“prop 60 actually provides incentive for my stalker to sue me. A 25% incentive”
according to the Sacramento Bee,
“BOTH MAJOR POLITICAL PARTIES IN CALIFORNIA OPPOSE IT. SO MUST WE.”
“The vague and often contradictory language within the initiative could have dangerous implications”
“great example of out-of-touch bureaucrats meddling in a world they know nothing about”
“weakens workplace safety”
“the measure could cause significant harm to adult film performers, subject them to vast array of unprecedented third-party lawsuits, and erode critical protections.”
–Senator Mark Leno
“VOTE NO. REALLY.”
“poses financial and health risks to the very people it’s meant to protect from sexually transmitted diseases”
Prop 60 would be
“A LAWSUIT BONANZA” paid for by taxpayers and encouraging “LEGAL BOUNTY HUNTING”
“puts the $9 billion adult film industry in the hands of one person — Michael Weinstein — the backer of this initiative. Performers, who often use screen names, could have their identities and addresses made public, a feature that invades privacy and could lead to harm from stalkers.”
“DOESN’T MAKE SENSE”
and is the
“ODDEST MEASURE ON THE BALLOT.”
“SEEMS LIKE A GOOD IDEA
UNTIL YOU ACTUALLY READ IT”
“Prop 60 would
deputize every Californian as a condom cop.”
“WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS THE DAFT IDEA OF MAKING MICHAEL WEINSTEIN A STATE SUBSIDIZED “PORN CZAR” [WITH] THE POWER TO OVERRIDE THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL.”
“Allows any resident of California to file a lawsuit against adult film performers and businesses that make adult films available for sale and presumes liability if a condom is not visible.
Adult film performers may have to disclose their legal names and home addresses. Proponent authorized to become a state employee with removal only by a vote of the Legislature.”
“will threaten our safety and violate our privacy by enabling anyone in California to file dangerous and costly lawsuits against performers who exercise choice, and most disturbingly, expose our home addresses and legal names.”
“a solution in search of a problem.”
“poses financial and health risks to the very people it’s meant to protect”
“This proposal is overly broad and creates bad law…”
“poses a serious threat to the physical safety and well-being of all adult workers in this industry which is already stigmatized.”
“rejection political gimmickry that will not increase condom use, will not protect public health, and will only serve to drive adult film production out-of-state or underground”
“Proposition 60 will exacerbate the very problem it purports to address […] it does not take into account modern treatments, including pre-exposure prophylaxis or PrEP, that are part of an arsenal of tools that can greatly reduce risk of transmission.”
Prop 60 is
“This measure is an embarrassment to the initiative process”
“will subject performers and producers to a barrage of lawsuits
drive the industry underground or to places that offer few protections for workers.”
“will not protect adult film performers as intended.”
The Fresno Bee
“SO LITIGIOUS THAT EVEN
SYMPATHIZERS ARE UNSETTLED.”
“could be exploited by people trying to damage a controversial business or earn a cut of a resulting fine.”
Fast Facts about Prop 60
A single special interest group has spent millions to disguise Prop 60’s flaws
Prop 60 is funded entirely by one man, who has spent $ 4.5 million on the ballot measure. If passed, Prop. 60 will give this man the power to sue porn stars.
Prop 60 is opposed by workers, doctors, public health experts, civil rights organizations and dozens of local Democratic and Republican organizations throughout California.
Prop 60 will cost taxpayers millions of dollars – diverting resources from other workplace safety programs and schools.
Prop 60 also gives 38 million Californians the ability to sue porn stars/distributors and to make a profit off each lawsuit.
Prop 60 will weaken workplace safety and violate the privacy of adult film performers, by divulging their legal names and home addresses.
The money spent on enforcing Prop 60 would be better spent on police instead of creating “condom cops” (LA Times Vote NO Editorial (9/22/16)
Adult film performers and their supporters held a protest in Hollywood on Monday to voice their opposition to a state ballot initiative that would result in lawsuits and harassment against them. Performers gathered on Sunset Boulevard outside the office of AIDS Healthcare Foundation, the main proponent of Proposition 60. Performers urged the public to vote no on Prop 60 and demanded to speak to Michael Weinstein, president of AHF.
Why Performers Say “No Prop 60”
The mission of The Adult Performer Advocacy Committee (APAC) is to provide representation for performers in the adult film industry and to protect performers’ rights to a safer and more professional work environment. We do this through education of each other and the greater community, development of ethical best practices, and fostering of solidarity. We review existing health and safety protocols, and will initiate new ones as needed. We are committed to working cohesively with all aspects of the adult entertainment industry and the public, strengthening unity between all performers, and maintaining a work environment where workers are valued, respected, and educated.