Thanks MW
read whole story at Huffpo.com
LOS ANGELES — An ordinance that would require porn actors to wear condoms during film shoots was tentatively approved by the City Council on Tuesday.
The council voted 11-1 for the proposal. The ordinance still requires a second vote next week for final approval.
Under the ordinance, porn producers would have to provide and require the use of condoms on set in order to obtain permits to film in the nation’s second-largest city.
Approval of the ordinance would supersede a proposed ballot initiative by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. The group has long advocated for mandatory condom use in adult films and urged council members to approve the ordinance.
"This long struggle to move us to a place of making Los Angeles a safe place to make adult films has taken a huge leap forward today," said foundation President Michael Weinstein, referring to advocacy work and legal attempts to create a mandate for condoms in porn and to enforce it.
The Free Speech Coalition, the porn industry’s trade association, issued a statement criticizing the vote and the incursion of government into sex films.
"Government regulation of filmmaking would likely undermine existing health and safety efforts and industry standards that are effective as well as take the government into dangerous new territory," said Diane Duke, coalition executive director.
Duke said the porn industry has a low rate of sexually transmitted disease and there has been no transmission of HIV in the industry in five years.
The City is essentially passing the buck for the avalanche of legal actions it knows are coming. That’s one of the reasons why the LA City attorney cut this deal.
The deal? As the LA Daily News reported today, “[City Attorney] Trutanich agreed to end the lawsuit, but said he wanted a working group of city officials and activists to tweak the measure before it takes effect.”
The other reason the city chose this process is it gives political cover to the City Council. When the law gets struck down they will be able to say, “Well, we tried! We support the fight against AIDS!” while at the same time the city was spared the cost of placing the initiative on the ballot.
So, they’ve all essentially kicked the can down the road a little bit — to the courts, where it’s been obvious to anyone with half a brain that this fiasco was always headed.
Now instead of the taxpayer-funded City fighting AHF, they’ll have the adult industry paying to sue everyone to get is back where we were in the first place.
Incidentally, with regard to HIV outbreaks, Ms. Duke’s actual quote was “more than five years,” which is correct.
I like the comment “This long struggle to move us to a place of making Los Angeles a safe place to make adult films has taken a huge leap forward today”.
I really believe this will kill the adult film industry in Los Angeles if it goes thru.
It may kill film production in Los Angeles. On the other hand, it’s difficult to imagine other communities or states courting the porn industry, period. Less so with the economic development message of Come to our state. We’re a condom free zone any more than you can imagine a state saying: Build your high rise here. We don’t require steel-toed boots, hard hats or harnesses or Build your hospital here. No need to sterilize in our operating rooms. If anything, its likely to lead other communities to follow suit – remember that Los Angeles is a much more liberal community than Arizona or Florida where the legislatures are decided conservative Republicans who would outlaw porn if they could.
I bet you more porn will be made in FLA. Bangbros and a few other companies already film there.
Any notion that the courts would strike this down is blind optimism at best. That wont happen and the truth is shooting in FL isnt going to happen either, companies can barely pay their bills as it is you really think they will fly everyone to FL to shoot? and you can bet FL would adopt the same rules if they did.
Two things can happen here
one is porners will just ignore it….how many so called gonzo companies are getting permits anyway?
the other is everyone goes to condoms, which logically IS the safest route but ideas than DP, Vivid, Manwin etc are going to pick up and move lock stock and barrel to FL, NV, NH or elsewhere are retarded.
If you like high end productions like Vivid, DP etc you best get used to condom porn.
Mike is half right: most porners will ignore it, but I believe it will indeed be struck down because it runs afoul of the very libertarian ideals that Mike claims to hold do dear.
If anyone doubts the first amendment ramifications of these laws, regs and ordinances, then just take the word of AHF’s own counsel:
In a treasure-trove of AHF emails leaked today here:
http://pastebin.com/V5WpZUmp
We learn that AHF’s Brian Chase wrote (in the run-up to AHF’s ballot initiative):
“We may want to avoid saying that one of the reasons we are supporting the ballot initiative is because we believe that condom-less porn sends any sort of message (that only safe sex is hot, or that condoms are unsexy).
“As a private actor AHF can argue generally that lack of safety practices in adult films sends a bad message about sex.
“But as proponents of a ballot initiative, anything we say can be used to determine the ‘intent’ behind the initiative. A law whose ‘intent’ is to require film producers to ‘send a message’ about safer sex could violate the First Amendment.”
Of course, AHF has been saying exactly that all along — but they think that if they suddenly stop saying it, then it somehow becomes no longer true.
Sure go ahead and put condoms in LA porn. Won’t bother me none. High end porn, get used to it? HA! 5 words for you why LA can fucking die and it won’t bother my fapping one bit: High Definition European Teen Anal.
For those that aren’t connoisseurs, there is enough quality, condomless porn available for free all over the net that they won’t notice the difference.
Then you can also figure in the POV website producers that are laying around the net like dirt, and you realize that Cali porn is truly a dinosaur.
In addition, December 21 half of California is going to slide off into the Pacific during the earthquakes caused by the doomsday pole shift, so fuck them and their laws. I got my fingers crossed for that to happen, because it seems the only way we will get that Pelosi twat off the national stage is by removing her district from our continent. Cryot keeper looking bitch.
Hey Libertarian or not I am a realist and only the most politically inept would see this being struck down.
I can see the slugline now….Porn org sues for performers rights to contract STDs on set….get real yall
just damn
You used that line already, Mike. It was ridiculous and insulting the first time.
Considering the fact that AHF has lost EVERY SINGLE COURT CASE it has brought in its war on porn thus far, once again I think you’re talking out of your ass.
But we shall see.
And, an extra point for you — you did not disappoint, with your standard “If you don’t agree with me you’re a moron / inept ” line of “argument.” Bravo.
Michael, if you’ve ever seen a list of OSHA regulations, you’d know that they weren’t written by libertarians or their right wing counterparts. I’ve worked in hospitals, office buildings, and an assortment of other places where job-site specific reg books were on hand (it’s another regulation) to go into great detail about how many minutia must be accommodated. This included cleaning supplies as mundane as window cleaner (apparently, you are not supposed to drink it, spray it in your eyes, or otherwise apply it to oneself), exact dimensions required for railings (1″ too low and you will be forced to replace them no matter what the cost), and in locations requiring stages, lighting, or other potential dangers; you must prepare for them and warn all those around them.
In short, over the years the courts have concurred with such regulations in a fashion that states employee safety trumps employee expression. The positive side of this attack on porn (driving up the costs while profits are down) is that I doubt many will follow the law and I don’t think there is enough political will to demand aggressive enforcement. I just get the impression that whatever handful of companies move or farm out more work to other locations (which has already happened given the push to use foreign shot scenes by many companies), most in the LA area will just ignore the law as an inconvenience like they do most other regulations.
The difference, Don, is that a hospital, or an office building, does not involve the same level of constitutionally protected activity as engaging in speech in a free society. There’s no constitutional right to draw blood, or to work at a mill, or to clean (or install) windows. Free speech is a right — the right to send the message YOU want to send, means not having to settle for sending the message the government permits you to send, or which it tailors or restricts in advance.
However you may well be correct about the lack of will for law enforcement — the email containing the minutes of a meeting between Weinstein, Eric Garcetti of the LA City Council, LAPD, Film LA and others seems to bear that out.
Michael, I agree that there are Constitutional issues, I just haven’t seen them bear as much fruit in court or regulatory cases as I would like. I’ve lived in states on opposite ends of the political spectrum and saw how little difference it made to those wanting a “nanny state”, just for different reasons.
In perspective though, aside from the occasional visit related to grumpy neighbors complaining about unrelated things, how often have police/health inspectors come to most sets over the years? This will just cost the city permit revenue if they get too ambitious but from what I gather, their initial stance was wishing it would just go away. Without a means to tie a specific permit to a specific shoot, it’ll likely be the latest paper regulation few pay attention too directly, the likelihood of unintended consequences kicking in soon enough (insurance, etc).
No one will ever shut down porn production. It was a renegade industry once, and it can be again. The only difference is, there will be blood on the hands of the AIDS profiteers, “Christian” con artists, and busybody social engineers who willingly wrecked a working system in order to prove that no working system existed.
Mike is right. This is not a freedom of expression issue. It’s a public health and workplace safety issue. Hollywood does have the right under the first amendment to ask a stuntperson to perform stunt that could lead to permanent injury or death without safety measures in place to fulfill a director’s artistic vision. There is no other business where an employer can expose an employee to bodily fluids that could lead to disease like urine, feces (think A2M), blood, semen or some other excretion (someday we’ll answer the question: what really is squirting). When it gets to the courts, those won’t be libertarian versus right wing issues. They’ll be workplace safety and public health issues.
Well, bobt03, you just disproved your own argument. You explained precisely why the freedom expression argument can and should win the day: as you acknowledge, there is standing precedent for such variances or exceptions being granted to workplace safety rules governing film production. As director Eli Cross explained at the OSHA meeting in June,
“There’s one element that I think needs to be added into this discussion, which is that CalOSHA has chosen to approach adult performers as though they are actors, and that’s simply not the case,” said Cross. “The better corollary is to stunt people or to professional athletes, which are people who have chosen to potentially risk their bodies and their health for no more noble purpose than the entertainment of others. I was a professional stuntman for three years, and I will tell you for a fact that you are allowed to wear protective equipment subject to the requirements of the project you are working on. Most stunt people get hurt through very simple gags [such as] fist-fights, often with actors who are not trained. I got hit in the face and had stitches for a fist-fight. I would not have been allowed to do that job wearing a mask because it was subject to the requirements of the shot. I fell down many sets of stairs. I would be wearing elbow pads, knee pads, but what I really needed was a helmet, the one thing I would never be allowed to wear because it would have wrecked the shot. Our industry depends on that shot. It really is that simple.”
The fact is, there are far more serious, permanent injuries and fatalities as a result of stunt work than there have ever been as a result of sex in the mainstream porn industry. Jeez, anyone who’s ever changed a diaper has come in contact with urine and feces.
Hey, listen, I’m not fazed by all of this. So what? The Industry might have to try condoms for a while but it won’t affect sales. People will still buy American porn. And eventually, like Michael predicts, an across the board condom mandate will prove itself a violation of the the 1st Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause.
Until then, I say condoms are okay.
There is somewhat of an analogous situation and industry model: Japan. Mosiac and unmosiac porn in Japan tend to have similar sales. Uncensored content tends to sell better but I don’t think by much. Anyone know? Houstondon?
Actually I know
Uncensored porn in Japan is risky business but as with anything someone will do it, and they do, usually intending it for distribution outside japan, but with the internet of course it gets out.
Contrary to what you read in the western press Japan is by far the largest producer of porn. They also make a LOT more money on it now than we do.
Finally your assumption is correct that mosaiced porn sells equally well, in truth it sells better if you look at it as a whole, most outlets in Japan will not sell un-mosaiced porn for fear of prosecution so that with a mosaic is more widely available and thus sells better.
Actually, didn’t disprove my arguement. Only proved that I’m an idiot when I don’t proof myself before hitting the submit button. What I meant to write is: Hollywood does not have the right to ask a stunt person to perform without safety precautions. To the contrary, film productions have been sued for dangerous sets. I’m not an advocate for condoms. Only pointing out that there is no constitutional protection for putting employees in a situation that risks their health when that risk can be mitigated. If this were litigated, any government agency can simply argue that this is a matter of employee safety and public health: an employee contracts a preventable STD on a porn set and then knowningly or knowingly infects his or her sexual partners off the set as a result. By the way, this is the same tactic that abortion foes take – you try to outlaw it. When that doesn’t work, you regulate it to death.
I disagree. The risk can and will only be mitigated to the extent that it does not ruin the shot. THAT is the standard in stunt work, and it should and must be the standard universally.
As for the she public health argument. it’s not sufficient to claim that it’s “possible” or “foreseeable” that a performer “might” infect someone off-set. You need data to support it — and all the data shows that LA County has done a HORRIBLE job of keeping the citizenry safe or even educated about STIs. Turning porn performers into the new Typhoid Marys is a sham, a trick, and an evasion of their duties as administrators of public health.
“Jeez, anyone who’s ever changed a diaper has come in contact with urine and feces.”
True – that’s in your own home, where the government can’t tell you how what precautions you should take when you change your baby’s diaper.
A porn set is a workplace. You can’t knowingly put the health of your employees or the public at risk of disease in the workplace.
@bobt03 – Unless the very job that everyone has shown up to do is precisely that.
Don’t you get it? — the job itself involves exposure.
If I go to work to make hamburgers, yes I should be protected from Cytherea squirting in my face. But if my job — the thing I voluntarily contracted to do — is to have Cytherea squirt in my face, volenti non fit injuria.
I am a free human being. I reserve the right to be contaminated if I choose. I reserve the right to make choices — even dangerous choices — of which you or someone else may not approve. I reserve the right to enter into a contract with other free human beings to do it. And i reserve and demand the right to be able to film it when I do, and sell out if you want to see, it.
This is my RIGHT.
Michael
While I would agree with your argument in principle, in this day and age, specially in California that argument aint gonna hold water, if it did you could make the argument that hard hats should be optional.
Even if you believe that hard hats should be optional what happens when you throw in contractors who will not hire you if you choose to wear a hard hat.
Porners really dont have a legal leg to stand on here realistically.
You add in that one of the most successful studios (arguably) is condom mandatory, that hurts the argument that it harms sales.
Now you could argue that it is similar to tight rope walkers electing to ply their trade without a net. The problem with that is that the tightrope walker doesnt place anyone else in immediate danger.
Our biggest problem is that nobody (that I know of) in porn valley is truly condom optional. I am and have been since day one if any participant chooses to use a condom they do, plain and simple. If the shooters in Porn Valley had the same policy our legal standing would improve somewhat, but not enough to significantly change things, that would require additional measures.
You may argue that AHF has lost every court battle BUT their objective was to legally tie condom use to the issuance of film permits and that is exactly what they did. Game. Set. Match.
1) There’s no constitutionally protected right to be a hard hat, Mike.
There is a constitutionally protected right to engage in free speech.
All creative works constitute free speech, even adult speech.
That’s the difference.
2) Film permits is the least effective way to get at pornographers: many don’t file for permits, and there are hundreds of sound stage/studio locations within the Los Angeles studio zone, at which filming does NOT require a film permit to be pulled.
3) linking condom use and inspections to film permitting is ridiculous and illegal. Paul Cambria explained this perfectly:
“[T]he authority of the permit department is simply an administrative function, and they’re certainly not authorized to implement so-called health regulations. Usually a permit department, like zoning and all the rest of it, is an administrative task. In other words, it’s got requirements A-B-C, and if you comply with A-B-C, you get your permit. But those requirements are germane to the function of that department, and the function of that department is to keep track of filming in Los Angeles and raise revenue from filming operations, but certainly has nothing to do with alleged health concerns or anything that would infringe on an adult’s right to have sex with one another on film without a condom. So it seems to me it’s outside of the legal authority of the permit department. And that’s aside from the other First Amendment issues we have discussed, like the erotic message of the work and all the rest of it.
“It seems to me it’s beyond the authority of the permit department, and you couldn’t tack on that kind of a requirement to that department. That seems to me to be something that would be wholly and solely under the Department of Health. I mean, it would be like if, in order for the power company to supply electricity to a shoot, you had a regulation saying that in order to use that electricity, you had to have condoms. To me, it’s the same thing; it’s foreign to the function of that department.”
We could argue this ad infinitum but time will bear out who is right here….ideologically I would agree with you but ideologically speaking both G W Bush and Barack Obama should be hung for treason for signing The Patriot Act and NDAA respectively.
But I aint holding my breath til it happens.
Once again, Mike, we are on the same page.
Here’s the importance of the permit department. It isn’t that the permit department will enforce condom use. A permit is a record that an event took place. Someone in authority signs for the permit. So is 2257 compliance statement. It gives the name of a person in charge. A condom-less video is evidence that the event took place. If the health department decides to put resources into this it spends $30 a month to get a membership to Naughty America or Brazzers and has someone watch new posts each morning. If they’re condomless, you pull the shooting permit to find out where it took place, when it took place, and who was in charge. Or you pull the 2257 compliance statement. They’re public records. That’s the value of permits.
Thanks or your comment.
bobt03: welcome back Joe. It’s been a awhile…
Yes, but WHICH Joe, origen? Hahaha.
There’s a lot more to this story…
@bobt03 (and friends) — I hope you’re ready for a bumpy ride.
Hold onto your hats, boys.
I won’t not disparage Joe too much. He’s a great conversation starter and he basically gives away the AHF playbook on LIB. He plays both sides. I think he’s quite useful in terms of insight on this issue and I don’t mind his ramblings at all. Actually, I kind of missed him…
Not just the AHF playbook, origen — another playbook too.
I ask you again — WHICH Joe?
I dunno Michael. I dunno.
I do, origen. I do.