This is form the FSC:
Lawyers for the adult entertainment industry filed suit today in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California challenging the recently passed Measure B which makes it mandatory for adult actors to wear condoms while shooting adult films in LA County.
The complaint states that Measure B is unnecessary because of rigorous and effective self-regulation by the adult industry and that it imposes an unconstitutional system of prior restraint in violation of the First Amendment. Numerous provisions of Measure B are excessively vague and burdensome, and thus place an intolerable restriction on freedom of expression. The lawsuit also challenges the County’s jurisdiction to regulate adult production on performer health and safety.
The adult industry plaintiffs include adult production company Vivid Entertainment along with adult performers Kayden Kross and Logan Pierce. “Overturning this law is something I feel very passionate about. I believe the industry’s current testing system works well, said Steven Hirsch, founder/co-chairman of Vivid.
“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. Measure B will have vast unintended consequences which may undermine industry efforts to protect the health of our actors and actresses.”
Attorneys Paul Cambria of Lipsitz Green Scime Cambria, Louis Sirkin of Santen Hughes, and Bob Corn-Revere of Davis Wright Tremaine are representing the plaintiffs. Mr. Cambria stated that this Law not only infringes on free expression but rather than protect performers as it currently does it will drive production overseas or off shore where no protection exists.
Personally this is interesting to me, for one, it will be interesting to see how the self regulation claims hold up against the data on the industry….while one might argue that our HIV rate is low HIV isn’t the only STD and it has been shown that others do run rampant in this biz. This industry has never done anything of any substance to police itself, if we had then we wouldn’t have to be filing this lawsuit.
As for it being a prior restraint on free speech, that one might actually have the most merit but I don’t see it, Permitting dancers for example is fairly commonplace and that has been ruled as “free speech” and as many have pointed out workplace safety does trump free speech in most cases, you do not have a “right” to give someone else a potentially life threatening disease, even if you don’t know you have it.
As for being vague….maybe but I expect that the court would deem that “must use a condom for vaginal and anal intercourse” doesn’t seem that vague. As for the burdensome part, well every business has to have health inspections and stuff similar so I don’t see any problems there.
Challenging the counties jurisdiction seems like a loser to me as well, counties certainly have the jurisdiction to enforce health codes in Georgia maybe Cali is different I dunno
It seems to me that the lawyers for the FSC are throwing everything they can think of against the wall to see if anything will stick, they have to get a judge to hear the case so the more reasons they can come up with the better their odds of one sticking.
To me the interesting thing about this was using Kayden Kross as a plaintiff, Kayden wasn’t active in any of the no on B stuff. She did go on Stossel a year ago and held her own but the people who worked the hardest like Alia Janine and Steven St Croix got panned. To me it shows a lack of confidence on the part of the FSC in those peoples ability to speak to the press (and the court) Steven admitting he had caught an STD in a public service spot was a bone headed move but I doubt he wrote the script for that. Its also odd because Kayden is in a rather rare position, part of her contract at Digital Playground is that she can pick who she wants to work with, and she has a very select “Yes List” most girls in porn do not have that option. For Kayden she doesn’t lose a payday, for most girls they would.
The one thing the FSC did right was not putting Jeffery Douglas on this. Lou Sirkin is among the best of the best and I would never discount his abilities in court should this actually be allowed to move forward.
As I have stated many times, the condom law is flawed and I don’t like it but I also dont like the idea that a performer can NOT choose to use a condom. When it comes down to it I ask myself would I want someone I love and care about to not have the ability to say, I know this guy has herpes and I want to use a condom if I have to work with him (or her for that matter).
And of course the larger question looms, with Porn Valley being in the sad state it is thanks to large piracy outfits like Manwin, is this even worth it? Most porn is online these days and is far removed from these regulations. DVD rentals have been in a tailspin for several years and the once highly profitable cable and PPV markets no longer pay nearly as well because the industry, in a constant bid to undercut the other guy has “whored” itself to the point that those markets aren’t the cash cow they once were. They do still keep companies like Vivid afloat, but does that market care about condom use? Indications are they don’t….look at how well Wicked does and they are an all condom company.
When they argue that it’s unconstitutional, here’s what I don’t understand. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is constitutional for a city to require a stripper to wear pasties and a g-string. Focusing just on the freedom of expression issue, and not the health issue, I’m not sure why this would be any different. The law still allows a pornographer to film vaginal and anal sex acts. They can even film internal ejaculation.
I’m not a lawyer, but I’m also a little confused by the prior restraint argument. Typically the way this is applied is to say that except for reasons of national security, the government cannot prevent a media organization from publishing or broadcasting just because someone says the publication will cause some kind of harm. However, that doesn’t mean the media can’t be sued, fined, shut down or jailed after the publication if someone can prove harm or a violation of law as a result of the publication. You could arguably film a condomless scene and distribute it. But, then you’d be fined.
I totally agree that the focus on HIV to the exclusion of other STDs misses the point. They’re called sexually transmitted diseases for a reason.
What gone be hard for FSC win this fact CA one those state really hard get safty lay unpassed once passed. They can go ask one strong lobbying groups in counrty NRA what that like CA. The Ca court system has been of late on porn indusrty side with verdict hand out of late. Porn indurty get call in question on event that happen Mr. Marcus syphilis outbreak how badly that was handle. Not gone help that happen not so long ago.
its not free speech, like the FSC really cares about performers rights. lol Its work place safety but the sad truth is the industry besides very few really doesnt give a crap about talent. Its even sadder talent actually helps them.
Sirkin helped me out of a few jams when I was living stateside. Can’t say enough good things about him.
I actually give FSC credit here, this is an interesting legal argument.
Clearly, if they can show that the HIV rates are lower in porn than they are in the general population, they can argue that workers are actually safer coming to work to fuck rather than just fucking in general. That is an indication that the workplace is inherently safer than the real world.
Further, if they can show that testing and such has generally been working, and that the industry in the porn valley generally respects the testing rules and processes, then they again have an argument that self regulation has worked better than the the options of what would happen in a “condom only” workplace.
I would also say that if condoms replaced testing, it’s likely the infection rates would go up, as performers who become infected might not know, and since condom failure rates are higher than normal when used with too much lube, etc – plus of course the issues of guys losing wood and losing the condom in mid fuck, creating the very contact the law attempts to block, skin on skin.
Further, I also think the argument can be made that if the porn industry decides to shoot just over the county border, the rules of the country won’t apply. However, the testing process will have been destroyed, making those shoots inherently more risky. So strict enforcement on anything less than a state level would create increased risk to many performers outside of LA county.
I really think that the FSC may have a reasonable legal argument here.
The way I see it there are two flies in the ointment
1. Nobody expects condom use to replace testing…I know I wouldn’t. That has been used as a bit of a scare tactic but all the talent I have spoken with say they would continue testing and would require current tests of their counterparts just in case something did happen.
2. While the industry MIGHT be able to show a lower incidence of HIV every reputable study done (and there have been several) indicate that the transmission of STI’s other than HIV are many many times above the norm.
If I were a gambling man I wouldn’t bet on that horse
I would agree with Mike on both points.
With regard to testing versus condoms, it shouldn’t be an either or. Prostitutes in Nevada are supposed to use condoms when they work and they are tested.
With regard to lower transmission rates, there is no right to only pass on some STDs. For the sake of this argument, lets say that there were some non-HIV incidences of STDs in porn and that the transmission rate was lower than in the general population. That wouldn’t give the porn industry a free pass because the incident rate is lower. For instance, I would suspect that relatively few dentists and dental hygenists either passed on or were infected by a disease as a result of working on peoples’ mouths. They are still required to wear protective glasses and gloves.
It would be a little like saying truck drivers would be exempt from wearing seat belts in a click it or ticket state because they are safer drivers than the general population and less likely to get in an accident.
Digging the answer, well put.