Farrah Abraham: ‘I Was Raped And Drugged Working In The Porn Industry,’

Monica Foster commentary: It would be interesting to find out exactly who in the porn industry she was with when these horrific events took place.  I’m glad she spoke up, because when I was an active pornstar I was raped as well.  As of current individuals in and attached to the porn industry go to great efforts to accuse me of being “crazy” and a “liar”.  Though it took me years to find the strength to go to law enforcement in regards to the matter, I’m glad I finally did.

***Update 02-06-2014: In effort to discredit and further humiliate Farrah Abraham (most likely due to her speaking out against the porn industry), the apparent sociopath Steve Hirsch of Vivid Entertainment is releasing ANOTHER sextape of Farrah entitled “Farrah 2: Backdoor & More”

article spotted on IBtimes.com

Kendall Karson with Farrah Abraham (both wanted to be like a Kardashian sister, but it simply didn't work out in either case).

pornstar Kendall Karson with reality tv star Farrah Abraham (both wanted to be like a Kardashian sister, but it simply didn’t work out in either case).

Reality TV personality-turned-porn star Farrah Abraham has shared many of her personal horrors on the VH1 reality program “Couples Therapy,” but the mom of one’s most recent claims are by far the most horrific to date.

In an interview with InTouch Weekly, the 22-year-old former MTV “Teen Mom” star related details about her dark experiences while working in the porn industry, a business which she ventured into last year following the release of her sex tape, “Farrah Superstar: Backdoor Teen Mom.” “I was drugged and raped more than once,” said Abraham, recalling her times spent at strip clubs and porn conventions. “I allowed the type of people into my life. It was a very dark time for me.”

In the revealing interview, Abraham also discussed her troubled home life. The single mother to 4-year-old Sophia claims she also suffered lifelong abuse from her parents, Debra Danielson and Michael Abraham. “[They] would beat me with a belt if I acted out. I had cuts, bruises, welts, swelling and scars,” said the reality starlet, who claims she fought back against the attacks in 2010 for the sake of her own safety and for her daughter’s sake. “It was a turning point,” she said. “I needed to stop the abuse.”

farrah abraham rapedThe former “Teen Mom” last spoke out on her venture into the adult film industry in January, telling InTouch Weekly that she regretted the move. “Knowing my sex tape was out there for everyone in the world to see was overwhelming. I wanted to hide my face and not go out or pick up my phone,” said Abraham. “If I went back in time, I would not have done it. The sex tape ruined my life.”

“Backdoor Teen Mom,” co-starring porn star James Deen, was released in May 2013 by Vivid Entertainment. Abraham became a household name in the MTV documentary series “16 and Pregnant” in 2009, followed by four seasons of the spinoff show “Teen Mom” until its series finale in August 2012. She is currently on the fourth season of the VH1 relationship counseling reality series, “Couples Therapy.”

click to enlarge - the porn industry blogosphere is buzzing with commentary on Steve Hirsch of Vivid's actions.  The above comment from MikeSouth.com is right along the lines with what anyone with a soul is thinking.

click to enlarge – the porn industry blogosphere is buzzing with commentary on Steve Hirsch of Vivid’s horrific actions in regards to releasing ANOTHER sextape of Farrah Abraham. The above comment is from MikeSouth.com

Farrah Abraham may not realize that she is a sextrafficking victim.  The Los Angeles porn industry performer contracts are not legal and do not hold up in court.

Farrah Abraham may not realize that she is a sextrafficking victim. The Los Angeles porn industry performer contracts are unlawful, not legal, unenforceable and WILL NOT hold up in court.

Click here to visit www.PornInTheValley.com and learn about the legalities of pornographic industry contracts in the United States, and why the contracts are UNLAWFUL (written by Brian Chase of the Aids Healthcare Foundation).

D. Defenses to Negligence Claims

1. Liability waivers

Performers are frequently required to execute waivers of any claim for liability due to on-set transmission of STIs. (54) It is, however, unlikely that these contractual provisions are enforceable. (55) In California, a contract must have a “lawful object” and if it does not, it is void and unenforceable. (56) For purposes of determining if a contractual objective is lawful or unlawful, “unlawful” is defined as “(1) [c]ontrary to an express provision of law; (2) [c]ontrary to the policy of express law, though not expressly prohibited; or, (3) [o]therwise contrary to good morals.” (57) Although there is no case law on point, it is reasonable to speculate that courts would hold that a general waiver of liability for STI transmission stemming from workplace sexual intercourse without condoms violates “the policy of express law” as reflected in regulations requiring barrier protection for employees who might be exposed to blood or “other potentially infectious materials.” (58) Although the definition of “good morals” is clearly subjective, a strong argument can be made that requiring a person to assume the risk of contracting an ST1 during the course of his or her employment falls outside the legal bounds of contracts in California.

2. Workers’ Compensation Exclusivity

The workers’ compensation exclusivity doctrine generally protects employers from negligence and other tort claims brought by employees. (59) The doctrine is particularly broad in California. (60) Producers of adult films have, however, repeatedly and publicly asserted that adult film performers are independent contractors, rather than employees. (61) If performers in adult films are independent contractors, as performers and producers claim, then producers could be held liable for STIs caused by their negligent failure to provide performers with condoms or to take other reasonable steps to prevent the spread of disease. (62) The producers of adult films are, however, incorrect in their assertion that performers are not employees.

California employs an “economic realities” test, first articulated in Rutherford Food Co. v. McComb, to determine whether a person is an employee or a contractor. (63) Under the economic realities test, courts analyze employment status based on whether the putative employee has control over how the work is performed. Although some adult film directors and producers might take a fairly hands-off approach, it is difficult to imagine how one could argue that people performing sexual acts at the direction of a third party are not under that third party’s control. Statutory law in California also supports the conclusion that performers are employees. For purposes of workers’ compensation, independent contractors must “render service for a specified recompense for a specified result, under the control of his principal as to the result of his work only and not as to the means by which such result is accomplished.” (64) It would be very difficult to shoehorn adult film performers into that definition, as the producers and directors of films generally control “the means” by which an adult film is created. Employees, on the other hand, are defined broadly as “every person in the service of an employer under any appointment or contract of hire or apprenticeship, express or implied, oral or written, whether lawfully or unlawfully employed.” (65) As performers are employees, at least in California, the odds of performers successfully bringing negligence claims against producers appear slim. (66)

E. Misclassification of Employees as Independent Contractors

In the effort to avoid workplace safety regulations by classifying adult film performers as independent contractors, the producers of adult films may have inadvertently opened an entirely new avenue of liability. Although the deliberate misclassification of employees as independent contractors is unlikely to shield employers from workplace safety rules, it can expose employers to significant liability under a measure recently signed into law in California.

California Senate Bill 459 (SB 459) significantly increases the penalties for employers who willfully misclassify employees as independent contractors. (67) Civil penalties range from $5,000 to $25,000 per violation. Because the penalties in question are authorized under the Labor Code, they can be bundled by misclassified employees in a single action under PAGA.

Furthermore, SB 459 provides that any person “who, for money or other valuable consideration, knowingly advises an employer to treat an individual as an independent contractor to avoid employee status for that individual shall be jointly and severally liable with the employer if the individual is found not to be an independent contractor.” (68) Talent agents, industry groups, or others who encourage or facilitate adult film producers’ misclassification of performers as independent contractors could face very significant liability.

SB 459 also prohibits charging misclassified independent contractors fees or deductions from compensation, if those fees and deductions would not be permissible to charge an employee. The adult film industry requires performers to pay for their own STI tests. (69) That practice is unlawful, at least in California. California Labor Code section 222.5 provides:

   No person shall withhold or deduct from the compensation of any
   employee, or require any prospective employee or applicant for
   employment to pay, any fee for, or cost of, any pre-employment
   medical or physical examination taken as a condition of employment,
   nor shall any person withhold or deduct from the compensation of
   any employee, or require any employee to pay any fee for, or costs
   of, medical or physical examinations required by any law or
   regulation of federal, state or local governments or agencies
   thereof. (70)

The law is clear on its face. Performers cannot be required to pay for STI testing as a condition of employment, but the industry has acted in violation of this law for years. The combination of PAGA and SB 459 significantly increases the likelihood that adult film producers will eventually face lawsuits stemming from violations of workplace health and safety laws.

Tags : , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

About

pshaadmin

%d bloggers like this: