LA passes porn condom ordinance

In a significant defeat for the adult film industry, the Los Angeles City Council has given final approval to a city ordinance requiring porn actors to wear condoms while performing.

The 9-1 vote Tuesday marks a significant victory for the L.A.-based AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which has been rallying for years to protect the health of porn actors by asking agencies in California to mandate condom use during film shoots. In the past decade, porn shoots have been suspended several times after high-profile cases of porn performers infected by HIV.

"It's a great day for the performers and safer sex in our society," said an ebullient Michael Weinstein, president of the foundation, which has been waging a largely lonely battle for mandatory condom use for years. "This is the first legislative body to take up the issue, and the near-unanimous support is very gratifying."

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa is supportive of the ordinance, believing it to address a public health issue, a mayoral spokesman said. Because Villaraigosa is in Washington, D.C., this week, it's possible that the council president, Herb Wesson, will sign the ordinance as acting mayor.

For years, lawmakers have largely ignored calls to crack down on condom-free porn filming. But last year, the foundation changed its tactics and gathered signatures to ask voters to pass an ordinance requiring adult film producers, when seeking a filming permit in the city of Los Angeles, to have actors use condoms.

The new rule would require porn producers to pay a fee to fund surprise inspections. The proposed requirement would have targeted the multibillion-dollar porn industry centered in L.A.'s San Fernando Valley.

Last week, council members signaled during the ordinance's first reading that they believed the porn condom measure would pass at the ballot box and decided to back the AIDS group's proposed ordinance to avoid a $4-million special election this June.

"I think there's no doubt: the voters would see this as a common sense issue and pass it," said Councilman Paul Koretz.

Porn industry representatives opposed the measure. Diane Duke of the lobbying group Free Speech Coalition said, "This is government overreach. It's not about performer health and safety; it's about government regulating what happens between consenting adults."

Weinstein said gay porn performers have been using condoms for years.

Referring to the porn industry, "it's in their DNA to not have anybody tell them anything about how they do business. Self-regulation in the industry has been shown to be a failure across the board," Weinstein said.

The AIDS Healthcare Foundation is also gathering signatures for a measure to go to Los Angeles County voters for the November election. It would also require condom use and ask porn producers to obtain permits from the county Department of Public Health before filming. The county would also be able to do surprise inspections.

The AIDS group is also considering launching a similar condom measure in San Francisco.

Jamila said:
This just seems like a no-brainer to me. I understand that some people will see it as regulation that shouldn't happen, but we are talking about a public health issue and communicable diseases. Six degrees of separation, remember?

Jamila said:

Because that is impossible?

StaticToybox said:
Seems pointless. What's to stop the porn producers from packing up and relocating just outside of the jurisdiction while still retaining all the benefits of being in the area?

In that case why not make condoms a requirement for everyone?

IDGAS said:

Because personal reproductive decisions are generally protected. (Abortion rights being chipped away with not withstanding.) While working conditions are frequently regulated as are pubic health matters.


Edit to add - BTW if you are planning to be a troll, willfully ignorant, or otherwise not add value to discussions please let me know ASAP. I would like put you on ignore sooner rather than later.

Jamila said:
Oh give me a break, seriously? HIV can take several months to show up on a test. In the meantime, how many people are exposed.
They want to head elsewhere because of this regulation? That has always been their option.
Just don't see how this could be considered a bad thing. I know, a lot of people hate the government becoming newly involved in anything, however public safety is firmly within the governments' reach.

Sallen said:
I honestly don't see this as any different than the government requiring the use of PPE(personal protective equipment) in any other job or profession where an employee could come into contact with hazoardous materials or bodily fluids.

Fireflies said:
I'm not really sure why it's anyone's business but the people being filmed and those doing the filming.

MissyMalice said:

Because the employee is in a low power situation relative to the employer. And it's generally a good idea to look out for the interests of people in low power situations, especially when there is a risk of potentially fatal illnesses. This holds true for any other job; what would make pornography special?

baudot said:

Oracle said:

I like this way of looking at it....I also assume they will just move jurisdictions as another member mentioned. So, I really have no new ideas to pass along, just sitting here smiling and nodding. Thank you.

Calico said:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

I would normally agree that people don't emulate movies, but I've had too many guys try that whole "slapping my clitoris with their hard penis" thing to think otherwise when it comes to porn.

Aaron said:
There were many points made in the other thread that are valid, I'll restate some of them here:

- The industry has done a phenomenal job of regulating itself for the past 20 years.

- A city council ordinance will do nothing, people will simply start filming outside of the city that passed it.

- Big studio porn is almost completely dead anyway.