FSC Calls on AHF to Withdraw Prop 60 Rebuttal
CANOGA PARK, Calif. — The Free Speech Coalition issued a statement today that said that the AIDS Healthcare Foundation-backed pro-Proposition 60 campaign fraudulently claims union support for the ballot initiative.
It called on the AHF to immediately withdraw its rebuttal "and stop trying to mislead voters."
The claims are relative to a “rebuttal to opposition’s argument” statement sent to the California Secretary of State’s office for inclusion in the state voter pamphlet.
The text of the rebuttal specifically states that the fledgling IEAU, known as the International Entertainment Adult Union, which formally became a federally recognized union in December, supports Prop 60.
But, as the FSC said in its statement today, neither IEAU or its related entities who hold the sole authority to represent adult film worker IEAU-members — the APAG, or Adult Performers and Actors Guild, and the 424 Crew Union — had actually reviewed or voted to take a position on Prop 60.
“Despite being aware of this, AHF falsely — and prominently — featured the group as a backer of the proposition in its ballot guide, in a way that would unlawfully mislead California voters,” the FSC charged in its statement.
“In fact, last night, the IEAU’s adult film worker chapters voted to remain neutral on Proposition 60 — with several board members voting to oppose and none voting to support the initiative,” the FSC said today. “Additionally, they unanimously voted to have an unauthorized signature by a person falsely claiming to represent the organization, redacted from AHF’s rebuttal statement in support of Prop 60.”
Last night, APAG said in a statement that while a majority of members abstained from voting on the guild’s stance four members voted to not support Prop 60.
Further, APAG distanced itself from the statement that ended up on the rebuttal in support of Prop 60 that was signed by IEAU and APAG founder Phyllisha Anne.
Sent to the California Secretary of State’s office for inclusion in the state voter pamphlet and signed by Anne, the rebuttal said: "Make no mistake about who opposes Prop 60. It's the greedy porn producers. They routinely put adult film performers' safety and health at risk by forcing them to perform without condoms. Recent studies found that one in four performers have been sick with serious sexually transmitted diseases. Nobody should have to risk getting a serious disease to keep their job! ... Prop 60 is supported by the International Adult Entertainment Union, the only official union certified to represent adult film workers, and by numerous medical and public health organizations.”
APAG, in last night’s statement, said: “[Anne’s] signature of support does not reflect the opinion of APAG members or its officers, including 424 Crew Union. The board voted unanimously to have this signature redacted in the name of the guild.”
Today, the FSC said that the “AHF was well-aware that their official statement contained false and misleading information” because it didn’t represent the views of IEAU’s majority.”
“Proposition 60 is 13 pages of detailed legalese that gives every resident of California the right to sue adult film performers,” the FSC said. “Perhaps AHF’s only strategy with the flawed initiative is to try and fool voters.
“Here are the facts: Proposition 60 is opposed by the California Democratic Party, California Republican Party, California Libertarian Party, as well as civil rights and public health organizations including Equality California and the Los Angeles LGBTQ Center, and the Adult Performer Advocacy Committee (APAC), the largest independent performer organization in the industry.”
If passed by voters in November during the General Election, Prop 60 require performers in adult films to use condoms during production.
It also would require producers to pay for performer vaccinations, testing, and medical examinations related to STIs and require them to obtain state health license and to post condom requirement at film sites.
Prop 60 also would impose liability on producers for violations, on certain distributors, on performers if they have a financial interest in the film involved and on talent agents who knowingly refer performers to noncomplying producers.
The initiative, which would cost about $1 million annually to regulate, also permits state, performers or any state resident to enforce violations.
The state Legislative Analyst’s office, in a July 18 notation, said that, if passed, “adult film wages and business income in California would likely decline and as a result the measure would likely reduce state and local tax revenues by several million dollars per year.”