Condoms In Porn Measure Opposed By Los Angeles Attorney's Office

LOS ANGELES -- The Los Angeles City Attorney's office has filed a lawsuit to keep the June 2012 ballot free of a measure that would require porn actors to wear condoms during film shoots.

In a lawsuit filed Thursday in Los Angeles Superior Court, city attorneys say the AIDS Healthcare Foundation's proposed measure is unnecessary and will waste taxpayer money.

According to the lawsuit, there are already state laws mandating workplace safety which address the need for protective barriers to be used when workers are exposed to blood borne pathogens, such as HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.

The filing urges the court to take immediate action rather than wait until after the election to invalidate the measure by finding it "patently illegal" because that "would undermine the public trust."

The AIDS Healthcare Foundation has already collected more than 71,000 unverified voter signatures and has submitted them to city officials for verification, said Michael Weinstein, the advocacy group's president.

"I think it's extraordinary to attempt to thwart the will of 71,000 voters who under the laws of the city of Los Angeles wish to see this measure put before the voters," said Weinstein.

To get on the city's ballot, advocates must get 41,183 verified signatures from Los Angeles voters. If passed, the measure would require porn producers to agree to have their actors use condoms in adult films shot in Los Angeles in order to obtain permits to film in the city.

Weinstein said it shouldn't cost taxpayers any money to include the proposition since the election will be held no matter what.

"I'm not an elections scholar but I'm not aware of prior restraint on voter's ability to have their voices heard on an initiative," said Weinstein.

The AIDS Healthcare Foundation has made a number of unsuccessful legal efforts to require condoms in adult films, including multiple attempts to move state legislation and lawsuits.

The city's San Fernando Valley is the heart of the multi-billion dollar American porn industry.

The Free Speech Coalition, a trade association for the porn industry, praised the city's decision to take the matter to court.

FSC Executive Director Diane Duke argued the AHF measure squanders its donor resources.

Comments

[kevinbr38]

05:00 AM on 12/10/2011

People watching porn are not interested in protecting the health of the 'performers' on their screen(s), they just want their jollies.
If they should turn off the computer for an hour or two and donated that time to helping out in an AIDS hospice, not only would they then support this legislation, they might find themselves less interested in porn in the first place.

[freddsky]

04:01 AM on 12/10/2011

Requiring the actors to wear condoms is only a start. All participants in the film shoot should be paid according to union scale and the performers required to take acting lessons. This way the consumer is less likely to fall asleep or give up on the video altogether and head on down to the local bar for karaoke night, where a condom and a purple pill can really come in handy.

[Mulebone]

03:30 AM on 12/10/2011

Here's your original headline as it appears on the frontpage:

"City Files Lawsuit to Keep Condoms Out of Porn"

But this is not what the City of Los Angeles did at all. In fact, this headline is 100% factually incorrect.

The Los Angeles City Attorney's office filed a lawsuit to keep the June 2012 ballot free of a measure that would require porn actors to wear condoms during film shoots because there are already state laws that do the same thing.

In other words, your headline flagrantly misstates the facts in order to sensationalize the story.

This is so in odds of journalistic ethics it boggles the mind.

Why do you think you can break the rules this way?

[pdxist]

04:46 AM on 12/10/2011

State laws don't do the same thing. That's why the porn industry is fighting it. If you read their argument carefully, you can see where they're trying to deceive you: Condoms are required only if you know a participant has an STD, in which case the performer wouldn't be allowed to work anyway.

[Jack Glastra]

03:29 AM on 12/10/2011

Well I am glad that the state government of California has its' priorities straight.

[mcnote5150]

03:23 AM on 12/10/2011

California is really trying hard to loss the last of the profitable industries in the state. The way things are going 20 billion short fall will be a drop in the bucket. If condoms sold they would already be in the flix but they don't . The whole biz will pickup and move to Miami.

[corporateownedusa]

03:20 AM on 12/10/2011

"Come on Chief, this isn't no boy scout picnic. See ya' got ya' rubbers!" Oh, so this is what Quint meant.

[muysuave41]

03:14 AM on 12/10/2011

Workplace safety is a noble cause and should be exercised judiciously, but where is the 'workplace?'

[nmeemn]

03:11 AM on 12/10/2011

I DO NOT want to see ads on prime-time TV asking people to vote in favor of this measure. If you're so concerned with getting sick, then find another line of work.

Besides, all this will do is move the industry elsewhere - they'll just find other places to film.

[Musonius]

03:04 AM on 12/10/2011

When governments require all participants in penetrative sex acts to use barrier protection unless the instance is specifically intended to procreate, I'll say in porn too. Until then leave consenting adults alone.

[pdxist]

04:50 AM on 12/10/2011

It's not consensual sex, it is employment. Following your boss's orders is the requirement for employment. If your boss orders you to expose yourself to deadly diseases, you have to do it as a condition of employment. That is not an acceptable work demand.

[wonketteRAWKS]

03:04 AM on 12/10/2011

I thought it was required already.

[Ray E Bowman]

02:57 AM on 12/10/2011

Workplace safety or not, there are multitudes of bareback porn movies coming out of the porn industry and director/producers are skirting that law. It would be a good thing to require the use of condoms to protect those working in the industry. The problem is that it isn't all that difficult to move the average porn shoot outside of the LA city limits. Set up a warehouse outside the city limits, use a hotel room in Orange County, or make it at one of the directors homes in Beverly Hills it isn't difficult to skirt this law. This is a mulit-billion dollar industry, some actors make a life of it, others come to regret it later, but as in real-life it is ultimately the actors choice if they choose to have sex with or without a condom and people are going to watch it either way, unless it is a State or National law it is a waste of time, in my opinion.

[Biblebelt Socialist]

02:43 AM on 12/10/2011

I don't care about the issue, what I care about is trying to get a measure that does not violate anyone's civil rights off the ballot when it exceeds the requirements.

[NeoConsAreFinished]

03:02 AM on 12/10/2011

Seek professional help immediately.

[Jack Glastra]

03:28 AM on 12/10/2011

Sounds like someone isn't getting laid.

[kevinbr38]

05:07 AM on 12/10/2011

Probably an experienced "whacker".

[Niche Brislane]

01:52 AM on 12/10/2011

Great, add another boring minute into most already boring porn plots lol. " Is there any OTHER way to pay for these rubbers?" LMAO

[Zmac88]

02:30 AM on 12/10/2011

Fanned!

[rtchidc]

01:50 AM on 12/10/2011

Get your government hands off my porn!