E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSA major adult filmmaker sued to block a new Los Angeles County law requiring porn actors to wear condoms, calling it a threat to free expression.
Vivid Entertainment contends that Measure B, passed by county voters last fall, violates the First Amendment right to free speech and expression and is unnecessary because the adult industry already has safeguards, such as regular blood testing of actors, to prevent the spread of AIDS and other venereal diseases.
The suit, filed Thursday in federal court, also contends that the law is vague, burdensome and ineffective and is pre-empted by California laws and regulations. It asks the court to block the measure's enforcement and to rule it unconstitutional.
County counsel declined comment Friday, saying they had just begun a review of the case.
The measure requires adult film producers to apply for a permit from the county Department of Public Health to shoot sex scenes. Permit fees will finance periodic inspections of film sets to enforce compliance.
However, public health authorities have not announced specific enforcement measures for the law.
The AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which sponsored the initiative, said the measure will help safeguard the public, as well as porn workers, from sexually transmitted infections.
Adult film actors rallied to oppose the law before its November passage.
"The idea of allowing a government employee to come and examine our genitalia while we're on set is atrocious," sex film star Amber Lynn told the Los Angeles Daily News at the time.
Industry critics also said that fans don't want to see actors using condoms. They contend that if the law is enforced, the 200 or so companies that now produce adult films in Los Angeles, primarily in the San Fernando Valley, will simply move elsewhere, taking with them as many as 10,000 jobs.
"Overturning this law is something I feel very passionate about. I believe the industry's current testing system works well," Steven Hirsch, Vivid's founder and co-chairman, said in a statement. "Since 2004 over 300,000 explicit scenes have been filmed with zero HIV transmission. The new law makes no sense and it imposes a government licensing regime on making films that are protected by the Constitution."
The law also will have "have vast unintended consequences which may undermine industry efforts to protect the health of our actors and actresses," Hirsch said.
Califa Productions, which produces adult films for Vivid, and actors who uses the stage names Kayden Kross and Logan Pierce, joined the suit, which names the county, its district attorney and public health director.
The Associated Press
Leave a Comment:
Federal court .... where the rubber meets the road.
I understand the intent, but intrusive laws can always be justified as noble. I just don't see how a law that would require anyone to wear a condom, or any other law regulating sexual contact between consenting adults, would be constitutional. Regardless if there's a camera around.
Extending this same noble cause, a law could require everyone to wear a condom unless intentionally attempting to conceive. A ridiculous assertion, but shows that all attempts to regulate personal behavior can be justified in theory.
This is not to regulate private activity in the bedroom, Rich, this is to regulate workplace conditions for real people who really do this for a living and must do what their bosses say.
This is about regulating employers who direct people how to have sex, not private people having sex, even if they are recording it for themselves.
So you're not aware that at the time the Constitution was written, it was understood that the only legal "consenting adults" were those who were married?
Was Obama wearing a condom when he raised our taxes?
Hey now, Obamas father should have been wearing a condom too! And by his own (O's) standards, maybe his mother should have looked into an abortion, could have saved the world a LOT of headaches herself.
Tompca,
Can they legislate that all office workers must wear those facemasks at all times to prevent the spread of colds?
Can they legislate that people have to wear rubber gloves when they handle their money?
What makes the porn industry special? Because the diseases are transmitted sexually?
Haditwithbspolitics is all about Bull_hit Politics.
Porn, the scum of society. Women should refuse to participate. The whole depraved industry should be shut down.
I hope they all get AIDS and die.
Kids got easy acccess to this smut on the Net,before it was VHS and there was some control or shame factor.
doNT USE CONDOMS,AND SPREAD THEPLAGUE.
sunil What a great american you are. You want other Americans to die. That speaks bunches about you!
@Mozzie - Porn is the scum of society? Nah, Westboro and the Klan are the scum of society. Telling people what to do with our bodies? Absurd!
@Sunil - You know exactly why they have easy access to it? It's because parents aren't doing their job of, y'know, ACTUALLY BEING RESPONSIBLE PARENTS!
Parenting, known in America these days as RBO - Religiously Backed Overpopulation.
Sunil...you must be a really miserable f*ck to live with.
I do not see any way that this law will stand up to a constitutional challenge. There is no way that the government has any business dictating thing like this. On top of that, it is addressing a problem that does not exist. The porn industry already has safeguards in place with their performers having regular testing for HIV and other STDs and there is no indication that transmission of STDs has been an issue for the industry. If this is allowed to stand all it will do is drive the industry out of CA, probably over to NV, at the cost of thousands of jobs to the state. In addition to the performers, the industry employs people as film editors, camera people, marketing, production, etc. CA business regulations are already driving many companies to leave the state, this will just add one more industry that is driven out. I know that some people would say good riddance, but I doubt those employed in the industry would share the sentiment.
I am not into porn, but I think I agree with the industry that this is not constitutional. I heard on the radio where in places where they've tried this, the film makers leave and go elsewhere. Why? Because porn with condoms doesn't sell. Period. And lest you say, "Fine, let them go..." understand that this is a multi billion dollar industry in Calfornia that pumps a lot of money into the economy. Another example of government over reach.
...rubber meets the road.
That's the alley behind Rite Aid.
I don't know why they just don't move to Nevada and be done with the California idiots.
For those that think this is all about safety, that's bull. The incidence of STD's in the porn industry is lower than that of the general population. These idiots are attempting to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
Sorta sounds like Gun Control. Trying to solve a problem,'Assault Weapons',that doesn't exist.
I'm good with it as long as they force the same legislation on homosexuals, who spread infinitely more disease than the porn industry ever thought about spreading.
Y'all talk about constitutionality?
sh*t, the US Supreme Court just scolded Congress for overreaching their powers, yet said Obamacare is constititional...including the BS part about mandating every employer (regardless of their views on birth control or abortion) to provide services to employees in their benefits.
Porn stars are scum...still making money on the basis of nothing noble -- only sex. Modern/video prostitutes that have no other talent than converting atmospheric oxygen into carbon dioxide.
"... into carbon dioxide."... which enhances the forest and improves my life; therefore porn is great.
Hey Cali, beware of unintended consequences. Or do you even know what that means?
You have to remember that the employees paid premiums on their insurance. They are entitled to these benefits, regardless of the personal opinions of the employers.
The Condom, and its "forced" use is an unwarrantedly directed UNconstitutional abridgement (curtailment) of "the direct content" of the speech (expression, no pun intended).
Goodnight......Sleep tight
And pleasant dreams...to you
Here's a wish.....and a Prayer......that all your dreams...
come true
And now.....'til we meet again............
Adios'....oar-rev-wah......a-vee-der-zane! (Lawrence Welk Show)
GOODNIGHT IRENE!!!
I am a fiscally conservative republican, but, I am more moderate in my social leanings. I believe that this is an incredible overreach into the lives of American citizens. It sounds great to say, "If it would save just one life, wouldn't it be worth it!" The fact is that by mandating condoms in California the makers will just move to another state without the same law. This will take more tax money from the state coffers and put more of a strain on the state budget. It may seem like a small dent, but, remember how you eat an elephant, "one bite at a time". By the liberals finding small ways to damage themselves they are giving themselves a "death of a thousand cuts"!
There has been a flood of companies leaving California because of the burdensome taxes and regulations that have been created because they either "feel good" or they make the government more revenue (usually until the companies leave for other, less "taxing" states). California has been committing virtual suicide over the last 50 years by allowing the liberals to run rampant over the state. I will guarantee that the state will be asking for a huge federal bailout in the next 4 years.
Gosh, this is a public health issue, isn't it? Some of the posts to this thread surprise me a bit (and not much that I read on Newsvine surprises me anymore).
Do I correctly understand the argument you folks are making is that you are defending the rights of people working in the sex industry, making pornography, to spread HIV Aids? Is that your argument? Really?
That's an example of "freedom of speech" and "freedom of expression" that I don't want to spend intellectual capital defending. But that's just me. Sometimes common sense is enough for me, but apparently not for some of you.
Just end it all. Can't believe i just said that, but I for one don't care for it and I don't really understand why people want to even watch it in the first place.
first its gun control ,now its "cum control" enough with big brother gov't
Mark
Ya I don't know Repugs like to say you can't wear a condom with your wife....That and Catholicism.....I am one of the biggest liberals in the whole world....and I just think this law is ridiculous and seems like a waste of everyone's time.....A bit much....
Maybe one of the building inspectors (now sex scene inspector too) wanted to meet a porn star.....LOLZ
This law would make sense if condoms were actually effective at preventing STDs. , , according to the CDC, they are not very effective at all.
You're absolutely wrong. The CDC says condoms are highly effective. Per their own website:
Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing the sexual transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Laboratory studies have demonstrated that latex condoms provide an essentially impermeable barrier to particles the size of STD pathogens.
You need to retract your statement.
I'm partial to bare-back myself. I have been very lucky. I've had sex with over a hundred women, and at some point, had unprotected sex with every one of them. Years after my wild days, I got tested for everything and anything VD and came up clean. Whew ! Since then, I have married, and have never strayed since. I must have a guardian angel of sex. One thing I am proud of; I never once woke up next to an ugly girl.
Yo Bill, don't you mean RODE? YEEE HAAAA SADDLE UP ! Holy sheep skin!!!!! So the Packers lost!! Oh well.
Sorry Mozzie you are wrong. Keep reading the rest of the page. A condom is essentially an impermeable barrier, but for one, as the site goes on to say, several STDs are spread by skin to skin contact outside of the condom region, even when there are no apparent sores or symptoms (herpes, syphilis). For two, look at the actual studies, they show condoms are only 40%-60% effective at preventing several common STDs, which are not skin to skin contact. These would not be good odds for a porn actor who is having sex many times a day, from a medical perspective I personally feel they are safer and better off with their current system of testing, which as the article says, has proven to be fairly effective.
And mozzi, YOU have to remember that if b.c. coverage is not included in the insurance policy, employees are NOT paying premiums for it. You pay for the coverage that is IN a policy, not what ISN'T.
#1.37 Ally Brown, your statement: "according to the CDC, they are not very effective at all."
"At all" is what you said, which would be 0% effective. Did you misspeak? I stand by my statements.
That's obvious. No need for patronization. I say that if Viagra is covered (which I wholly disagree with), birth control must be covered as well. It's discriminatory otherwise. After all, Viagra could be the REASON women need birth control.
mozzzie...I was just replying to what you said below. Patronizing? Just using the same language to open my comment as you used in your comment. Also, see no mention of Viagra in your comment below. Which is what I was replying to.
Congrats to California for being the porn capital of America.
Arnold was not wearing a condom when he nailed the maid. : )
So don't do as the govt does just do as they demand and tax? Typical
Best thing about CA.
The industry would just to move to Vegas, or somewhere else. More jobs lost in CA.
@Rockyroad - But that wasn't a professional shoot. Arnold hadn't signed with any big name label or gone through proper testing protocol. In fact, I doubt there's even a tape of that @!$%# anywhere.
It just goes to show how much the old hagbags of the govt want to rule you with an iron fist, as they deem legitimately decreed by whatever deity they worship (I worship a different god than they do).
One thing you all seem to forget.....this law was VOTED THROUGH BY THE PEOPLE (VOTERS) at an election. Dumb though it is, it was VOTED into law.
So was Proposition 8... What is your point grouchy ;)
Herald9, there may be more porn going on in California, but, there is a lot more screwing going on in D.C.! And we are all the recipients!
Another stupid law made by a stupid government.
Another stupid comment by a stupid commenter.
Obama voters get so excited thinking about my johnson then?
Eeeeeww!
Maybe the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche was right. He predicted that a time would come when Western societies would be unable to enforce their own laws.
Tompca - between the two comments, I see you as the stupid one.
Voted in by stupid VOTERS!
Whaaaaaat? Heaven forbid the California government wants to protect people from diseases and unwanted children.
I see what's more important Vivid Entertainment.
Did you read the whole article? They said they have shot over 300,000 explicit scenes with zero HIV transmissions. Also, unwanted children can be prevent with a myriad of other ways besides condoms. This law is junk, over-reaching, and completely useless. Much like most of the liberal laws out there.
because HIV is the only known std known to man
Jim Adams you will only confuse them with common sense and big words.
Jim,
And why do you call this law "liberal" ( because that's what your comment implies ) ?
Why don't you check in a dictionary the meaning of the word "liberal" ?
Why can they legislate what precautions the porn industry must take to prevent the spread of disease but not other industries?
I bet more people catch diseases from their office co-workers than porn stars catch from each other.
Scubasteve Wow that was the best answer on here about the subject. Wait the day will come for the full body condom. It will be the answer to it all.
Jim - over 300,000 scenes with no transmission of HIV? if you believe that then i have some ocean front property in kansas i'd like to sell you.
the reason they say there is no transmissions is because they simply do not report them. one actor who turned up positive a couple years ago said that when he told his film company they told him to leave town and never say he worked in the porn industry. it all gets swept under the rug. then there was the case of a french canadian girl who came to the US and caught HIV on her very FIRST porn shoot.
i do watch porn somewhat regularly. it does not make the video any less appealing to me if the actors are using condoms or not, nobody else cares either. the only ones who do seem to care are the porn studios who rake in cash hand over fist at the expense of many porn star's health and lives.
For every major Porn producer, there is some jackass working out of the back of his garage with a few ladies he's conned into making movies with him. A win win...gets all the sex he wants, and can make money at it too...Too bad we can't trust this joe blow to regulate himself as well as industry players do. With this law, he won't be able to sell his videos if he isn't wearing a condom, and if he can't sell them, he can't pay his women, and then he will be in BIG trouble. ;)
You ALL seem to forget this was VOTED into law by the PEOPLE!, not "forced" by the "government. Put the blame where it belongs.....the STUPID VOTERS!
"Measure B, passed by county voters last fall"
grouchee it doesn't matter if the people voted for it or not, if it is unconstitutional and it is so ruled then the law will, and should be, struck down. That is the governments responsibility, to protect the rights of the people. Even if your fellow citizens don't agree with them.
If I walk around town wearing a blue shirt and everyone in my town gets together and votes that I should wear a red shirt instead should I be forced to wear a red shirt because the majority of people in my town think I should? Just because people got together and voted on something doesn't automatically make it right.
I tend to agree with the rule of the majority more often than not, but not when the majority go against constitutionally protected rights.
In this case though, I am not sure if requiring the actors to wear a condom or not would necessarily be considered "free expression". They may be able to argue that pornography is a form of art and requiring the condoms is the government altering their art and thereby their right to expression. I guess that is what we have courts for.
since when has pregnacy been an issue in porn? Man, this country is full of fools.
Redwizard000....my man/woman, so far you are the only one w/ a really well thought out answer. good for you
If the state of California was really concerned about reducing the rates of STD's they would legalize prostitution, regulate it like in Nevada, and tax it like any other service! There have been either no, as far as I have heard, transmissions of HIV in the legal Nevada brothels. This would also drive the underaged sex trade further into the background because there would be even more severe punishments for this action and the police would be able to not prosecute legal transactions and go after the lower numbers of underaged prostitution.
This will not happen because the liberals are even more judgemental than the conservatives when it comes to violations of "their" beliefs! They believe that even "their" voters might be upset with actions that would legalize prostitution and the dems might find themselves out on their a$$es!
Dan M-1100664, why is every one of your Newsvine posts, regardless of the subject and content of the article, used by you merely for the purpose of bashing "liberals"?
Do you think this might suggest you have an unhealthy fixation?
Does that suggest you might have a problem, and if so do you think maybe you should do something about it?
Here's a clue: Just repeatedly making a complete fool of yourself with "liberal" bashing posts on Newsvine is not constructively addressing your problem.
they would be a lot less stupid liberals if only if they worn a condom before sex many years ago ,also they could have thrown away that liberal scum while it was still in the scumbag !
@groucheeoleman, "passed by county voters". Thanks for the correction. I need to put on my reading glasses.
I think the guy has a pretty inarguable point. The millions of scenes over the past 11 years haven't produced one single incident of HIV transmission.
So the government pretty much has no reasonable intentions on this one. I get that they want to make some extra money, but....we already pay taxes on stuff.
I wish I could go to california just to visit the courtroom and see Kayden Kross in a suit, in person - OMG !!! Talk about the classiest of all classy porn stars.
I'm sure that's a comforting statistic to John Holmes, Lisa de Leeuw,Paul Pellettiere, Tony Bravo,.......
Oh, wait. They are all dead porn stars ..... who died from AIDS and its complications
They were not required to get tested back then since AIDS was never on the radar. If you are going to list dead porn stars due to AIDS complications then please list them after the porn industry was required to test for venereal and AIDS some 15 or 20 years ago.
BTW: News flash…….. Sex is NOT the only way to get AIDS!!! Hello!!
Denver bill 2. . . Freddie Mercury, Liberace, Rock Hudson . . . to name a few more.
Oh, wait. They were not porn stars . . . Read the article again, idiot.
A lot of people died before the disease was better understood. For you to single out the porn industry shows how prejudiced an ignorant you are. What about the gay community? Do they police themselves and demand testing? I think not. Statistically speaking, the government has singled out the wrong group. Having sex with a porn actress is likely safer than picking up a skank in a bar.
Ahhh, name calling. The mark of a thoughtful, well reasoned and persuasive argument.
Since the article is specifically about the porn industry, I claim my examples are more appropriate than yours. I would suggest you read the article again, but I suspect you wouldn't comprehend any more than you did the first time.
Bill, no evidence they contacted the disease while performing their jobs. No need to make a spurious correlation in an attempt to lend credence to a position that has none. ike's point is strong irrefutable evidence. If there is another reason why you like to see government involvement in private affairs best make it or people might be lead to believe your support of this has more to do with another area of inadequacy or affront. The state has no business or authority to make this demand, in fact encroachments like this are always tried on fringe groups the gov. feels have less support. Before they roll similar practices like this out to larger groups. Gov. be it state or Federal is always the camel you can't allow to get its nose under the tent.
He was lying to wage his argument. There were AIDS cases, and they were not counted.
he was definately lying.
Lara Roxx- french canadian porn star became famous in 2004, caught HIV after her very first porn shoot in the US from actor Darren James. later it was confirmed that Jessica Dee and Miss Arroyo also tested positive for HIV after having worked with James.
there are many more that we never hear about because the porn industry would like to sweep this secret under the rug so they can keep making money.
dont believe me? google it.
one more comment.
let's be honest. 99% of the porn watchers are guys. and guys don't really care what the male genitalia looks like. in fact we try to avert our eyes from it as much as possible! so i'm not sure we really care that much at all .... now if they tried to put clothes on the women or cover up their hair or something, that might be a big problem....
You're looking at their hair?
They typically shave their hair.
What world do you live in? There's more than 1% of females who watch porn. This is 2013, not 1913.
only 1% of females watch porn? Wow... I must be really lucky (or unlucky depending on your point of view) All the girls I have ever gone out with have liked watching porn. They like to pretend that they don't but I know how to check browser cache :P
It is a common myth that women don't like sex as much as men do... I call BS. look for a girlfriend in places besides your local church...
You ever see some of the toys that women like to play with? There have some very creative things that they like to stick up there.
You're missing the point. women porn watchers are still a tiny % of men. and casually "checking it out" is nothing like the typical male habit, which is a serious and daily thing with subscriptions and $ changing hands.
And NewStart, I'm sorry - I've never seen a bald woman porn star -YUk! they usually have gorgeous hair, try RAchel Starr or kayden kross. :) :) :)
I wasn't talking about that hair.
Make Palin's brats use them instead.
John: Your dad should have used one to prevent BRAT John from wasting posting space too…...
I wonder why your post wasn't collasped or deleted? An earlier post said something about Obama's parents not having him and it got collapsed. You said something equally as mean and it's out there in full view. Like I have been saying for the last 25 years, it's okay to say what you want about white people, but not okay to say what you want about black people. Why is that?
It's more difficult to have a post collapsed or voted on if it's not in the top 3. This one is down the list so many people stop reading when they get to here. Not enough down votes to collapse.
pizza&wings This is about porn not race. Stick to the issue. I would rather talk porn than race. Porn is a issue that the left & the right both agree on, thats its fun to watch.
Smitty, It is also not about politics as you as much said so in your comment that both the right and left watch it yet you did not make any comment about Johns post targeting Palins children.
Dear Ike-1544036,
The male porn industry is also southern california based. Also, I seriously think you underestimate the number of women who love porn. If it was only guys, then not so many videos would sell. I personally would never buy any video male/female where rubbers are used. I would rather buy them from the Czech Republic or Sweden. So what's next? Illegalize the importation of porn from these countries that don't have rubbers used in them?
@Michael: You said "So what's next? Illegalize the importation of porn from these countries that don't have rubbers used in them?"
It could be worse, Mike. The Feds could decide to ban porn (and its production) altogether. Then they could write a law that says "Consensual sex is the means of producing a child by a man and a woman of Baptist Christian faith."
I mean, you never know - those nuts won't be satisfied until the world is shaped in their image. They just forgot the fact that they, y'know, are human beings, not gods.
"I saw Poly in a porny with a pony......"
Apparently ALL of you missed......"Measure B, passed by county voters last fall"
sheesh, CrimsonCujo, you already talk as if your logic and "do as I want" makes yourself a god.
And, "Baptist Christian"...is there another form of Baptist sect?
Ironically, those of you who condone taboo and amoral behavior that are in stark contrast with "Bible thumpers" (who you seem to despise and love to mock), can just as easily be the ones "not satisfied until the world is shaped in their image".
@BreakOrDrink - Oi, I wasn't specific so as to avoid angering certain people. Perhaps that was a mistake.
I should've added "Westboro" before Baptist. That way, at least the insanity by said group would've been merited and justified.
And technically, this world is full of hypocrisies. Just because we can't do anything about it doesn't mean we can't SAY anything about it.
And I'm no god - far from it, I actually think myself a monster sometimes what with how often people like me (mentally ill) seem to be grouped with the likes of ilk such as Holmes and Lanza. But that's irrelevant to this issue.
@Grouchee - I think this statement depicts the truth quite nicely in all sorts of ways:
"The smallest pup often has the most horrific howl." The minority seems to be small these days, but they're always the ones that yip and yeep the loudest. That's how laws like this both get passed and crushed.
Such is the nature of our system of government. But hey, like I said - it COULD be worse. We could be ruled Castro/Laden/Hitler-style by a guy who thinks our opinions don't matter. Yet Obama has been nice about it. And to an extent, I'd say Bush as well. Just to make things fair.
I personally dont want to see some guys Johnson bar with or without a condom. lol
my point exactly.
and michael from glendale, i disagree. people are always saying that, but there's little truth to it. regardless of women claiming how much they love porn, men still have many times the drive and need that women do for that kind of stuff. the vast majority of the porn market is still hetero male and will always be that way. even the women who say they enjoy seeing porn, the quantity that they're talking about, the frequency that they're talking about, and the way it factors into their life just doesn't even come remotely close to the way the male customers are about porn. Hence why 99.9% of the porn out there is clearly designed for hetero male to watch.
99.9%? Ike . . . you are misguided. So the proliferation of girl/girl videos is . . . for men? Not sure where you hail from, but do some research.
In the first three months of 2007, according to Nielsen/NetRatings, approximately one in three visitors to adult entertainment Web sites was female; during the same period, nearly 13 million American women were checking out porn online at least once each month.
Theresa Flynt, vice president of marketing for Hustler video, says that women account for 56 percent of business at her company's video stores.
Essentially . . . you don't know what you are talking about.
JC that first line does not support your argument one bit. Unless your argument is that men find lesbian scenes repulsive. Not so much, but you could ask Nielsen. And seriously...once a month? That is not a person who could statistically be considered a porn "user". And what a single porn marketer claims about their sales is hardly enough information to claim another person doesn't know what they are talking about. Not saying ike is spot on, but your claims are essentially all opinion, which is kind of parading the probability that your belief is....misguided.
JC. Where have you been for the last 50 years.
Girl on girl videos are totally enjoyed for and primarily made for men. Girl/Girl action is not considered 'lesbian', it's like , uh, I don't know - maybe the NUMBER ONE TURN-ON for hetero guys to watch?
You can make all the goofy claims you want, but just live a little out in the real world, you'll get that no matter what they say, most couples are still NOT gay, and most people watching porn are still hetero males.
Theresa Flynt may say what you're saying, but try going in your local adult video store. Roughly 90+% are men.
nearly 13 million American women were checking out porn online at least once each month. Sure, I totally agree. But you don't seem to realize where american MEN are at. the 25 million american MEN that are checking out porn are doing so twice a day, not "at least once a month". You're making my point here. A small percentage of women are casual watchers. A tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny % of women watchers are SERIOUS watchers (read, "frequent"), whereas almost ALL men watchers are SERIOUS watchers (read, 'frequent'). Your silly ratings comment doesn't hearken to real life.
I get it that women are always trying to convince us just how "into" porn they are, but a few years in real life just reminds you that, they are still a tiny percentage of the overal quantity and quality of men porn watchers. For every woman who "visits at least once a month" (I'm sorry--that's NOT a serious porn user! where are you from)--I can show you 20 men who do so every day or more.
It seems you're good at google, but aren't getting your facts from your own experience nor real life. Try getting your head out of wikipedia and out to the strip clubs or porn sites for a while. Might be informative for ya!
I firmly believe in smart govt regulation where it's needed. I'm a firm believer in OSHA and baseline of safe working conditions.
However this one has over-reached it's bounds. This reminds me of the right-wing pushing laws in states making voter participation much more strict in the name of "voter fraud". Although statistics tell us voter fraud is pretty much non-existent. In other words, their agenda is not voter fraud but voter suppression.
Is the same thing going on here? It sounds like there is another intent here because from the statistics there isn't a problem with STD's in the porn industry. Although I'm sure it occurs on some level definitely not at the level the supporters of this law claim.
I have a feeling this will get thrown out of court as unconstitutional.
If you are incapable of aquiring picture ID you are too dumb to vote.
If you have unprotected sex with a stranger you deserve what you get.
Granted the porn film industry has put proper procedures in place to prevent the spread of STDs so this law makes no sense.
Maybe they WANT the business to move elsewhere?
It should be tossed out as unconstitutional. But seriously you think voter fraud is non-existent? I don't care who you are....that's funny. And a little unnerving when looking at just how close elections are these days. Yeah the whole show a drivers license thing is just so wrong, so intrusive, I mean you have to have one or a social security card to fly, get married, buy beer, get in a club, get a pass port, get a job, vote in a union election.....but nah if you ask me for it on election day that's just tooooooo much. Wow.
It's good to see up-and-coming actors working hard to penetrate this stimulating issue. ;-)
I just want to know where to apply for the CFBI position.
California Female Body Inspector
how's wearing a condom an attack on the first amendment? That's a better argument than saying your allergic to latex tho lol....this guy must've been high
It's the prospect of not being able to participate in the act without wearing the condom that violates freedom of expression. The expression is doing the act without the condom however they see fit. In order for a government to intrude upon any form of expression (this includes forms which you don't consider expression), it needs to demonstrate a significant harm. They stats for this are not on the states side as their rate of STD transfer is far lower when compared to the general public.
I never understood how prostitution is illegal because people are being paid for sex but porn is huge legal industry because people are being paid for sex.
One would think the republican/tea party would encourage the legalization of Prostitution. It would increase employment, self-employment would increase and more money would go into the economy. I would also be comfortable to say that the business would thrive today. Its illegal but so far people still visit Prostitutes. Its the oldest profession & it's time to make it a honorable profession!
Oh look Smitty mentions the tea party being all uptight in the comment section about an article where the loony libs in Cali want to enforce condom use during filming on adult sex sets. Yeah those uptight conservative rednecks want to spoil all that is good in the world. They(the tea party) are about more money into the economy and less down the rat hole that is government. You know the people that waste time and tax payer money making up laws and starting expensive tax payer funded legal battles over non-existent problems, like the need for condoms on adult movie stars. I would explain the difference between tea party and republican to you but I don't think you can handle the fact that there is one.
Probably has to do with Taxation, prostitution is not illegal in all parts of the US, I also don't think filming porn is legal in all places. Then there is also the whole lack of regulation on testing for STIs and AIDs, which is something that porn industry doesn't seem to lack.
Prostitution is legal in the Senate and Congress. It's called lobbying.
Millions of people out there on the internet want porn without condoms. Despite this L.A. law, they will get it. The market speaks louder.
Weird. Very very weird. Porn is sleazy weird stuff. It's also weird that an industry has been built up around people willing to pay $$$ to watch other people have sex.
You think people being interested in sex is weird?
I think people not being interested in sex would be weird.
free my willie
Does anyone know if they're hiring? ...guys that is?
not you stubby
don How do you know he's stubby?
It might be short but it's BIG AND FAT.
I know...force them to wear condoms by refusing to watch any porn video tha doesn't require the actors to wear them. Yeah, like THAT'LL happen.
I find this article so Ironic! Here we have our govenrment fighting "against" porn..YET...a "Major Porn Director"...MAJOR PORN DIRECTOR....can go to COURT to fight a condom law.....is that a oxymoron or what??? Give me a friggin' break!
Hey put a sock in it, or put in in a sock.
Has the facial been outlawed? Most porn scenes end with the guy ejaculatinginto the woman’s face. Must the condom be worn during vaginal penetration only or all penetration? Do you really think porn where the guy
receives oral with a condom on will sell? No money shot? Of course not. The industry will simply move out
of LA. Obviously most of you don’t watch porn. Please stop commenting on subjects you know nothing about.
A 'threat to free expression' in exchange for... a threat to public health? Yep, good thinkin'
Next thing you know you'll have to wear hypo-allergenic gloves and duct tape on your tongue - although it might not be a bad idea in Florida considering the 'beings' that are showing up in the news through out Florida lately..... WAFJ
Squat, I had to laugh...
I didn't initially realize what "WAFJ" meant, so I googled it and a "family-friendly" radio station with the call letters "WAFJ" popped up first. How ironic is that?
When I let it sink in, I finally realized what you meant, though.
Pretty soon you'll have to wear a filter on your butt for passing gas.
pizza&wings Now thats a good idea!!! That way one wouldn't get fecal matter in there underwear!
this is to prevent STD's, right? What the hell is wrong with this disgusting producer?
Are you in the twilight zone. The porn industry has been monoriting it's people for std's for about 25 years now. Porn isn't like it was in the 70's and 80's. No one wants anyone to get AIDS or any other std. You gotta' get real.
STD transfer is not coming from the porn industry. It mostly comes from the general public not taking precautions or drinking heavily and throwing caution to the wind.
It comes from fags.