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:
I am so thankful these do-gooders have nothing more important to do.
Hey it's just another feel good law right? Guns bad-Condoms good
Large soda bad-Illegal immigrants good,
Comrades embrace your masters feet......
libtards are just so useless.
Conservatives are such clueless tools.
I agree with you both, as do 40% of Americans who vote for neither Republicans or Democrats and opt out.
Stop the corporations.
Third Party 2016
when you type stop the corporations...what do you mean? Wait, 99% 1% thing? Never mind. Doofus
Did the writer even need to identify California as the state involved? Where else would an idiotic story like this originate?
"the adult industry already has safeguards, such as regular blood testing of actors, to prevent the spread of AIDS and other venereal diseases." What part of stupid are these people arguing for? Blood screening only shows whether or not you have already been exposed to a disease or have an active case of it. It does nothing to PREVENT the actors from catching a disease. This is what the condoms are for. Los Angeles is simply trying to help prevent people from contracting AIDS or a veneral disease in the first place. I'd say the business trying to get the law overturned is less concerned with their actors' health and more for the financial bottom line. Sure, I (along with most men) do not enjoy having to use a condom. Most people who enjoy porn probably don't enjoy having to see them. But this is the real world where there are diseases with dire consequences and if this law prevents one person from contracting and dying of AIDS, it's worth having it. Don't want to wear condoms: do it on your own time off camera.
I was waiting for the "if it saves one persons life it's worth it" argument.
If this law holds up within one year California will have another layer of bureaucracy with 5000 desk jockeys supporting 5 genitalia inspectors in the field.
if $0.75 hurts your bottom line you need to find a new business
You expect porn people to understand common sense? People in that industry are incredibly dysfunctional human beings. They lead sad lives, devoid of real intimacy.
And we already have trained genitalia inspectors working for the TSA.....thank god a pool of trained pervs ready to suck more tax dollars out of the economy. Coming soon sex licenses, if caught engaing in unlicensed sexual activity mandatory jail time a chemical castration for first offense, jail time for second and so on. It is in the interest of public health and safety. Because public health and safety in more important that silly individual rights....ehhh comrades?
ElizabethAspen, how do you know that? There are many people with normal jobs that lead sad lives, devoid of real intimacy. You "do-gooders" never go away. No matter what the subject is, you "do-gooders" are there to put us all in the correct direction. The porn industry is taken care of by their own people. They are checked for stds all the time. Do you honestly believe that anyone would want to get an std?? You gotta' get real.
Why not require everyone to wear condoms then? I really don't understand how the state can intervene between two consenting adults. Does this apply to amateur pornography as well? I could see them trying to regulate the distribution of porn but not this.
I'd say it's the difference between what two people (or more) do in private versus what a business is requiring them to do for profit. Amateur porn does not have a business owner directing the participants so you can still do what you want. But when you have a producer who's main goal is to sell a product and make a profit, the health of the actors may not be his foremost concern (obviously since Vivid is contesting the law, they're more concerned with their product than with the health of its actors).
Yeah. They should have to wait until the movie is released the same as everyone else.
"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.
I guess Amber thinks that's best left to the strange actor she's about to have sex with! Guess she didn't put much thought into it before making that statement (he-he!)
The strange person she consented to having sex with. Guess you didn't think that post out before you typed it. No means no. But you probably are all for the testicle fondling at our airports these days, feeling up toddlers by the TSA, so what on earth are these porn people complaining about.?
1. there definitely have been actors infected after the porn industry has started testing. Whom is the porn industry trying to fool?!
2. having said that, San Bernadino should be able to enact the law.
3. and the porn industry should just move. Montreal is very film industry friendly. We also have one of the largest internet porn download companies around. You guys/gals would be very welcome to do your business here.
Damn Canadians trying to entice all our good paying employers to relocate to their country...
You people are not seeing the big picture. If they are allowed to tell grown adults who are having consensual sex that they have to wear a condom, then they proved they can take it to next level and say everyone has too. This is not the governments problem and it's over extending its authority.
Kikook: Are you kidding? You're talking the difference between what consenting adults do with each other versus a business that has control over what these "consenting adults" are doing. Is there any difference between what Los Angeles is trying to do and the regulations they have in Nevada regarding their sex workers. I bet you're also in that conservative group that doesn't want any government regulations regarding businesses and what they can do. Nothing infringes on anyone's first amendment rights: If they don't want to wear a condom, then they go and work in another state or country that doesn't have this restriction on their sex workers. We're not talking about what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes, hotel rooms, or back seats of their cars. We're talking businesses here.
John, you didn't really like history much did you?
will they have a 5 day waiting period
As per the other article about the cali cold snap they may have to put a wool sock on it instead of a Trojan.
Great news! Make everyone wear a condom whether it is in a movie or in the privacy of their own home. For the safety of our children of course! And then make sure to adopt the next "logical" item and allow the cops to go from door-to-door obtaining blood samples to find out which STD's one might have. Monthly testing to insure that you are following the "No STD Passed Around" Act. For the safety of our children of course. See how simple it is to live in a totally "safe" world!
The "Pubic Health Director"??
The government should never have been allowed to be involved in our bedrooms, nor our marriages.
Porn without condoms is just hotter. Next thing we know, genitals will be censored like Japan's pornography. Sad.
People who need porn in their lives to get off are pathetic. Find an actual human being to get busy with.
"Find an actual human being to get busy with."
If you say so .....Queen Liz
People who need porn in their lives to get off are pathetic. Find an actual human being to get busy with.
Hey Elizabeth. It's my pecker I'll use it as I see fit. Same as you can void your womb at your discretion. I can void my penis at my discretion.
"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.
Easily, the funniest line I've read in a long time. As if it's not "atrocious" for a camera to basically examine your genitalia close-up and it's also not atrocious to bang 6 guys at once and take three c---ks in your mouth at the same time, all while being called demeaning, filthy names.
Mommy and Daddy must be so proud of you, Amber, dear. LOL!
It's called ....choice, camera is a choice where as a Govt employee is NOT.
Wow, someone sounds frigid.
Elizabeth doesn't understand the concept of the word consent, wow.
Liz, P-L-E-A-S-E! You almost made me drop my Geritol!
I can't believe that there are so many ignorant people like you out there. This is 2013, get with the program.
Wow, you are really messed up.
I'm guessing there will be a long line of applicants hoping to be hired as inspectors to make sure the industry is complying.
If it was erotic to protect your friends, that would be a good thing.
Porn People, The NRA...Lib`s and Neo-Con`s you all suck...but you better have a rubber on it`s safer you know
Without commenting on the law itself, I have to wonder who is in charge of "enforcing" this law to ensure compliance.
Is the State of California going to pay state or local government employees to either attend each filming or to watch porn all day to make sure the porn industry is complying with the law?
I can think of much better use of their tax dollars than to pay a government employee to watch porn and then to open up investigations to collect fines if there was no compliance no matter what you think of the law. Those government employees also should not be easily offended since they might end up watching something that they really do not want to watch since they would have to monitor all forms of it. I can see a lawsuit claiming sexual harassment by a government employee forced to watch something with co-workers to ensure compliance with the law, especially if the coworkers are both male and female, someone eventually will be offended by something. I just do not see how the government creates a job to be able to enforce this law.
This will have no impact whatsoever on the number of people infected with STD's and everyone knows it.
Prostitution is illegal but it's not prostitution if the cameras are rolling......hmmm
New warning label: Warning! Sexual activity is known to the state of California to cause cancer. Have sex at your own risk.
Such was the warning on an elcectrical cord I purchased, concerning the insulation on the cord. CA is getting rediculous!
The IRS sticks it hard in people's rears all the time. What's so bad about the government wanting merely to examine someone's private parts?
...as the stomach churns...