Quote:
Originally Posted by Writercindi
guys besides this story, there is one saying that AIM is not cooperation with the Cali health department, and the reason AIM is giving for not posting names is that they got sued during the last HIV crisis in 2004. I just got word that the lawsuit was brought by Darren James and he recieved a 6 figure settlement. Please comment on what you think. Full stories are at the of my postings on Lukeisback.com
|
Interesting read...thanks for sharing.
I guess I missed the memo where AIM informed people in the industry that they had to pay out a low six-figure amount to Darren James for publicly posting that he was HIV Positive, as the article you cited seemed to indicate.
Neither do I recall any change in policy memo from AIM stating that they would not be publishing the names of the other people that subsequently tested HIV Positive, in order to presumably protect themselves from possible lawsuits, even if this meant keeping the rest of the industry in the dark.
If AIM's chronology is correct in the most recent case, and they did not falsely indicate that the most recent HIV person was clear (as has been alleged), then this recent case is proof that some in the industry are susceptible to inadvertently working with performers that may in fact be HIV Positive.
Instead of lobbying for mandatory condoms, shouldn't AIM be lobbying to allow themselves to protect the industry by being permitted to have performers waive their right to privacy if they contract HIV, and publicly announce the name of the HIV Positive performer, if the performer could potentially expose/infect other industry people to the virus prior to notification getting out (especially since it appears that not everyone checks in with AIM each and every time)?
ADG