AIDS/HIV | California | Porn

Bill Mandating Condom Use On Porn Sets Voted Down in California

SuitupThe California Senate Committee On Appropriations has voted to dismiss AB 1576, legislation that would have modified California’s Labor Code to include protections for individuals working in  the adult film industry. Specifically, AB 1576 would have required adult film actors to wear condoms on set, a move that Assemblyman Isadore Hall III argues would have contributed to safer work environments.

“AB 1576 wouldn’t have changed existing law,” Hall intoned. “But it would have helped increase industry compliance in protecting its workers.”

While Hall remains committed to defending members of the adult film industry from the dangers of being exposed to STIs, opponents of AB 1576 have resolutely expressed their faith in the industry’s own methods of testing. The kinds of testing that AB 1576 called for, opponents asserted, veered precariously close to situations in which a performer’s HIV status could negatively impact their ability to work.

DukeExecutive director of the Free Speech Coalition Diane Duke [pictured right], which represents the adult film industry, insisted that AB 1576 was a slap in the face to the industry’s own stringent STI screening protocols.

“Out of this grows a stronger industry, one not intimidated by harassment campaigns like AB 1576. But the battle is not actually over, for we must always work to make sure our productions are safe and legal, that our performers have a strong voice in their own sexual health, and to keep a thriving industry in California.”

Measure B, similar legislation on a smaller scale, was passed in 2012, requiring all adult film actors performing in Los Angeles county to wear condoms during sex scenes. Following Measure B’s passing production of adult films has dropped by nearly 90% in L.A. county, as studios have decided to move their productions elsewhere.

“The state doesn’t need its own law and California doesn’t have the money to enforce it. I think it’s a waste of money for Californians.” said Dan Leal head of Immoral Productions, an adult film production studio in the L.A. county area.

Read the AIDS Healthcare Foundation motion summary, laying out the legal terms of their support for AB 1576 AFTER THE JUMP...

AIDS Healthcare Foundation, et al. v. Los Angeles County, et al.

 

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Things like hard hats and steel-toed shoes are mandatory for some jobs. Other types of jobs require eye protection and other types of protective gear. Workers who wear that equipment in those jobs live longer and safer lives then they did before protective equipment was required.

    To me, requiring condoms as protection from possible harm in certain jobs is basically the same thing. Isn't that so?

    Posted by: K in VA | Aug 15, 2014 8:19:22 AM


  2. GOOD! These are grown men and women and can make their own decisions.

    Posted by: Yup | Aug 15, 2014 8:19:53 AM


  3. No K, those things are to protect against falling debris. You are giving your junk FAR too much credit. Besides, what's the difference between forcing someone to have sex a certain way and NOM saying guys shouldn't have sex with guys?

    Posted by: Yup | Aug 15, 2014 8:22:09 AM


  4. I am disappointed by this decision. I really think that many people emulate porn in their own sex lives. With HIV rates RISING among young men, there shouldnt be any more positive "permission" to go bareback.

    Posted by: J in PA | Aug 15, 2014 9:07:59 AM


  5. " I really think that many people emulate porn in their own sex lives."

    I wish!

    Posted by: crispy | Aug 15, 2014 9:20:42 AM


  6. Good. People in porn are presumably adults, if they want to BB for a scene, that's their call.

    Posted by: Ted | Aug 15, 2014 9:36:59 AM


  7. Watch out! Next thing you know, people will try to outlaw spy movies because someone might try to become a secret agent! Sorry, but just because you feel the need to emulate something you see in the movie doesn't mean I can't watch what I choose as a grown man. Your weak will or inability to separate fantasy from reality doesn't trump anyway. Next, will you try to outlaw porn stars with exceptional bodies because someone might try to copy what they see by working out too much and dieting to an extreme?

    Posted by: Hrm | Aug 15, 2014 9:38:56 AM


  8. It's simply intentional obfuscation if one is completely ignoring the workplace safety aspect and pretending that this is about consumers emulating the activities of their favorite porn stars.

    Posted by: Rey | Aug 15, 2014 10:21:00 AM


  9. Rey, what if I was to take your stance and say "you know, men having sex with men is more risky. Therefore in the interest of public safety, it's outlawed." Enjoy Uganda.

    Posted by: Yup | Aug 15, 2014 10:50:44 AM


  10. This law wasn't needed in straight porn. Their testing standards are very stringent, and the handful of times someone tested positive, a moratorium was put in place until all parties involved were cleared.

    Gay porn on the other hand, testing wasn't so universal, especially in the past. Condoms were once almost a standard in the gay porn industry, but gay porn also had active HIV positive performers. The few studios that started to bareback a few years ago (CF, SeanCody, etc) did full panel testing and used no positive performers; they also overwhelmingly hired gay-for-pay actors, which political correctness aside, is a low risk group.
    Now Lucas entertainment is also starting to bareback, a majority of their actors are gay, some are positive, but they use Truvada and they also serosort scene partners.

    This law wasn't needed, if there was anything that should have been passed, it should have been mandatory full panel testing for performers in gay porn, and setting up their own system for cataloguing performers' statuses.

    Posted by: Hugh | Aug 15, 2014 11:00:57 AM


  11. Yet another example of the ever growing tentacles of the nanny state.

    Posted by: Perry | Aug 15, 2014 11:02:49 AM


  12. Will towleroad ever get a story right???? Jesus... I think I get dumber just from reading this site. A "law" and a "bill" are not the same. The actual news story concerns a "bill", not a law. That bill was not "struck down" because only laws are stuck down and only Courts strike down laws. The story is about an action by a senate committee not a court. There is a "law" in LA that requires condoms and that law is still law and was not stuck down by a court. Look, There was a bill in the senate to make a similar law to the one in LA a statewide law. That bill was "killed" by the senate.

    Posted by: Dana | Aug 15, 2014 11:05:29 AM


  13. Will towleroad ever get a story right???? Jesus... I think I get dumber just from reading this site. A "law" and a "bill" are not the same. The actual news story concerns a "bill", not a law. That bill was not "struck down" because only laws are stuck down and only Courts strike down laws. The story is about an action by a senate committee not a court. There is a "law" in LA that requires condoms and that law is still law and was not stuck down by a court. Look, There was a bill in the senate to make a similar law to the one in LA a statewide law. That bill was "killed" by the senate.

    Posted by: Dana | Aug 15, 2014 11:05:29 AM


  14. @Dana No one should actually be using this website to be getting really important (and accurate) news.

    Posted by: Perry | Aug 15, 2014 11:35:01 AM


  15. @Dana, I was thinking the exact same thing... WTF? In any event it was good the senate let this die. It is a disaster in LA and would have been a disaster for the state. This is nothing more than a cynical publicity stunt and a major miscalculation by the AHF. Adult films are entertainment, they aren't safe sex education tools. They hasn't been a single case of AIDS documented from sex on a film set. The workers that caught AIDS got it from sex off camera. All this law is doing is forcing a business out of LA county. It is wrong and hopefully will be thrown out by the 9th circuit. If not, then there needs to be an effort to get it repealed. I lost all respect for the AHF when they came out against PreP and call Truvada a "party drug". They're more interested in continuing their revenue stream than stopping AIDS.

    Posted by: Gerry | Aug 15, 2014 12:15:21 PM


  16. @gerry... Totally agree. This fight has been really interesting to follow. I know that some of its advocates genuinely care for the well being of the actors ... Good people who have no objections to adult films. It's also very likely that some of its supporters want to drive out the industry. Personally, I believe that sexual autonomy and. Self determination should always be the rule. I also agree with u about AHCLA... They're destroying their reputation. ..

    Posted by: Dana | Aug 15, 2014 12:54:47 PM


  17. What Dana said. These "writers" and their boss, Mr. Towle, should be embarrassed at the increasingly inaccurate schlock they put out.

    Posted by: BusterLA | Aug 15, 2014 2:46:52 PM


  18. I gave up correcting this site a long time ago. Precision or actual news doesn't seem to be its goal. I think half the time the writers don't understand their mistakes. Bill, law, you say tomato. . . . In this case, however, it is so egregious that it needed saying. Thanks Dana.

    Posted by: Jonathan | Aug 15, 2014 3:15:12 PM


  19. @CHARLES PULLIAM-MOORE, the headline is inaccurate. A measure proposed in the legislature isn't a law yet, it's a bill (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyeJ55o3El0), and bills aren't struck down, they're defeated (by a vote), killed (by a vote or procedural maneuver), or they die (by inaction). The headline should read something like:

    BILL MANDATING CONDOM USE ON PORN SETS DEFEATED IN CALIFORNIA

    If the posted headline were accurate, it would imply that the legislature had passed a law, the governor had signed it, the law was in effect, a lawsuit was filed, a court ruled the law invalid, but it likely remains in effect until all appeals are exhausted. That entire factual narrative implied by the posted headline is false.

    Posted by: JJ | Aug 15, 2014 3:39:08 PM


  20. No one should tell people to change their lifestyle, neither the government nor employers. That actually can lead to more harm being done than letting people make choices themselves. That said, the government could take steps to protect porn stars such as requiring sets to make condoms available and not allowing studios to take action against performers if they want to use the condoms, even if they are doing a shoot for "bareback creampies [insert number]." Maybe it would be acceptable for studios to make a blanket policy that all performers will (will not) use condoms thereby making it perfectly clear how the performer will have to perform, but in this day an age where all "movies" are basically a compilation of independent scenes, there's no reason for studios to expect any performer is coming in to shoot a particular type of sex scene. They should basically have some sort of match making system where they contact two (or more) performers, and if they want to shoot the scene, they come in shoot it, then the studio posts the scene in whatever genre it fits.

    Posted by: Garst | Aug 15, 2014 3:40:58 PM


  21. AHF has turned into a bunch of moral crusaders as bad as the religious right. It and its fearless leader Michael Weinstein need to move to Mayberry.

    Posted by: justen | Aug 15, 2014 10:49:50 PM


  22. Now now, it's be fair. If I had a face like this, I'd never get laid, and would want to ruin it for everyone else too:

    http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1741918/thumbs/o-MICHAEL-WEINSTEIN-facebook.jpg

    Posted by: Yikes | Aug 16, 2014 12:05:07 AM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Baton Rouge City Council Votes 8-4 Against LGBT-Inclusive Non-Discrimination Ordinance: VIDEO« «