• anthonyjk

    On balance, a fair and balanced (in the true sense, not the FOX News sense) article. There are, though, a couple of caveats.

    First, it was NOT the LA City Council that approved the proposed ordinance for mandating condom usage as a requirement for porn production. That ordinance is in the form of an initiative that is in the formative process that was initiated solely by the AHF. The City Council did initiate an inquiry by the LA City Attorney’s office into whether it was fruitful for their local offices to impose the condom mandate via local laws, but the Attorney’s office ruled that it would not be feasible to do so. The AHF launched their initiative drive in protest to that decision. The actual Feburary vote by the LA City Council was to initiate the inquiry, not for an official initiative.

     

    Secondly..it is still highly debatable whether or not California or federal regulations directly require mandatory condom usage, due to the specific structure of the regulations themselves. Neither the federal nor the state health and safety regs directly dictate protections for porn performers, other than the avoidance of exposure to “blood borne pathogens” that could be tainted by infectious bioorganisms. Cal/OSHA, the state body that regulates workplace regulations, is currently in the process of profligating regulations that would impose specific workplace regulations on porn production, including barrier protections such as condoms or dental dams or other means of protection…but those regulations are highly controversial and have been the subject of intense debate and analysis. There is also the question of whether porn performers, because of the nature of their occupation, would legally fall under the protections and restrictions as “workers” or “independent contractors” (the latter category less subject to regulation per California law).

     

    Finally…it should be noted that porn performers whom have lined up against the condom mandate are NOT opposed in any way to voluntary condom usage; indeed, they understand the preference of many performers to insist on condom usage as one means of protection against STI’s. They are opposed to the condom mandate because it would take away their choice of how they wish to be protected; because a condom mandate — especially in lieu of removing and terminating the existing testing regime, as pro-mandate groups like AHF have proposed, and in light of existing California antidiscrimination law that forbids terminating an employee who happens to be HIV+) could in fact weaken protection of performers; and because the condom mandate would have the effect of shutting down porn production in California and moving it to other places with less protection, further degrading performer safety.

     

    Also…the “$13 billion” stat for the gross profits of the porn industry has been proven to be highly exaggerated, because it includes profits of not only porn videos sold in Los Angeles County, but all aspects of worldwide Internet, video, and written porn, as well as many corporations in which porn is a small portion of their profits. Most more realistic analysis places the profits of LA-base porn production as closer to $3 billion.

     

    Other than those caveats, an excellent article.

     

    Anthony

Mobile Theme