Yesterday, a Mark Kernes posted a article on AVN reporting what happened on the Shy Love/Derek Hay meeting at Hustler Studios.

http://business.avn.com/articles/legal/Contentious-Talent-Meeting-Adds-to-Confusion-About-Testing-482088.html

A few hours later, that article was replaced with a new one (old url, now redirects to this one ):

http://business.avn.com/articles/legal/Talent-Agents-Meet-to-Discuss-HIV-STD-Testing-Facilities-482088.html

Almost like someone complained to AVN so a few things were excluded from the reprint. These are the most glaring:

The meeting was called by talent agent and former performer Shy Love, and a sizable portion of the talent attending were her clients … so it’s not too surprising that, near the end of the discussion (…) she then proceeded to ask those present to vote on the question, “Does everyone want freedom to choose which labs they want and not to be forced into a monopoly, raise your hand,” most hands in the room went up.

Pacheco also stated that his office does not advise any agent of any positive result—a statement that was challenged by one of the CET staffers, who stated that one of the agents had told her that TTS had called Shy Love to tell her that there was a positive on a Brazzers set, and accused Love of having offered her $1.000 for a test result. After a bit of shouting back and forth, during which Love accused the staffer of lying, Love responded that the only reason she’d found out that “a kid” was positive was because one of her ATMLA staff had brought the victim into the business, and when the performer found out his positive HIV status, he called the agent as a friend, looking for advice.

Of course this may be nothing..lol We all know AVN would never bow down to agent pressure.

reprint

original

We asked if the article was changed because of Shy Love and were told no. But when we pressed for a reason no one could give us one. You can read what was pulled and come to 2 conclusions. Either Shy Love put pressure on AVN or someone decided the article needed a more positive direction so it was redone.

It would also appear there is an allegation of a HIPPA violation in the second paragraph