Condoms in Porn - Ballot Measure B in LA County...

[pornlaw]

If you are a producer, performer, support staff or a fan and have an opinion on LA County Ballot Measure B (Condoms in Porn) then make sure your voice is heard.

I have posted on my site a list of LA newspapers, AM morning radio shows and blogs and their contact info.

Almost all newspapers have sections for letters to the editor and op-ed pieces in which they will publish public opinions on political issues such as this.

This is a grassroots campaign. If you are a fan and want to have a voice then write a letter. Most will even publish the letter anonymously.

If you want to do an Op-Ed piece for AdultBizLaw.com I will publish it as well.

And I just posted on poll on condoms in porn on ABL so at least stop by and cast your vote...

http://www.AdultBizLaw.com

Just Be Heard !

Michael

 

[pornlaw]

New article on the "Condoms in Porn" law...

Will the Adult Industry Get Fucked in the Ass in November Without a Condom By Steven St. Croix

http://adultbizlaw.com/?p=1019

 

[pornlaw]

New article by Alia Janine

Why I Think We Have The Right To Choose!

She says mandatory condoms violate her free speech rights!

http://adultbizlaw.com/?p=1123

 

[eric2136]

New article by Alia Janine

Why I Think We Have The Right To Choose!

She says mandatory condoms violate her free speech rights!

http://adultbizlaw.com/?p=1123

First of All, the Miller Test is in not, in any way, a type of garaunteed protection for the creation and distribution of porn...The test is subjective and how obscenity is interpreted, in any situation, has much more to do with the agenda and politics of presedential leaders and their Justice Department, than anything else. Secondly, equating mandatory industry condom use to First Amendment censorship is somewhat of a stretch.....however, more important to the overall discussion is the attitude of performers, which predominantly seems to be anti-condom..

The point being that, despite the best efforts of folks like Michael Weinstein, if performers don't want any type of blanket condom mandate, then there probably won't be any real regulations implemented with any type of DPH enforcement legitimacy, because (1) mandatory condoms in porn will cause porn companies, and thus LA County, to loose money, and (2 )condom laws are primarily for performers' benefit, as there is no established link between the generally higher rate of STDs within the industry, and the STD rate of the general public in LA County.

So then the general populations' interest regarding condoms in porn will come and go depending on current developments of public interest, such as news media reports of STD industry outbreaks, but something of substance regarding mandatory condom regulations in the industry will likely never get done unless performers uniformly advocated the issue aggresively, which is unlikely to happen.

Accordingly, the more germane legal issues would seem to be (1) protection of the rights of individual performers to choose whether or not to use condoms without fear of being discriminated against...and (2 ) should porn companies who create an enviroment of non-allowance of condom use, for performers who choose to wear them, be potentially held criminally liable in certain instances of industry STD outbreaks...

So the issue thus would be less involved with any type of socialistic mandate forcing all individuals to wear condoms in porn, but rather protecting individual performers' "right to choose" without fear of repercussion or persecution.

However, blanket condom mandates will probably always be in the discussion on some level because, without full true co-operation of the industry itself, effectively protecting individual performers' rights will always be a tricky task.

 

[pornlaw]

Secondly, equating mandatory industry condom use to First Amendment censorship is somewhat of a stretch.....

How did you come to the conclusion ?

- - - Updated - - -

New article by Sabrina Deep

Imposing Condoms Is Not The Solution

Sabrina asks is AHF really trying to shut down the industry ?

http://adultbizlaw.com/?p=1138

 

[eric2136]

I was being nice ..actually I don't see any merit to that "condom is censorship" argument at all...in fact, I think it's ridiculous... but I certainly wouldn't mind seeing you attempt to construct some type of legal argument supporting that premise.

Also that article you posted by Sabrina isn't new.

How did you come to the conclusion ?

- - - Updated - - -

New article by Sabrina Deep

Imposing Condoms Is Not The Solution

Sabrina asks is AHF really trying to shut down the industry ?

http://adultbizlaw.com/?p=1138

 

[pornlaw]

Its new on my site... I posted a Editors Note if you happened to have missed it.

I am not going to have a Constitutional law debate with an anonymous poster on a porn message Board.

We can go back and forth on this and it wont matter, you wont believe me and I wont believe you. This will eventually land in the courts and a judge will decide the constitutionality of this law. And then the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will probably be the final say.

But we are years from that anyway...

www.AdultBizLaw.com

 

[Will E Worm]

There are too many laws already.

This is about control and it's not a good thing.

 

[eric2136]

Its new on my site... I posted a Editors Note if you happened to have missed it.

I am not going to have a Constitutional law debate with an anonymous poster on a porn message Board.

That's a good decision on your part as you would definately loose on this issue because I know the law and I'm not just another low-intellect mouthpiece on the Industry bankroll.

We can go back and forth on this and it wont matter, you wont believe me and I wont believe you. This will eventually land in the courts and a judge will decide the constitutionality of this law. And then the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will probably be the final say.

But we are years from that anyway...

As I stated initially, even if the Ballot measure B initiative somehow manages to be passed and enacted, there are still plenty of loopholes regarding DPH enforcement...and without real enforecment no one would even have standing to get it in front of a judge in the first place.

But assuming it did get in front of a judge...I will certainly be amused to see what attorneys will have the audacity to equate mandatory condoms in porn to censorship ....its a somewhat entertaining idea in theory on a porn board or porn "law" site...but I doubt a judge will find it very funny (Rule 11 Sanctions :dunno: ).

But we shall see....

 

[pornlaw]

(Rule 11 Sanctions :dunno: ).

Thats not even remotely likely. And since you arent a judge there is no winning or losing in a legal debate on a forum.

But yes, LA county or any of the 85 cities in it will probably not enforce this law. Nor do they want to. Nor does the City of Los Angeles want to enforce their Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Ordinance. And probably for the reasons you state. It will give standing. Granted a challenge doesnt need to wait until enforcement starts but certainly most in the industry will not file the challenge until forced to.

So this law may just be a colossal waste of time. Only time will tell.

www.AdultBizLaw.com

 

[pornlaw]

Here are two articles that you might find interesting...

Can the HIV Virus Pass Right Through Latex Condoms --> http://adultbizlaw.com/?p=1176

Performers: Can Condoms Cause Cancer ? --> http://adultbizlaw.com/?p=1156

Some little known facts about condoms...



AdultBizLaw.com

 

[pornlaw]

Condoms & The First Amendment...

Can the government force the porn industry to use condoms ?

http://adultbizlaw.com/?p=1198

 

[D-rock]

I was being nice ..actually I don't see any merit to that "condom is censorship" argument at all...in fact, I think it's ridiculous... but I certainly wouldn't mind seeing you attempt to construct some type of legal argument supporting that premise.

Huh...really? I would like to see you explain how it ISN'T censorship considering it would be impossible to create a scene that doesn't show condoms, you know, with condoms. It would be the equivalent of requiring all stunt men to never drive faster than 10 miles per hour in a chase scene in a movie or having people in a fight scene never ever be allowed to touch each other as a safety measure, and then claiming it isn't censorship when the movie producers tell everybody it's now impossible to create car chase and fight scenes in any realistically practical manner. This isn't something like requiring people to wear a hard hat and eat plugs at a factory that in no way whatsoever changes the end product that is made. It literally makes a scene in a movie, one consenting adults agree to do, practically IMPOSSIBLE to make.

I would go so far as to say it's takes no more than common sense and the very definition of censorship to realize, yes, it is censorship.

 

[eric2136]

There is NO legal precedent linking Ballot measure B to censorship...Ballot measure B can be passed into law regardless of any nutjob rants about violating their First Amendment rights...The burden would be on anybody contesting the validity of the law to establish exactly how their first Amendment rights have been violated.

So to make it as simple as possible for you..The proposed condom law can be passed tomorrow and it has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the First Amendment...If YOU think it does then formulate your illogical gibberish into some form of legal argument and try to prove it.

And even if by some miracle you could actually fashion some type of referenced legal argument indicating even the slightest nexus, there are still a plethera of permissible "censorship" restrictions already existing in porn ...Cal/OSHA T8CCR 5193 provides that all porn is supposed to be simulated sex without the unprotected exchange of bodily fluids..., This has been determined by the judicial system to be legal "censorship" on the artistic expression of porn...so how is it you would argue that wearing a condom is in any way an impermissible censorship of pornographic sexual expression compared to already existing aforesaid regulations ?

Especially since porn companies have been repeatedly fined and given citations for not requiring the use of condoms in porn films in furtherance of the objectives of these same regulations. In particular Cal/OSHA T8CCR 3203(a) Injury and Illness Prevention Program, T8CCR 3203(c) (1) (A) Bloodborne Pathogens Program: Exposure Control Plan, T8CCR 3203(d)(4)(A) Bloodborne Pathogens Program: Personal Protective Equipment.

Huh...really? I would like to see you explain how it ISN'T censorship considering it would be impossible to create a scene that doesn't show condoms, you know, with condoms. It would be the equivalent of requiring all stunt men to never drive faster than 10 miles per hour in a chase scene in a movie or having people in a fight scene never ever be allowed to touch each other as a safety measure, and then claiming it isn't censorship when the movie producers tell everybody it's now impossible to create car chase and fight scenes in any realistically practical manner. This isn't something like requiring people to wear a hard hat and eat plugs at a factory that in no way whatsoever changes the end product that is made. It literally makes a scene in a movie, one consenting adults agree to do, practically IMPOSSIBLE to make.

I would go so far as to say it's takes no more than common sense and the very definition of censorship to realize, yes, it is censorship.

 

[pornlaw]

This has been determined by the judicial system to be legal "censorship" on the artistic expression of porn...so how is it you would argue that wearing a condom is in any way an impermissible censorship of pornographic sexual expression compared to already existing aforesaid regulations ?

Especially since porn companies have been repeatedly fined and given citations for not requiring the use of condoms in porn films in furtherance of the objectives of these same regulations. In particular Cal/OSHA T8CCR 3203(a) Injury and Illness Prevention Program, T8CCR 3203(c) (1) (A) Bloodborne Pathogens Program: Exposure Control Plan, T8CCR 3203(d)(4)(A) Bloodborne Pathogens Program: Personal Protective Equipment.

Actually this is not correct. None of the companies fined by Cal-OSHA appealed the decisions for judicial review. Those fines were administrative.

Please find a court ruling from either the California Court Appeals or the Circuit Courts in California addressing the issue. You cannot.

Until Ballot Measure B is reviewed by one of those appellate courts you cannot say whether it will or will not pass Constitutional muster.

I cant say it wont and you cant say it will.

www.AdultBizLaw.com

 

[eric2136]

Actually this is not correct. None of the companies fined by Cal-OSHA appealed the decisions for judicial review. Those fines were administrative.

Please find a court ruling from either the California Court Appeals or the Circuit Courts in California addressing the issue. You cannot.

Until Ballot Measure B is reviewed by one of those appellate courts you cannot say whether it will or will not pass Constitutional muster.

I cant say it wont and you cant say it will.

www.AdultBizLaw.com

That's my point... there are many aforesaid Cal/OSHA provisions that restrict adult performer's conduct in certain fundamental ways that arguably decrease the value and marketability of the overall porn product. However, there have been NO legal challenges by the Porn industry to those provisions... so there is a legal presumption of Constitutionality...The same presumption would apply to Ballot Measure B if it is adopted.

Anybody who thinks the Cal/OSHA regulations are unconstitutional will have to file suit and prove it, and that is something the porn industry has yet to show any interest in doing. Why ? Because they know they would loose...Therefore unless there is a successful challenge, there is a legal De Facto Precedent of Judicial Constitutionality that the Adult Industry has, and always will, continue to abide by.

As stated by a well-known expert in the field of Constituional Law...

"There should be a judicial presumption of constitutionality of statutes, unless challengers overcome such a presumption. Such judicial deference accords finality to the actions of the legislative branch"

http://cognidissidence.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-constitutional-challenge-to-act-10.html

Assiciate Law Professor Edward Fallone
Expert in Constitutional Law
Marquette University School Of Law

 

[himperv203]

i cant imagine what porn would be like with this law, what about facials, cum swallowing, internal creamy pie, ATM, gang bangs... this is the end of porn.

 

[pornlaw]

That's my point... there are many aforesaid Cal/OSHA provisions that restrict adult performer's conduct in certain fundamental ways that arguably decrease the value and marketability of the overall porn product. However, there have been NO legal challenges by the Porn industry to those provisions... so there is a legal presumption of Constitutionality...The same presumption would apply to Ballot Measure B if it is adopted.

Anybody who thinks the Cal/OSHA regulations are unconstitutional will have to file suit and prove it, and that is something the porn industry has yet to show any interest in doing. Why ? Because they know they would loose...Therefore unless there is a successful challenge, there is a legal De Facto Precedent of Judicial Constitutionality that the Adult Industry has, and always will, continue to abide by.

As stated by a well-known expert in the field of Constituional Law...

"There should be a judicial presumption of constitutionality of statutes, unless challengers overcome such a presumption. Such judicial deference accords finality to the actions of the legislative branch"

http://cognidissidence.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-constitutional-challenge-to-act-10.html

Assiciate Law Professor Edward Fallone
Expert in Constitutional Law
Marquette University School Of Law

Thank you for making your point more clear. And yes I cant argue with your legal reasoning. However I suspect that the reason that no challenge was filed on the Cal-OSHA fines had less to do with law and more to do with money.

Few would fight a $260 speeding ticket by spending $5000 on a lawyer. To many in the adult business now it is less about free speech and more about money. A $16,000 Cal-OSHA fine is easier to pay then $250,000 in legal fees to challenge it. And quite honestly for the bigger producers is not even that large of a fine.

However with Ballot Measure B and the City's equivalent law it might end up being a different situation.

 

[pornlaw]

Here is the video of AHF's press conference on their "Yes on Condoms" campaign...

Including speeches by HIV+ Darren James and Derrick Burts. Along with a question I posed to Michael Weinstein at the end that he really doesnt have an answer for...

http://adultbizlaw.com/?p=1231

Michael

 

[pornlaw]

Are you allergic to latex ? Do you even know ?

You need to know especially if condoms become mandatory !

Latex can kill !

http://adultbizlaw.com/?p=1258

Michael