Ernest Greene Admits Producers Are Breaking The Law

Someone sent this in to me. Thank you!


This article by Ernest Greene contains the following paragraph. Ernest Greene, aka Ira Levine, is the President of the Board of Directors Of AIM Healthcare.

“There’s just one little hitch in this plan. It is against the law in California for any employer to require an HIV test, or even to ask about a potential employee’s HIV status, as a condition of employment. Doing so is considered employment discrimination and carries significant penalties to the employer.”

So Mr. Levine (Greene) are you saying that AIM is helping these companies violate the law by granting them access to performers private medical information? What responsibility does AIM have when you have openly admitted to assisting these companies in violating the civil rights of performers?

If it is illegal for producers to “even ask about a potential employee’s HIV status,” as Ira Levine states, could it be considered illegal for AIM to give those employers that information?

And for the record, the AIM waiver does not come close to being legal…..Every single disclosure of private medical information to a third party must be in writing, and specifically have the name of the person to whom the results are being given, and the location (fax number, mailing address etc.) of where the results are being sent. This is NOT done at AIM.

And then there is Levine’s all or nothing mandate…”I repeat; testing or condoms; that is the choice.” Why is that the only choice? Why would requiring condoms all the sudden change the industry’s already illegal practice of ‘requiring’ testing? Does anybody really think that performers like Belladonna, Evan Stone, Sasha Grey, Stormy Daniels, Jenna Haze, or any other responsible performers are going to stop testing? The very idea is ridiculous. Will NINA HARTLEY not get tested before performing if condoms become mandatory?

The testing done by the industry is already illegal. Levine tries to make you believe that the industry would all of the sudden follow the law if condoms were mandatory. That is perhaps the most ridiculous thing about his entire misguided argument. What is really needed is LEGISLATION like in Nevada, to make the testing legal. Would Levine support such legislation? Of course not.

And as far as the reliability of the current system……wasn’t that system NOT FOLLOWED in 2004, when all those guys went to Brazil and worked with performers who weren’t tested, and wasn’t that system NOT FOLLOWED last year when the person worked without a current test, and no other performer or producer checked to see if this person was tested? Looks like there is a 100% failure of the system every time someone tests positive in the industry….and Levine is proud of this record? What a joke.

I wonder what Levine has to say about the other part of the OSHA regulations that require condoms…..I am talking about the part that says EMPLOYERS must pay for post exposure testing and treatment……Of course he will NEVER address this issue. And if porn is made without condoms, what responsibilities do producers have when performers catch diseases on their sets, which Levine admits does happen ‘regularly’?…..Mr. Levine, what do you think the producers should be liable for…..and what is the current protocol in the industry when someone catches a disease? Who pays for that?

This entry was posted in AIM, anonymous, Cal/OSHA, Ira Levine-Ernest Greene, legal, Nina Hartley, Opinion-Editorial, porn news, porn star, Sharon Mitchell, STDs. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Ernest Greene Admits Producers Are Breaking The Law

  1. No monkey says:

    I have never seen a person who loves the sound of his own voice more than Ira Levine,aka Ernest Greene. This windbag can talk for hours and not say a single thing. And Nina Hartley, what a piece of work,,,she speaks at a ‘convention of sex workers, talking about sex workers rights, then turns around and actively lobby’s for no condoms in porn. At the last OSHA hearing when Nina spoke she did not identify herself as being affiliated withAIM,,,,I wonder why?

  2. Darrah Ford says:

    I don’t know why this wasn’t a big story when he said this and that link is a year old. I know AVN and XBiz would never run it but how about the others?

  3. What Ernest Greene HAS said consistently, and what he did say in that rebuttal (which you managed to miss completely in your rant, Darrah), was that current California law does not consider porn performers to be “employees” but rather “individual independent agents” who negotiate seperately and individually with producers to do specific videos.

    Here are the two paragraphs that immediately follow the one quoted, just for contextual sake:

    In fact, if performers were considered employees rather than contractors, it would be illegal for a producer to hire a performer on the grounds that said performer was, in fact, HIV positive. That’s right. Producers would be required to hire HIV+ performers, and if other performers didn’t like working with them, those performers would be fired while the HIV+ performers would be allowed to remain on the set until partners could be found who would work with them.

    This, put simply, is insanity. In thirty-five years of legal pornography in this country, not a single clinical death has been correctly attributed to HIV transmission in the making of heterosexual porn. During that time, thousands of sexually active young Californians from very similar demographic cohorts have died of AIDS contracted in circumstances utterly unrelated to porn, including a significant number whose cases were contracted in bathhouses and sex clubs where HIV prevention has been the province of governmental oversight.

    That tells me that the real agenda of those like AHF and CalOSHA is not only to impose mandatory condom usage on the performers whether they want to or not as a means of “role modeling”, but also to use antidiscrimination laws to force the industry to hire and protect HIV+ performers against their will.

    Secondly…Nina has never hidden her role in AIM, and she speaks as a professional with well over 25 years of experience. But, who cares about her when you are on a mission to get paid by the government to become the exclusive arbiteur for “protecting the porn industry”??

    Really, Darrah…if you are going to reprint talking points from AIM bashers, try getting the other side as well.


  4. Darrah Ford says:

    (which you managed to miss completely in your rant, Darrah)

    I didn’t write this.

    I could ask AIM for a statement but I guarantee you they would never reply back. I also don’t trust anyone at AIM for many reasons throughout the years.

  5. Natal says:

    I don’t get what all the fuss is about. After all, these folks are in the business of having sex, surely it is in everyone’s best interests to get tested regularly irrespective of what the law says. It is kind of stupid to say that on one hand it is unsafe practice not to be tested, and then turn around and say, no, it is illegal to let those results be known. When your health has a direct bearing on the safety of others in the workplace, then they should have a civil right to know about it.

    Your right to privacy does not trump someone else’s right to safety, especially when you can freely walk away and not participate if you choose to keep that privacy.

    If these models/actors/whateveryouwanttocallthem choose to perform this kind of work knowing full well what safety requirements are put in place, courts should rule that consent to release that information is implicit.

  6. no monkey says:


    Ernests assertions, and he says thisall thet ime, that performers are NOT evmployess is flat out, 100% false. The Courts have already ruled onthis issue, severaltimes, and has determined that performers are indeed employees. Ernest can make this false claim all he wants, it doesnt change the facts.

    Of course people who have unprotected sex with multiple partners should get themselves tested regularly. If that unprotected wex they are hiving is in the workplace then the EMPLOYER should be paying for those tests.

    If someone CHOOSES to produce porn, and that producer knows the risks that he is hiring people to take, the he should bear some of the finacial responsibility for the consequences of what happens in the workplace that he is in control of.

    If youare told where to be, when to be there, and are under the direct supervision of a director, if the producer is porviding the actual work location, and the tools(cameras, lights, etc.) to complete the job, you are NOT and independenat contractor, you are an employee. The law ALAWYS considers a person an employee unless it can be proved that they are and IC. This has been tested before in the courts and performers are employees, regardless of what Ernest greene says.s

    Ernest Greene also recently wrote that “AIM does the tests AT COST for performers” Considering AIM pays 75 and charges 130 you can easily see that Ernest is not always accurate in hi statements.

    And in the 25 yars of legal porn, gay and straight, scores of people have been infected with HIV, and to this day, not one single poeeny has been paid by a producer to cover any of these costs. And lets not talk about the THOUSANDS of other stdss that producers have paid NOTHING for over these years. And if Ernest wants to talke about the last 35 years, why doesnt he talk about all the performers that got HIV in the years of 82 to 92. Culd it be that some of them have died from their HIV and that doesnt quite jive with his no death statements. And of course Ernei never talks about HIV inthe gay industry.

  7. no monkey says:

    And Anthony, could you please tell us what SAFETY REQUIREMENTS the industry.

    I would counter your weak argument bysaying,,,If PRODUCERS choose to work in this industry, and if producers choose to hire people to take the risks that they are fully aware of, then the procuer has to take financial resposibility for hiring people to take those risks.

    Lots of jobs have inherent risks, and in all those other jobs the employers provide some sort of remedy for those forseeable risks,,,,why sould porn be any different?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s