NL-More porn regulations sought by Aids Heathcare Foundation
LA City Council Unanimously Approves Legal Study on Tying Porn Film Permits to Condom Use
Motion by Councilmember Bill Rosendahl Gives L.A. City Attorney 45 Days to Report Back Regarding Feasibility of Conditioning Porn Film Permits on Condom Use
LOS ANGELES—-On Friday, the Los Angles City Council voted unanimously on a motion to instruct the City Attorney to explore the feasibility of conditioning the issuance of film permits granted under City authority to the use of condoms in adult film productions. The motion, introduced by Councilmember Bill Rosendahl at a Council meeting in mid-December, now directs the city Attorney to, “…report back within 45 days to explain the mechanisms necessary to enable the City’s film permit process to require workplace safety in the production of all adult films.” When introduced in December, Rosendahl’s motion was seconded by Councilmembers Ed P. Reyes, Eric Garcetti and Paul Koretz. The motion then went to committee and was placed on the agenda for Friday’s full City Council meeting.
“…report back within 45 days to explain the mechanisms necessary to enable the City’s film permit process to require workplace safety in the production of all adult films.”
“We commend Councilmember Rosendahl and the entire City Council for their unanimous vote in favor of this legal study to explore making adult film permits conditional on the use of condoms in adult films,” said Michael Weinstein, President of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. “Under existing California law, condoms are already required in the production of adult films, yet the industry remains convinced it is above the law. This City Council action is a step toward better enforcement and oversight to safeguard the health and safety of adult film workers. Tying condom use to adult-film production permits is absolutely the responsible thing to do, protecting adult film industry performers who—under the current system of testing—are routinely asked to risk their lives and health in order to continue working.”
Rosendahl’s introduction of the motion in December came on the heels of explosive news that L.A. health officials closed the Adult Industry Medical Healthcare Foundation (AIM)—a Sherman Oaks clinic funded by and serving the adult film industry—after California state officials denied AIM a community clinic license. AHF had called for County health officials to shut down the clinic after Derrick Burts, a 24 year-old adult film performer who tested HIV-positive on October 9th spoke out in December regarding the ill-treatment he received by AIM.
The Rosendahl motion (full text below) concludes: “The producers of adult films are required by California Code of Regulations Title 8, Section 5903 et seq. to employ barrier protection, including without limitation condoms, to shield performers from contact with potentially infectious material during the production of adult films.
I THEREFORE MOVE that the City Council request the City Attorney to report back within 45 days to explain the mechanisms necessary to enable the City’s film permit process to require workplace safety in the production of all adult films.”
Here is the full text of Councilmember Rosendahl’s motion:
The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health has documented widespread transmission of sexually transmitted diseases associated with the activities of the adult film industry within the City of Los Angeles.
The producers of all films within the City of Los Angeles, including adult films, are required to obtain permits issued by the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) and administered by FilmL.A., Inc. under certain contracts between FilmL.A., Inc. and the City of Los Angeles. Such permits for film production within the City of Los Angeles may include conditions to protect public safety and health.
The producers of adult films are required by California Code of Regulations Title 8, Section 5903 et seq. to employ barrier protection, including without limitation condoms, to shield performers from contact with potentially infectious material during the production of adult films.
I THEREFORE MOVE that the City Council request the City Attorney to report back within 45 days to explain the mechanisms necessary to enable the City’s film permit process to require workplace safety in the production of all adult films.
Where’s the money Weinstein? Mandatory condom use? Does that mean one condom worn per movie, would that suffice? Or if you blew up a condom and hung within the shot would that count smart guy? What if the business gave such and such amount of money to AHF, would you guys get off porn’s back. I smell extortion.
There’s a huge difference between a unanimous vote to study the issue versus a unanimous vote to force the issue.
The LA Council should take as long to come to a decision as AIDS drug pushing organizations are taking to find a cure for AIDS. We should have sub-committees to study the committees and sub-sub-comittees to study the sub-committies. FSC should sent a “big tittie committee” to lend their voice to the issue.
Just Shoot elsewhere and Don’t tell anyone?? Shoot over in another city I.E. Culver City, Santa Monica, or over in another County. Fuck em’
Well…they can review all they can, but I thought that most porn shoots were done in the San Fernando Valley, which is beyond even the LA City Council’s jurisdiction. Plus, I’m sure that the lawsuits would immediately commence if they actually attempted to enforce this.
Just more of that classic Weinstein/AHF/local LA politico grandstanding and fundraising.
Anthony
@anthony
The San Fernando Valley is completely within the “City” limits of los angeles. There is a small town called San Fernando in the northern tip of the valley that is a seperate city, but otherwise the ‘Valley” is a part of the City of Los Angeles. A few years ago there was a proposal for the Valley to cecede from the City of L.A. but it was not successful.
Of course a five minute drive up the 118 freeway puts you in Simi Valley, which is in the county of Ventura.
Correct, Joe. Another simple solution is to shoot at one of the many studios in the county which are exempt from permitting. They are generally more costly than renting a private location within the county, but if you stack/piggy-back shoots it can be more cost-effective. Also, because of the economy, folks are more wiling to cut deals, especially for cash.
I just looked this up, and it was something I had not been aware of. But yes, Chatsworth and Van Nuys indeed are part of the City of LA. So LA City regulations are in effect there.
And, unfortunately, it looks like the legislation is calling for the same vague “barrier if there’s sexual contact” rule, which means not only condoms are imposed, but gloves, dental dams, etc.
That’s right, I am Curious Blue. Logically, their “bloodborn pathogens” argument would mean full body condoms like Lt. Drebin and Priscilla Presley wore in “The Naked Gun”.
Btw, I happen to have that formally banned Swedish “I am Curious blue/yellow” collection from 67/68 that your penname is based on.
IF anybodyhere ever actually took the time to read the proposed regulation changes made by AHF you would see that they actuall explicitly eliminate the dental dams, goggles, and rubber gloves from ‘adult film industry’ specific exposure. The REAL AHF proposal is actually much LESS restrictive than the current standards, but hey, who wants to report the truth when spouting off garbage like dental dam and goggle regulations make such better headlines.
Of course Mark Kernes mentions dental dams and goggles every time he writes about this issue, despite the fact that he knows full well that the AHF proposal eliminates them, not mandate them.
Of course this only reinforces the fact that it is the truth that the industry is most afraid of, not the proposed regulations.
@Michael, have you ever actually read the proposed AHF regulations? Just wondering?
Yes, I have read it, Joe. But AHF doesn’t promulgate regulations. AHF is not OSHA, and all of the proposals and briefs I’ve seen with OSHA’s name on it include those things, INCLUDING the OSHA presentation which was included in (though not presented live at) the UCLA School of Law “Condoms In The Adult Film Industry” panel that I — and you? — attended in November 2010.
Weinstein knows that to propose a regime so ridiculous, porn studios would surely flee, and then AHF, and the other condom peddlers and salesmen for big pharma, would lose the best advertising that money didn’t have to buy in order to maintain HIV/AIDS hysteria — condoms included in every porn movie.
They want to use adult films as a marketing campaign for their agenda. On this point Jeremy and Clark Baker are 100% correct. If the regs are too strenuous, however, AHF’s plan fails because movies which would comport themselves to OSGA’s standard would never be made.
And to add to Michael’s points….it’s not only CalOSHA who is calling for such extreme forms of “protection” as PPE’s and goggles and dental dams; it’s also the local LA County Health Services officials who would directly impose such regulations on the industry via the denial of permits to shoot porn scenes.
Of course, AHF isn’t quite willing to go that far, because their agenda is mostly to take over the testing regimen for the industry (replacing AIM/AAC) and allowing only those companies going exclusively condom-only to collude with condom companies and government/NGO grant funders to “improve” the industry. If that means a temporary alliance with the likes of Shelley Lubben to get the gravy train of cash flowing, then so be it, I guess.
Anthony
And…thanks for the clarification on the political jurisdiction of “Porn Valley”…though I wouldn’t be too surprised if there hasn’t been or will be in the future an attempt to detach the San Fernando Valley cities from LA and incorporate on their own.
Anthony
When is the Kiss porn video going to be out?? When are u going to shoot that Jeff??