would like to offer condolences to her family. The last movie she worked on for Hustler was This Ain't Dracula XXX.

According to a few people who knew her, Larsen exhibited no visible signs of depression or distress when they last spoke to her; all of them had heard from her around the beginning of this year.

Galaxy Publicity's James Bartholet told AVN that he had been in contact with Larsen as recently as a few months ago and they discussed plans to meet up during Memorial Day weekend.

"She was a good person and we loved her dearly," Bartholet said. "She always was very nice. She maintained ties with some of her industry friends and I was hoping to see her soon. When we last spoke there was no indication of this whatsoever. It's terribly sad and my heart goes out to her kids."

Bartholet mentioned that Larsen's passing is particularly sad because it occurred on Mother's Day and that Larsen was a mom herself.

The last post on Larsen's Facebook page reads: "I need a reset button."

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers. Five Filters recommends: 'You Say What You Like, Because They Like What You Say' - http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/alerts-2013/731-you-say-what-you-like-because-they-like-what-you-say.html

Company to remain in location as anchor tenant under long-term lease

Posted May 15th, 2013 01:03 PM

BEVERLY HILLS, Calif.—As AVN reported in March, Hustler’s iconic headquarters building at 8484 Wilshire Boulevard in Beverly Hills has been sold to Douglas Emmett Inc. Hustler Founder and Chairman Larry Flynt announced today that he has closed on the sale and that he has signed a long-term lease for the company to remain in the building as its anchor tenant. According to today’s announcement, the sale price was $89 million, $7 million more than the sale price reported in March.

“I’m delighted to announce this transaction,” said Flynt. “I bought the building in 1994 for less than $19 million, so we’ve been able to unlock significant equity which we can now put to much better use in other ventures and achieve greater returns.”

The ten-story, class-A building has over 220,000 square feet of office and retail space. It has floor-to-ceiling windows in all offices, with outstanding view corridors throughout. It was built in 1972 as headquarters for the Great Western Savings Bank, and its unique elliptical structure was designed by the internationally celebrated firm of William Pereira & Associates.

“We were pleased by the overall interest we received from the market,” said LFP Inc./Flynt Management Group CFO Christopher Woodward. “Douglas Emmett is a premier company, and went the extra mile for us on this transaction. This sale gives us the flexibility to continue exploring expansion initiatives and other strategic opportunities throughout our organization.”

Tenants of the building also include the consulates of Brazil and Ecuador. Highland Realty Capital brokered the sale.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers. Five Filters recommends: 'You Say What You Like, Because They Like What You Say' - http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/alerts-2013/731-you-say-what-you-like-because-they-like-what-you-say.html

Posted May 15th, 2013 11:50 AM

LOS ANGELES—Adult star Jessie Andrews is featured in this week's edition of LA Weekly's 2013 People issue, its annual look at the most interesting Angelenos. 

The article, titled "Jessie Andrews: The Porn Star as a Brand", chronicles Andrews' personal journey from American Apparel salesgirl, to AVN Award winning performer, to a now certifiable brand with her fingers in jewelry, fashion design, music and other creative endeavors.

"Her nice-girl image is all part of her brand, which she's been crafting and promoting on her self-titled Tumblr ever since launching it in 2010, back when she was still a chubby-cheeked, bleach-blonde Miami teenager," Jennifer Swann wrote for the Weekly. "Nowadays she's scaling back the porn work—only girl-on-girl—and is working to build fashion and music businesses." 

Andrews' extracurricular activities include Bagitaba, her line of handmade jewelry, along with a streetwear collaboration with U.K.-based clothing designers Hype, in addition to her own line of adult toys from Doc Johnson. 

The piece also mentions Andrews' foray into the EDM scene where she contributes to The Girlfriend Mix series where she collaborates with other female DJs to create original mixes. Listen to her music here.

Follow Andrews on Twitter at @jessieslife.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers. Five Filters recommends: 'You Say What You Like, Because They Like What You Say' - http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/alerts-2013/731-you-say-what-you-like-because-they-like-what-you-say.html

Posted May 15th, 2013 11:45 AM by AVN Staff

LOS ANGELES—The fact that JPMorgan Chase & Co. denied a loan request by longtime customer Marc L. Greenberg was bad enough; it’s their reason for doing so that got them sued. According to the complaint filed in Los Angeles Superior Court against the nation’s strongest bank, Greenberg—who founded Los Angeles-based soft-porn studio MRG Entertainment in 1997 with partner Rich Goldberg, selling it in 2006 to New Frontier—says it was he who was approached by a JPMorgan Securities vice president about refinancing one of his properties in Marina Del Rey.

ADVERTISEMENT

As a Chase securities customer and home loan customer, and considering the fact that he has an annual income of more than $500,000 and a net worth of more than $10 million, Greenberg naturally assumed that the process would go smoothly and relatively quickly. But four months later, after being subjected to what he felt was a very odd runaround, Greenberg picked up the phone and called JPMorgan Securities Vice President Adam Gelcich.

The complaint alleges what happened next: "Adam Gelcich was evasive in his response to plaintiff's application status requests and finally informed plaintiff during a telephone conversation that plaintiff's loan application was refused due to 'moral reasons,' because of JPMorgan's disapproval of plaintiff's former source of income and occupation as an owner of a television production company that produced television programs that dealt with the subject of human sexuality. Plaintiff's repeated attempts to obtain a written statement of the reasons for the denial of his loan application and a copy of JPMorgan's 'morals clause' were ignored. Communication with Adam Gelcich abruptly ceased.”

But that was just the beginning of Greenberg’s dealings with Chase prior to litigation. According to Courthouse News Service, “Greenberg claims he sent Gelcich an email crying foul over what he perceived to be JPMorgan Chase's discriminatory lending practice. He threatened legal action and served the bank with an intent to sue notice—which caught the attention of Deb Vincent, a VP in Chase's legal fair lending department.”

Vincent said she would try to get to the bottom of the problem, but in December of last year Greenberg received an email from her “stating that they are 'unable to provide any resolution to [plaintiff's] allegations, as [JPMorgan] is unable to locate any refinance application from [plaintiff].

“For the next several weeks,” reported CNS, “Greenberg's lawyers pressed Vincent to find the loan application… Eventually, Greenberg claims Vincent told him Gelcich no longer worked for Chase and she was ‘unable to locate someone who may have worked with or managed Adam Gelcich.'"

Only Gelcich was still employed by Chase, according to the complaint, which states that after Greenberg’s attorneys were able to locate him, Gelcich told them where they could stick their grievance.

"Adam Gelcich,” claims Greenberg, “contemptuously informed plaintiff's counsel that 'JPMorgan can deny an application for reputational risk to our firm' and mockingly added that plaintiff was 'making a big deal over nothing' and 'good luck' in obtaining legal relief.”

That response, according to CNS, was repeated by a JPMorgan Chase executive director and assistant general counsel, who “denied the accusations of unfair lending, saying the bank complied with federal and California regulations in processing Greenberg's application.”

Which brings us to the lawsuit. In addition to claiming that “plaintiff was denied equal access to basic economic opportunities based on his former ownership of a television production company that dealt with the subject of human sexuality,” Greenberg then essentially unloads on JPMorgan Chase for its hypocrisy.

“JPMorgan's discrimination against plaintiff on 'moral' grounds is particularly repugnant and hypocritical,” it reads, “coming from a corporation under federal investigation for illegal, immoral and unethical conduct, including: A. Multibillion dollar trading losses that cost its shareholders between $5 billion and $15 billion; B. A criminal investigation of top JPMorgan executives by the FBI over lying to investors and federal regulators with respect to the multibillion dollar trading losses; C. Misstatements by JPMorgan regarding how the bank harmed more than 5,000 homeowners in foreclosure; D. Inadequate controls against money laundering that allow tainted money to move through the bank's network; E. Violations of federal law in failing to report suspicious transactions of Bernie Madoff; F. Selling CDOs [collateralized debt obligations] to customers by concealing that the CDOs were comprised of failing home loans; G. Rigging bids to cities and counties; H. Overcharging and manipulating electrical power markets resulting in JPMorgan being barred from the electrical power market; I. Engaging in transactions involving Cuba, Iran and Sudan in violation of the U.S. embargoes.”

The complaint continues, "Despite JPMorgan's lack of morality when considering its own conduct, JPMorgan purports to be so ashamed of nudity and human sexuality that it cannot process a refinance of a home loan of plaintiff, secured by plaintiff's house, because plaintiff's source of income six years ago included production of television programs that contained nudity and human sexuality. JPMorgan has overlooked its own moral transgressions as it continues to mislead shareholders, mislead customers, manipulate markets and trade with enemies of the United States, but it is relentless in seeking to punish plaintiff for his former involvement in television programming involving human sexuality that JPMorgan purportedly finds to be shameful.

“In rejecting plaintiff's application,” the complaint adds, “JPMorgan asserted that its superior moral position prevented it from loaning plaintiff money because one of plaintiff's sources of income did not meet JPMorgan's 'morality standards' and that the 'reputational risk' of loaning plaintiff money threatened JPMorgan's public image. JPMorgan's hypocrisy would be laughable except plaintiff was in fact illegally discriminated against and denied a loan by JPMorgan."

There’s more, much of which can be read in the CNS story. We’re looking for the original complaint as well, and will post it as soon as we can find it.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers. Five Filters recommends: 'You Say What You Like, Because They Like What You Say' - http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/alerts-2013/731-you-say-what-you-like-because-they-like-what-you-say.html

Posted May 15th, 2013 10:00 AM

LOS ANGELES—Categories for The Sex Awards, the new consumer-voted awards show co-produced by the X3Sixty Network and AVN Media Network, have been released. Performers, talent agencies, novelty manufacturers, video producers and anyone associated with the adult business are invited to submit pre-nominations.

Submissions may be made beginning today until the deadline on Monday, June 3, 2013 at 12 Noon PST. These may be emailed directly to Paul Fishbein (paul@x3sixty.com), founder of both X3Sixty and AVN. The inaugural show takes place September 25, 2013 at Lure in Hollywood, with a scheduled national broadcast date slated for January 2014.
 
“We would like everyone’s involvement prior to presenting choices to the consumer,” Fishbein said. “Then it will be completely up to the fans to vote for their favorite stars, products and movies.
 
“Companies and producers should limit their suggestions to three products or titles,” Fishbein continued. “Talent can nominate themselves in any categories, plus anything they’ve performed in. Agents are welcome to nominate their clients in any categories as well.”
 
Requirements for each category are listed below; write-in voting will be available on the voting site for stars, sites or products not listed.
 
For a product or movie to be eligible in any category, it must have been released between June 1, 2012 and May 31, 2013.
 
Categories:
 
Porn Star of the Year
(The Award for Overall Most Popular Female Adult Star)
 
Sexiest Adult Star
(Fans' Choice for the Sexiest Adult Female Star)
 
Hottest Adult Stud
(Fans' Choice for the Hottest Male Adult Star)
 
Hottest New Girl
(Fans' Choice for the Hottest New Female Star; must have made her debut on a website, VOD site or in a DVD released on or after June 1, 2012)
 
Most Innovative Sex Toy for Women
(Released June 1, 2012-May 31, 2013)
 
Most Innovative Sex Toy for Men
(Released June 1, 2012-May 31, 2013)
 
Adult Movie of the Year
(Released June 1, 2012-May 31, 2013)
 
Adult Parody of the Year
(Released June 1, 2012-May 31, 2013)
 
Favorite Adult Website
(No Date Requirements, but Must Be Active)
 
Favorite Porn Star Website
(No Date Requirements, but Must Be Active)
 
Webcam Girl of the Year
(Any Active Female Webcam Model)
 
Porn’s Perfect Screen Couple (Boy-Girl)
(Must Appear in at Least One Sex Scene Together, Released June 1, 2012-May 31, 2013)
 
Porn’s Perfect Screen Couple (Girl-Girl)
(Must Appear in at Least One Sex Scene Together, Released June 1, 2012-May 31, 2013)
 
Porn’s Best Body
(Any Active Female Star)
 
Hottest Sex Scene
(From Any Movie, VOD Site or Website, Debuting June 1, 2012-May 31, 2013)
 
Greatest Celebrity Sex Tape of All Time
(One Time Only Category)
 
The Sex Awards is the first adult awards show voted on entirely by consumers to be broadcast on a national television network. The live show on September 25 in Hollywood is an invitation-only event, limited to adult industry members.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers. Five Filters recommends: 'You Say What You Like, Because They Like What You Say' - http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/alerts-2013/731-you-say-what-you-like-because-they-like-what-you-say.html

CHINA—Two stories out of China highlight the country’s strange and troubling way of dealing with commercial sex work. One, in the Washington Post yesterday, reports on the charge levied by a rights group that “police in China frequently beat, torture and arbitrarily detain suspected sex workers, often with little or no evidence that they engaged in prostitution.” The other widely reported story is about a local news interview that went viral that showed the “strange (and quite possibly libido-numbing) demands” placed on officials in charge of censoring pornography for the southern province of Hunan who are tasked with watching hundreds of porn DVDs a week.  

So, on the one hand the police are dealing with the apparent popularity of the commercial sex trade in Beijing by, according to Human Rights Watch, engaging in arbitrary arrests and detentions, police brutality, coerced confessions and the torture of sex workers who primarily “engage in sex work on the streets, in public places such as parks, and in massage parlors and hair salons.”

On the other hand, officials in Hunan are giving interviews complaining about spending “years of staring through all manner of graphic scenes,” and the story of the porn-abused Chinese officials is picked up by media outlets around the world.

In fact, the two stories connect and commingle. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, “Official crackdowns are ordered up each year, an especially brutal routine for sex workers and one that has recently been criticized by international human rights groups. During the crackdowns, porn hawkers are arrested en masse and their wares swept up by the thousands. And, as tough as the job may be, someone has to go through all the DVDs and see what's on them.”

By brutal, let us repeat, they mean that the police “frequently beat, torture and arbitrarily detain suspected sex workers, often with little or no evidence that they engaged in prostitution.”

Just wanted that to be clear.

Image: (r.) Sex workers publicly humiliated, and (l.) one of the harried official porn censors.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers. Five Filters recommends: 'You Say What You Like, Because They Like What You Say' - http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/alerts-2013/731-you-say-what-you-like-because-they-like-what-you-say.html

ARIZONA—Building on a 26-1 Senate vote in April, the Arizona House today voted unanimously to pass HB 2205, a bill that prohibits welfare recipients in the state from using their Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards in liquor stores, gambling halls and adult establishments. One would think a bill that elicits such unanimity would of necessity be something useful and effective. Unfortunately, this bill, which will probably become law, is merely an inconvenience with a price tag attached.

Even the AP was duped as to the purpose of this reactionary piece of legislation, reporting today, “Arizona is among a growing number of states that are blocking welfare recipients from spending their benefits on booze, gambling and strippers.”

Actually, this bill does no such thing. Rather than block any spending, it merely forces welfare recipients who want to purchase alcohol, bet on a race or buy a lap dance to find an ATM located somewhere other than in a prohibited business from which to withdraw cash to use however they like. Stopping that will take a far greater level of state supervision than is currently being considered ... we hope.

Of course, and the bill also forces every liquor store in the state that has an ATM in it to expend resources to stay in compliance with the ATM requirements of the bill, under threat of license forfeiture. Nice move for a state that professes to care about small business.

House Bill 2205, which was sponsored by Representative Kate Brophy McGee (R-Phoenix), contains the following pertinent section:

46-297. Electronic benefit transfers; prohibitions; violation; classification; definitions

A.  A head of household who receives cash assistance pursuant to this section, or on behalf of another person, and any person authorized by the head of household shall not conduct an electronic benefit transfer transaction at any of the following:

1.  A liquor store as defined in this section.

2.  A commercial horse racing or dog racing facility as defined in section 5-101.

3.  A casino, gambling casino or gaming establishment or a gaming facility located on Indian lands pursuant to section 5-601.02.

4.  An adult oriented entertainment establishment.

B.  It is unlawful for an adult oriented entertainment establishment to operate on the licensed or permitted premises an automatic teller machine or a point-of-sale terminal that accepts electronic benefit transfer cards issued under this title or that processes electronic benefit card transactions.  A violation of this subsection is a permit or license violation.  A municipality that licenses or regulates adult oriented entertainment establishments shall do all of the following:

1.  Ensure that on or before February 1, 2014 all adult oriented entertainment establishments in the municipality's jurisdiction disable the ability of automatic teller machines and point?of?sale terminals operated on the business's premises to accept the electronic benefit transfer card or process an electronic benefit transfer card transaction.

2.  Enforce the continued prohibition on the use of the electronic benefit transfer card.

3.  Enact ordinances necessary to ensure compliance with this section.

C.  The department shall notify electronic benefit transfer card recipients of the restrictions prescribed in subsection A of this section.

D.  An adult oriented entertainment establishment that violates this section is subject to licensing or permit action.

E.  For the purposes of this section:

1.  "Adult oriented entertainment establishment" means an entertainment business at which performers disrobe or perform in an unclothed state.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers. Five Filters recommends: 'You Say What You Like, Because They Like What You Say' - http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/alerts-2013/731-you-say-what-you-like-because-they-like-what-you-say.html

LOS ANGELES—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.

To recap briefly, Measure B requires, among other things, that all producers of adult content in Los Angeles County obtain a public health permit from the County Health Department, complete a bloodborne pathogens training course and create an exposure control plan for STDs. And indeed, that's all in the summary published at the beginning of AHF's petition to put Measure B on the LA County ballot last November.

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.

Section 11.39.110(A) actually states, "Any permit issued pursuant to this chapter may be suspended or revoked by the department and fines consistent with the provisions of this chapter may be imposed by the department for a violation of this chapter or any other violation of law creating a risk of exposing performers to sexually transmitted infections, including any violation of applicable provisions of the Los Angeles County Code, the California Health and Safety Code, the blood borne pathogen standard, California Code of Regulations Title 8, section 5193 or the exposure control plan of the producer of adult films, or any combination of such violations. The failure of a producer of adult films to require performers to use condoms during any acts of vaginal or anal sexual intercourse is a violation of this chapter." [Emphasis added]

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.

Now, it turns out the LA County public health permit is fairly easy to get, as "Porno Dan" Leal found when he went down to the health department's offices to apply for one. But getting the permit isn't the problem; keeping it is—and in order to keep it, adult producers must follow, among other things, the dictates of Section 5193 as detailed above. So if a county health inspector were to find that a particular producer had failed to require adult actors to use gloves, gowns, face shields or masks and eye protection or any clothing that would block blood or OPIM (like semen) from reaching an employee's undergarments, skin, eyes, mouth or other mucous membranes while those actors were having on-camera sex, the inspector could pull the permit, and unless the producer then required all of his/her actors to use the equipment described above, that producer could not get the health permit reinstated—and therefore could not shoot sex scenes in LA County!

Which brings us to AHF's opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, the first paragraph of which reads, "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]

Now, to believe that if a producer were forced to make a sexually explicit film with actors dressed in condoms, gloves, face shields, masks, goggles (for eye protection) and other clothing which would prevent any skin coming in contact with semen or vaginal fluids, and yet claim that that producer's content were not being affected by Measure B, one would have to be abysmally stupid. In fact, one would have to be more than stupid; if such statements were included in a legal filing, that would appear to be an attempt to perpetrate a fraud upon the court.

Of course, it's only by claiming that Measure B doesn't affect the content of the adult films that AHF can go on to argue that the measure is just another in a long list of "regulations... to protect against harms that can occur when films are made." And indeed, in a companion filing to its Brief in Opposition, titled Intervenors' Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction, AHF attaches such documents as portions of the Los Angeles County Code, the California Fire Code, the Los Angeles Municipal Code, the Ventura County Code of Ordinances, and even Linda Parks' and Kathy Long's letter to the Ventura County Board of Supervisors regarding its own anti-adult ordinance which was referenced in AVN's article here. AHF wants Judge Pregerson to "take judicial notice" of those documents, likely in hopes that the judge will forget that Measure B is clearly a content-based restrict on adult producers' speech!

The Brief in Opposition also rehashes AHF's long-standing claim that adult performers have more STDs than a similarly-aged grouping of, say, Los Angeles bar/saloon/club patrons, even though the statistical analysis of the claimed infection rates has been thoroughly critiqued by epidemiologist Dr. Lawrence S. Mayer. It then goes on to claim that Vivid and the other Plaintiffs haven't submitted enough evidence for Judge Pregerson to make a ruling on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, but despite the Plaintiffs' voluminous filings so far, and despite the fact that Measure B is a crystal-clear infringement on Plaintiffs' free speech rights, the question of whether the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient evidence for the injunction is undoubtedly a subject that will come up at the July 1 hearing on the motion. At that point, if Judge Pregerson feels that the evidence is insufficient, he will undoubtedly tell the parties what additional filings they need to make.

Finally, several of the arguments AHF made in its Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit are repeated in the Brief in Opposition, and AVN readers can read about those arguments here.

Check back with AVN later for more on AHF's continued attacks on the adult industry.

Pictured: Jessica Drake and James Deen as they might look performing a scene under Measure B.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers. Five Filters recommends: 'You Say What You Like, Because They Like What You Say' - http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/alerts-2013/731-you-say-what-you-like-because-they-like-what-you-say.html

LOS ANGELES—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.

To recap briefly, Measure B requires, among other things, that all producers of adult content in Los Angeles County obtain a public health permit from the County Health Department, complete a bloodborne pathogens training course and create an exposure control plan for STDs. And indeed, that's all in the summary published at the beginning of AHF's petition to put Measure B on the LA County ballot last November.

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.

Section 11.39.110(A) actually states, "Any permit issued pursuant to this chapter may be suspended or revoked by the department and fines consistent with the provisions of this chapter may be imposed by the department for a violation of this chapter or any other violation of law creating a risk of exposing performers to sexually transmitted infections, including any violation of applicable provisions of the Los Angeles County Code, the California Health and Safety Code, the blood borne pathogen standard, California Code of Regulations Title 8, section 5193 or the exposure control plan of the producer of adult films, or any combination of such violations. The failure of a producer of adult films to require performers to use condoms during any acts of vaginal or anal sexual intercourse is a violation of this chapter." [Emphasis added]

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.

Now, it turns out the LA County public health permit is fairly easy to get, as "Porno Dan" Leal found when he went down to the health department's offices to apply for one. But getting the permit isn't the problem; keeping it is—and in order to keep it, adult producers must follow, among other things, the dictates of Section 5193 as detailed above. So if a county health inspector were to find that a particular producer had failed to require adult actors to use gloves, gowns, face shields or masks and eye protection or any clothing that would block blood or OPIM (like semen) from reaching an employee's undergarments, skin, eyes, mouth or other mucous membranes while those actors were having on-camera sex, the inspector could pull the permit, and unless the producer then required all of his/her actors to use the equipment described above, that producer could not get the health permit reinstated—and therefore could not shoot sex scenes in LA County!

Which brings us to AHF's opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, the first paragraph of which reads, "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]

Now, to believe that if a producer were forced to make a sexually explicit film with actors dressed in condoms, gloves, face shields, masks, goggles (for eye protection) and other clothing which would prevent any skin coming in contact with semen or vaginal fluids, and yet claim that that producer's content were not being affected by Measure B, one would have to be abysmally stupid. In fact, one would have to be more than stupid; if such statements were included in a legal filing, that would appear to be an attempt to perpetrate a fraud upon the court.

Of course, it's only by claiming that Measure B doesn't affect the content of the adult films that AHF can go on to argue that the measure is just another in a long list of "regulations... to protect against harms that can occur when films are made." And indeed, in a companion filing to its Brief in Opposition, titled Intervenors' Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction, AHF attaches such documents as portions of the Los Angeles County Code, the California Fire Code, the Los Angeles Municipal Code, the Ventura County Code of Ordinances, and even Linda Parks' and Kathy Long's letter to the Ventura County Board of Supervisors regarding its own anti-adult ordinance which was referenced in AVN's article here. AHF wants Judge Pregerson to "take judicial notice" of those documents, likely in hopes that the judge will forget that Measure B is clearly a content-based restrict on adult producers' speech!

The Brief in Opposition also rehashes AHF's long-standing claim that adult performers have more STDs than a similarly-aged grouping of, say, Los Angeles bar/saloon/club patrons, even though the statistical analysis of the claimed infection rates has been thoroughly critiqued by epidemiologist Dr. Lawrence S. Mayer. It then goes on to claim that Vivid and the other Plaintiffs haven't submitted enough evidence for Judge Pregerson to make a ruling on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, but despite the Plaintiffs' voluminous filings so far, and despite the fact that Measure B is a crystal-clear infringement on Plaintiffs' free speech rights, the question of whether the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient evidence for the injunction is undoubtedly a subject that will come up at the July 1 hearing on the motion. At that point, if Judge Pregerson feels that the evidence is insufficient, he will undoubtedly tell the parties what additional filings they need to make.

Finally, several of the arguments AHF made in its Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit are repeated in the Brief in Opposition, and AVN readers can read about those arguments here.

Check back with AVN later for more on AHF's continued attacks on the adult industry.

Pictured: Jessica Drake and James Deen as they might look performing a scene under Measure B.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers. Five Filters recommends: 'You Say What You Like, Because They Like What You Say' - http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/alerts-2013/731-you-say-what-you-like-because-they-like-what-you-say.html