patrick.net

The only explanation I can think of is that the guardians of public morals pushing this basically want to move pornography production out-of-state or overseas. Just because.

I have no idea if or why they think this will accomplish anything beyond that.

HC, that's exactly it.

The moral authority wants to make the industry have a harder time in CA, all while masking it as a health/safety measure.

Hell, the actors/actresses aren't even in support of this. To quantify things a bit, there are 2000 adult film actors/actresses in the state, from what I read today.

And you know when the left is in opposition of having the gov jump in and meddle in something, it's gotta be terrible lol.

BayArea says

This is seriously a proposition during this election?

1. There are more important things to discuss, true.
2. This is an issue because a lot of money is on the line. Sex sells and requiring condoms on porn stars is a way to attack the porn industry and move it out of CA where condoms aren't required. This is the hidden intention behind the law.
3. The law is clearly Unconstitutional. The reason that porn is legal while other forms of prostitution are not is that porn is considered protected speech. No conservative wants to question that or it could open up all prostitution to being protected by the First Amendment, as it should be.
4. The law allows anybody to extort porn companies.

Critics of the measure say the law would put producers and performers at risk of being sued by California residents who could unfairly target them. "If the proposed initiative were to pass, adult performers would immediately be targeted by stalkers and profiteers, who would use the initiatives' sue-a-performer provision to harass and extort adult performers," Diane Duke, chief executive of the Free Speech Coalition, told the Los Angeles Times. "This is an unconscionable initiative that would take a legal and safe industry and push its performers into the shadows."

If the purpose of the law was to protect porn workers, then the law would allow those workers to sue the producers. It would not allow producers, many of whom perform in the videos, to be sued by random Joe who just wants to make a quick buck or who wants to force his religious beliefs on others. The law would actually hurt many porn workers.

So, although this proposition should have never made it to the ballet, it's important to vote no on it. Like a voter ID law, it's a thinly veiled attempt by social conservatives to use violence and the threat of violence to take away people's basic civil rights because those rights are in conflict with the religious beliefs of the conservatives. It's the same basic idea as Sharia Law just for Christians instead of Muslims.

Of course, this proposition would do nothing to put even a minor dent in the amount of porn available to everyone. It would just move the porn creation to private houses with sole proprietors and to places outside of CA. It is also an example of a nanny state and big government, which demonstrates the hypocrisy of conservatives who claim to hate those things. Finally pseudo-feminists support the proposition because they wrongly perceive it as a way to decrease porn, which they despise. Porn is competition.

So yes, it is ridiculous that will all the serious problems America has that we're debating issues of sex, which should always be a personal choice of the individual. However, it is an important issue that we don't allow government to force sexual behavior onto consenting adults. Allowing that is to open the door for massive abuse. No government given power over sex has ever used that power for anything but evil.

BayArea says

And you know when the left is in opposition of having the gov jump in and meddle in something, it's gotta be terrible lol.

I had read that Berkeley-type do-gooders were behind this. Just read that it's an AIDS activist, trying to put some teeth into a law approved by LA county voters (!) a couple of years ago.

Holy cow: "adult" film production is a $9 billion per year industry in California.

Yes: Let's push movie production out of the San Fernando Valley and into other places where STD testing for actors isn't as rigorous, if it exists at all. That'll work!

From the Mercury News article on propositions:

Opponents:
• California Republican Party
• California Democratic Party

LOL!

This measure is bullshit (the CA porn industry has such strict testing standards that transmissions for the past 15 years have been basically zero) and has no conservative or religious conservative backers, sole sponsor is the AIDS healthcare foundation. Both parties are opposed to it. It has a lot of support in the general population though, across party lines and likely more among women than men. Business has been moving to Nevada (and even states like Utah) already for a while in anticipation of the measure potentially passing.

Dan8267 says

Like a voter ID law, it's a thinly veiled attempt by social conservatives to use violence and the threat of violence to take away people's basic civil rights because those rights are in conflict with the religious beliefs of the conservatives.

This has nothing to do with voter id laws who are common in countries much farther to the left than the US (many Western European nations for examples. Presenting a basic piece of identity info at the voting booth has great advantages, esp. protection against voting fraud. It would make more sense and be fairer to let everybody - incl felons - vote but demand identification to prevent voting fraud than letting people vote multiple times and letting dead people or non-citizens vote.

mell says

This has nothing to do with voter id laws

The connection I was making is that the intent of both laws is not what the proponents of either say it is.

mell says

Presenting a basic piece of identity info at the voting booth has great advantages, esp. protection against voting fraud.

And none of those advantages require preventing legitimate voters from voting, which is why the actual laws proposed clearly are not intended to prevent fraudulant votes but rather legitimate ones.

For example, all votes should be counted. Any suspicious vote could be flagged as suspicious and verification can be done after recording the vote. If the vote turns out to be fraudulent -- a highly unlikely scenario -- then it is discounted. Why should any voter ID law prevent a person from voting? The burden of proof should be on the state to prove fraud and questioning a vote should not prevent that vote from being recorded. Recorded votes don't have to be counted, but the state must prove fraud to prevent such a vote from being counted. The vote should not be discarded or prevented simply because some poll worker says he's suspicious that the black guy might be a democrat, er, illegal alien.

mell says

vote multiple times and letting dead people or non-citizens vote.

Both of these things are trivial to detect and filter. Voter ID solves neither problem. Photo IDs are trivial to fake.

The real fraud in elections is committed by poll workers who discount votes on a massive level. Voter ID does nothing to prevent this.

I'm not saying voter ID is a bad thing. I'm saying that every single voter ID law has been evil and has had the sole intention of rigging elections by preventing legitimate voters from voting. Done right, voter ID would increase the number of people voting. Of course, the vast majority of proponents of voter ID would block any attempt to do it right because they want to rig elections. It's painfully obvious.

Dan8267 says

I'm not saying voter ID is a bad thing. I'm saying that every single voter ID law has been evil and has had the sole intention of rigging elections by preventing legitimate voters from voting.

OK. Haven't looked into any of these propositions, but presenting a basic form of ID while looking up whether you're a citizen or not and preventing duplicate/deceased votes seems pretty fair to me and not disadvantageous to anybody. It's a small price to pay that you have to have at least one form of ID on you the day you vote.

BayArea says

WTF is wrong with our state??

If I tried to list everything, I'd be typing for days.

Here is a head scratcher:

Both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party oppose the measure.

However, as stated above, it has a tremendous backing by general population. I think this has to do with the fact that on the surface it is being pitched as a health/safety measure intended to protect. If you only read the first few lines of the measure, who could possibly be against protecting CA workers? Of course as soon as you get below the surface, you quickly realize how bullshit it is.

I've had it up to my neck in the government stepping in and meddling in affairs between consenting adults.

From what I can see, it's trending very strongly in the polls to pass. CA is amazing.

On a lighter note, it looks like 2016 will finally be a win for marijuana, taking us one step away from the stone age.

Dan8267 says

However, it is an important issue that we don't allow government to force sexual behavior onto consenting adults.

Spot on. It's 2016 and how we still allow gov to have control over a legal adult's choice as it relates to sex and drug use is simply shocking.

BayArea says

Spot on. It's 2016 and how we still allow gov to have control over a legal adult's choice as it relates to sex and drug use is simply shocking.

That's true but you have to understand the ramifications for giving up those controls. Once these laws fall there should be a few others to follow . For example the smoking ban in your establishment. Why should you be forced to only host non-smokers in your bar/restaurant? Not that I would expect a big turnout for such, but there are plenty of jobs more hazardous to ones health. In theory adults and aspiring adults (late stage teenagers) should be able to make their own decisions, that's what personal liberty is all about. However we have been moving into the exact opposite direction where you cannot do anything without triggering somebody else and people are coddled way into adulthood and become useless SJWs or triggered sympathizers. This is by design as it gives government total control and the regressive left is helping them make great strides. So I don't expect that to change soon with the exception of weed. I think only a clinically insane person would march for my-body-my-right total abortion rights while at the same time demanding trigger warnings and safe spaces against words. But here we are..

mell says

Haven't looked into any of these propositions, but presenting a basic form of ID while looking up whether you're a citizen or not and preventing duplicate/deceased votes seems pretty fair to me and not disadvantageous to anybody.

It depends on whether or not the law is written to deliberately prevent legitimate voters from voting. The reasons the actual voter ID laws previously enacted or attempted are Unconstitutional include:

1. Requiring people to pay for the ID. This is nothing less than a poll tax, which is Unconstitutional. Furthermore, providing and carrying around ID is a service that citizens give to the government, not the other way around. If people are required to show their papers, then doing so should not cost the people anything. A jobless, homeless bum who is an American citizen has the right to vote even if he's penniless.

2. Requiring people to jump through burdensome hopes like showing a birth certificate, which the vast majority of the elderly who have been voting for 50+ years don't have and cannot get. Another example is denying the ID because a woman's current legal last name does not match the name on her birth certificate. That's the "I wasn't born married problem" that caused a lot of grandmothers to lose their right to vote. Yet another example, requiring proof of residency or a utility bill. Homeless vets who gave their legs for their country tend not to have these things.

3. Residential requirements. People move. If people move during a critical time, they may be denied such an ID.

4. Requiring people to travel to get the voter ID. Not everyone drives. 12 nuns were prevented from voting even though were legal voters.

In Indiana, the Associated Press reports, about 12 nuns — all in their 80s or 90s — were turned away at their polling place because they did not have the required photo ID.

Some of the women were in wheelchairs or walkers. One 98-year-old nun said “I don’t want to go do that.”

Drivers’ licenses are the most commonly used form of ID, but none of the nuns drive. Several showed up with outdated passports.

Preventing nuns from committing in-person voter fraud? No, just more innocent casualties of laws intended to keep black people from voting.

5. Prevent ballots from being cast instead of marking them to be investigated. It's trivially easy to confirm a person's identity today. Police do it all the time. Think that's not so. Just try giving a fake name to a cop and see what kind of hot water you land in. Having an ID is never necessary for the cops to ID your ass. Do you think that not having an ID is going to prevent the cops from arresting you on a warrant or an all-points-bulletin? That has never happened.

Cop: Are you the criminal Bob Smith?

Cop: Well, I guess I can't be sure that you are Bob, so you're free to go.

Never fucking happens.

And even if you have to ID a person and make sure that person is a citizen and is only voting once, there is absolutely no reason to prevent the vote from being recorded. To do so is to prevent legitimate votes and it does not even remotely help prevent illegal votes because recording a vote doesn't mean the vote is counted. Take whatever time you need to confirm the vote is legal, but the vote must count if it is.

No person should prevent a ballot from being recorded. They can object all they want to the ballot and make the case that it's invalid, but they should not ever be able to prevent the ballot from being recorded. That's election fraud.

Here are real world examples of why the voter ID laws are intended to and do violate the voter rights of citizens.

www.-MJTJeZCoV0

www.5mfjiljuSsU

www.cKRCXQGF_tk

www.jqk3eo8xjLU

Target African Americans with almost surgical precision.

How is that possible without that being the intent? The law was written specifically to eliminate any way that Democratic voters could use to comply with ID requirements. That's deliberate. If a law were passed that eliminated the IDs possessed by Republican voters, say military IDs, and allowed the ones Democratic voters already had, say medical marijuana IDs, you can bet your ass Republicans would be up in arms.

www.x0G01zbHGM8

The clerk examines my son's bank statement and determines there isn't enough "activity" on his account."

First off, having to show your financial records in order to vote is blatantly Unconstitutional and a violation of even basic privacy. Second, you shouldn't have to have a bank account to vote. Third, the amount of activity in your bank account has nothing to do with whether or not the bank account can confirm your identity. Fourth, letting a clerk prevent a ballot from being cast based solely on his "suspicious" is clearly an abuse of power intended to commit election fraud since there is no common standard being applied to all people. The clerk can easily pass people he wants to while calling any statement "insufficient" if he doesn't want the person to vote.

The Republicans efforts to commit election fraud and criminally undermine elections is so blatantly obvious that it just makes America look like the Soviet Union.
www.sfu_aEOMO44

The only voter ID laws that would not be intentionally fraudulent would be ones that
1. Provide free IDs to every voter.
2. Deliver those IDs directly to the voter.
3. Still record ballots without IDs. Check the ballots and voters later if necessary.
4. Puts the burden of proof on the state.
5. Issue the IDs in real time at the polling station. If you don't have a valid ID, make one on the spot. Take the person's picture. Take the person's finger prints. Confirm their identity later. Any fraud would be easy to catch and prosecute and those responsible would go to jail.

It would be trivial to issue every single person in the U.S., citizen or not, adult or not, a unforgeable digital ID with RSA encryption that can be read electronically to confirm whether or not a person can
1. Vote
2. Drive
3. Be employed in America

And these things could be checked in real time. It would also be trivial to flag ballots for voter verification after being cast but before the election results are counted. It would cost only pennies per ID to issue these IDs to EVERYONE due to economies of scale. The vast majority could be delivered to people before the election. People who show up without the ID could be issued on on the spot at the polling station. IDs could be remotely revoked as needed. They could even be mother-fucking biometrically verified with fingerprint, retinal scans, facial recognition, and DNA. But if you did all this, the number of minorities voting would go up and so Republicans would block such a law. The sole intent is to prevent legal Americans from being able to vote.

And that is why anyone trying to get such laws passed should be thrown in prison for 40 years for attempting election fraud.

BayArea says

Spot on. It's 2016 and how we still allow gov to have control over a legal adult's choice as it relates to sex and drug use is simply shocking.

Blame hippies. Peaceful protests don't work. Get ten thousand people in body armor and wielding AK-47s to take over state capitals and federal buildings. If the police, army, or national guard attempt any violence start sending out dead senators and governors. Threaten violent revolution until all government power to prevent the use of any drug is revoked unconditionally. Politicians are cowards. They only violate human and civil rights when they believe there will be no consequences for them.

The founding fathers expected revolution to happen periodically. They knew the only way to keep government honest is to keep it in fear. Fear is the cop that prevents tyranny. The lack of fear of rebellion is the reason our government is so corrupt. Politicians need to know that the people are willing to die and to kill for their rights.

Of course, despite talk from Trump supporters over rebelling if Trump is not elected, this will not happen in America because people just aren't pissed off enough about criminal activity in the government or about tyranny.

God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13 states independent 11 years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

- Thomas Jefferson, 13 Nov. 1787

Where is the proposition that Trumpligula is entitled to a blow job from anybody he points a finger at?

C'mon, you guys have figured it out by now right? Some industry stands to benefit tremendously from this law passing. Possible candidates:

Trojan
AIDS Foundation(raising money to "campaign" for this measure)
The state where the porn business will move to
Porn companies who already require condoms for all shoots

As with every law, follow the money...

As a porn actor, I should think wearing/requiring a condom is a no-brainer. I'm not sure how you cannot see that this has health ramifications. Yes, condom companies might benefit... But that doesn't change the fact that these people should be encouraged to protect themselves against infectious diseases. I guess I'm just not getting the concern over all this.

Prop 60: where the rubber meets the rod.

It is a secret plan to end pizza delivery.

The loss of muscle mass to the dominant forearm in California will be legendary.

Despite opposition from the democrat party, this type measure was initially proposed by the city of Los Angeles City Council, every single one Democrats, and every single one a boob.

These jackasses also proposed and made law socially repressive and near tyrannical measures to confiscate vehicles suspected of being involved in prostitution, drugs, and street racing. That's right, these drooling fucktards decided that if cops had reasonable suspicion that someone was engaged in any of those activities, they could seize those people's vehicles which could only be retrieved in a court hearing in criminal court where the burden of proof was preponderance of the evidence. Seriously. Cops could take someone's car without arresting or even citing the individual. And then it was up to the individual to prove they weren't involved in a crime. All this led me to call the la city council the first fiscally liberal, socially conservative government body in the US. Look up fiscally liberal, socially conservative and see where that lies on the political spectrum.

Fortunately the state Supreme Court struck down Jerry brown led similar law from Oakland. But yeah, that's the level of stoopid we are dealing with here.