5 ms·

Indeed, and that proposition is not at all what it appears to be at first glance. Voters in California should definitely do some due diligence researching that

by windlep 10y ago

Indeed, and that proposition is not at all what it appears to be at first glance. Voters in California should definitely do some due diligence researching that before voting or they're going to be in for a nasty shock at the outcome.

Zhenya 10y ago
Can you please elaborate and state the possible outcomes for YES and NO?
- chimeracoder 10y ago
  If it passes, then a married couple that films a sex tape and posts it on a pay-per-view tube site can be personally sued by any California resident for a share of the profits unless they can prove that they used condoms while having sex. It also provides a way for civilians to discover the real names and residences of adult film actors. The law also specially names the author of the law (Michael Weinstein) and requires the state to pay for his legal bills in "enforcing" the law. The reason this is even an issue is that Michael Weinstein (whom I liken to "Jenny McCarthy meets Martin Shkreli"[0]) was pissed that OSHA didn't rule his way in his lawsuit against porn studio Treasure Island Media[1][2], so he took this statewide as an act of vengeance. [0] Aside from being virulently anti-science, he's also behind Prop 61, which ostensibly reduces the price of HIV drugs, but in actuality includes a special carve-out for the HMO he runs, locking in guaranteed profit for himself. [1] OSHA basically said "okay, you didn't use condoms when filming, but that's only worth a $100 fine, just as if you didn't have a first-aid kit on-site". [2] If you're at work right now, you Google that name at your own risk
  - jcranmer 10y ago
    When I read your comment, my first reaction was "surely there's no way it can be that bad, this must just be partisan overreaction." After reading https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_60,_Condoms_in_Pornographic_Films_(2016) https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_60,_Condoms_i..., I found out that, yes, this proposition really is that terrible.
  - sandworm101 10y ago
    It's been a while, but doesn't California have a bad on private laws? The listing of Michael Weinstein by name in the bill looks like a poisoned pill, something that everyone knows is unconstitutional but they are leaving it in so they can kill it later.
    - mintplant 10y ago
      Or chimeracoder has made this up out of whole cloth and the law doesn't actually list him by name. I was surprised by this, too, so I dug up the full text. The only places I can find Weinstein's name are in the letterhead and the signature on the cover letter. Search for yourself: https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0004%20%28Safer%20Sex%29_8.pdf https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0004%20%...
  - neoCrimeLabs 10y ago
    If I read and interpreted Prop 60 correctly too, it also looks like you can sue for any video re-posted regardless when it was originally released, and it becomes the responsibility of the defendant to prove the video was produced before Prop 60 came into effect (assuming it passes). In other words, someone pirates an old (pre-prop60) video, uploads it to a sharing site, someone can use it to sue the producers and the producers have to prove the video was produced and released before Prop-60 was enacted. Am I reading that right?
    - jcranmer 10y ago
      There is a statute of limitations. It is 1 year from the date of the violation, or 1 year from the date the violation is discovered, or through the use of reasonable diligence, should have been discovered. I don't know enough about CA law to interpret what the second rule means--it sounds like it should mean at most a year from the date the video is posted, but the wording makes it imply that there's effectively no statue of limitations. It truly is horrible if you read the actual text.
chimeracoder 10y ago
Agreed, and the same thing goes for Prop 61, which was also written by the same man who wrote Prop 60. At first glance, it's presented as a way to reduce the price of HIV drugs. In reality, it's a way for Michael Weinstein to pad his pockets, at the expense of the VA. (He wrote the bill and included a special provision that guarantees his HMO a special exemption from the price cap). Michael Weinstein, you may remember, is the same man who committed $20 million in Medicaid fraud in LA county a few years ago. He then claimed that the federal case against him had no legal standing because the federal government cannot prosecute for fraud against state-level agencies (Medicaid). Fortunately, the judge was not convinced by that reasoning.
FireBeyond 10y ago
Oh yeah, just like Prop 1 in Olympia WA this year. Prop 1 is an initiative to "help educate the children of Olympia", using a little tax to help pay for college tuition. So noble! Except: it proposes a levy on households of $200K or more (not constitutional in Washington), is an income tax, also not constitutional in Washington, requires the city of Olympia to fund the administration with no enforcement clauses, and multiple groups have already announced that they intend to sue the City if it's passed (which it will, because it's a 'think of the kids' measure), and the City knows it won't win but could not get the measure struck off so is already budgeting for constitutional lawyers. Hell, the City doesn't have the authority to see these people's tax statements, so it'd rely entirely on self-reporting. It's just a mess. So you look a bit closer, and who is pushing this bill? A bunch of locals concerned about local education. No. A bunch of multi-millionaires from Seattle who want to use this as a proving ground for their challenges to state taxation law. Of the top ten donors, not one has ever lived in the County, let alone the City, nor does any of them have any children who attended school in either. (Olympia, like most state capitals, is far smaller than the largest city in the state), which makes you wonder why they're not pushing this in Seattle/King County - probably because they don't want their own taxes going to fund the defense of a proposition that's very specifically unconstitutional. "Think of the kids" at its worst.
- jedmeyers 10y ago
  Then why doesn't the City lose on purpose the defending lawsuit since they have no horse in this race?
  - FireBeyond 10y ago
    Because then the proponents of the measure finance lawsuits / campaigns against the City, saying that it is legally obligated to do its utmost to implement measures that have been passed. More money down the toilet.
    - sokoloff 10y ago
      When every key element related to the ballot initiative is unconstitutional there, their "utmost" could very well be nothing, right?

by windlep 10y ago

Zhenya 10y ago

Can you please elaborate and state the possible outcomes for YES and NO?

chimeracoder 10y ago
If it passes, then a married couple that films a sex tape and posts it on a pay-per-view tube site can be personally sued by any California resident for a share of the profits unless they can prove that they used condoms while having sex. It also provides a way for civilians to discover the real names and residences of adult film actors. The law also specially names the author of the law (Michael Weinstein) and requires the state to pay for his legal bills in "enforcing" the law. The reason this is even an issue is that Michael Weinstein (whom I liken to "Jenny McCarthy meets Martin Shkreli"[0]) was pissed that OSHA didn't rule his way in his lawsuit against porn studio Treasure Island Media[1][2], so he took this statewide as an act of vengeance. [0] Aside from being virulently anti-science, he's also behind Prop 61, which ostensibly reduces the price of HIV drugs, but in actuality includes a special carve-out for the HMO he runs, locking in guaranteed profit for himself. [1] OSHA basically said "okay, you didn't use condoms when filming, but that's only worth a $100 fine, just as if you didn't have a first-aid kit on-site". [2] If you're at work right now, you Google that name at your own risk
- jcranmer 10y ago
  When I read your comment, my first reaction was "surely there's no way it can be that bad, this must just be partisan overreaction." After reading https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_60,_Condoms_in_Pornographic_Films_(2016) https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_60,_Condoms_i..., I found out that, yes, this proposition really is that terrible.
- sandworm101 10y ago
  It's been a while, but doesn't California have a bad on private laws? The listing of Michael Weinstein by name in the bill looks like a poisoned pill, something that everyone knows is unconstitutional but they are leaving it in so they can kill it later.
  - mintplant 10y ago
    Or chimeracoder has made this up out of whole cloth and the law doesn't actually list him by name. I was surprised by this, too, so I dug up the full text. The only places I can find Weinstein's name are in the letterhead and the signature on the cover letter. Search for yourself: https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0004%20%28Safer%20Sex%29_8.pdf https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0004%20%...
- neoCrimeLabs 10y ago
  If I read and interpreted Prop 60 correctly too, it also looks like you can sue for any video re-posted regardless when it was originally released, and it becomes the responsibility of the defendant to prove the video was produced before Prop 60 came into effect (assuming it passes). In other words, someone pirates an old (pre-prop60) video, uploads it to a sharing site, someone can use it to sue the producers and the producers have to prove the video was produced and released before Prop-60 was enacted. Am I reading that right?
  - jcranmer 10y ago
    There is a statute of limitations. It is 1 year from the date of the violation, or 1 year from the date the violation is discovered, or through the use of reasonable diligence, should have been discovered. I don't know enough about CA law to interpret what the second rule means--it sounds like it should mean at most a year from the date the video is posted, but the wording makes it imply that there's effectively no statue of limitations. It truly is horrible if you read the actual text.

chimeracoder 10y ago

Agreed, and the same thing goes for Prop 61, which was also written by the same man who wrote Prop 60. At first glance, it's presented as a way to reduce the price of HIV drugs. In reality, it's a way for Michael Weinstein to pad his pockets, at the expense of the VA. (He wrote the bill and included a special provision that guarantees his HMO a special exemption from the price cap). Michael Weinstein, you may remember, is the same man who committed $20 million in Medicaid fraud in LA county a few years ago. He then claimed that the federal case against him had no legal standing because the federal government cannot prosecute for fraud against state-level agencies (Medicaid). Fortunately, the judge was not convinced by that reasoning.

FireBeyond 10y ago

Oh yeah, just like Prop 1 in Olympia WA this year. Prop 1 is an initiative to "help educate the children of Olympia", using a little tax to help pay for college tuition. So noble! Except: it proposes a levy on households of $200K or more (not constitutional in Washington), is an income tax, also not constitutional in Washington, requires the city of Olympia to fund the administration with no enforcement clauses, and multiple groups have already announced that they intend to sue the City if it's passed (which it will, because it's a 'think of the kids' measure), and the City knows it won't win but could not get the measure struck off so is already budgeting for constitutional lawyers. Hell, the City doesn't have the authority to see these people's tax statements, so it'd rely entirely on self-reporting. It's just a mess. So you look a bit closer, and who is pushing this bill? A bunch of locals concerned about local education. No. A bunch of multi-millionaires from Seattle who want to use this as a proving ground for their challenges to state taxation law. Of the top ten donors, not one has ever lived in the County, let alone the City, nor does any of them have any children who attended school in either. (Olympia, like most state capitals, is far smaller than the largest city in the state), which makes you wonder why they're not pushing this in Seattle/King County - probably because they don't want their own taxes going to fund the defense of a proposition that's very specifically unconstitutional. "Think of the kids" at its worst.

jedmeyers 10y ago
Then why doesn't the City lose on purpose the defending lawsuit since they have no horse in this race?
- FireBeyond 10y ago
  Because then the proponents of the measure finance lawsuits / campaigns against the City, saying that it is legally obligated to do its utmost to implement measures that have been passed. More money down the toilet.
  - sokoloff 10y ago
    When every key element related to the ballot initiative is unconstitutional there, their "utmost" could very well be nothing, right?