California’s Condom Conundrum Continued

 

Back in September, I published a blogpost entitled California’s Condom Conundrum, focused on an initiative referendum calling for the extension to all of California of a restriction passed not so many years ago by the citizens of Los Angeles County which required that actors in pornography films wear condoms while in flagrante delicto.

As I explained at the time,

Behind the proposition stand Michael Weinstein and his AIDS Healthcare Foundation, as well as the American Sexual Health Association, the California Academy of Preventive Medicine, and the California State Association of Occupational Health Nurses. These folks think it a matter of public health. Against it you will find a phalanx of organizations including the state’s Republican and Democratic parties, as well as the Libertarians and the Adult Performer Advocacy Committee. Also opposed are the Free Speech Coalition, the San Francisco AIDS Foundation, and LGBT-rights groups such as Equality California and the Transgender Law Center. These folks think it a matter of civil liberty. Others worry that it will cost California millions of dollars in tax revenue.

The tax revenues involved are not chicken feed. The industry produces $10 billion annually in revenue. Moreover, it is already illegal under state law for the industry to film actors to having “unprotected” sex, and, as The Mercury News reported back in September, “Federal regulations through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration already require condom use for X-rated actors in the same way health workers must use gloves and other protection when dealing with bodily fluids and other potential biohazards,” and on occasion film companies have been fined. The problem from the perspective of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation is that the law is too rarely unenforced. They want anyone to be able to bring a law suit.

Since I know that the Ricochetti have been waiting with bated breath to learn whether, in today’s California, civil liberties and tax revenues trump (so to speak) public health, I am here to report that the initiative went down to defeat by a ration of 53.9% to 46.1% — which means that the porn film industry will not be relocating from California to Reno, Las Vegas, or beautiful downtown Hillsdale. It will remain just across the border from Los Angeles County in the San Fernando Valley. California is intent on playing the nanny when it comes to regulating hanky-panky among undergraduates. But when a loss of tax revenues might be the consequence, the citizens of that province are libertarian. Go figure.

There are 8 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. The King Prawn Inactive
    The King Prawn
    @TheKingPrawn

    Shorter California: have all the government sanctioned sex you like.

    • #1
  2. Joseph Eagar Member
    Joseph Eagar
    @JosephEagar

    Ok, I have to admit, I voted no on that one without reading it all the way through.  I was a bit offended that I was being asked to vote on regulations for the porn industry.  That’s what the legislature is for.

    • #2
  3. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    Could have been even better….

    Porn Stars Would Have To Wear Goggles Under New Draft Of California Bill

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YFC0O393DQ

     

    • #3
  4. Bob W Member
    Bob W
    @WBob

    Let’s see, it’s illegal in CA for one person to pay another for sex, but legal for a third party to pay others to have sex.  You can see the interests behind why that completely inconsistent and illogical contradiction exists: money for film companies and taxes. Money for a prostitute to earn a living isn’t as important.

    • #4
  5. Ontheleftcoast Member
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    Joseph Eagar: Ok, I have to admit, I voted no on that one without reading it all the way through.

    Ah. Another California Marxist.

     

    • #5
  6. Damocles Inactive
    Damocles
    @Damocles

    I think there were two serious issues with the bill:

    • it inadvertently caught many individuals who have their own websites where they purvey their merchandise, since that put them into the legal category of producers.
    • it provides that, if the state didn’t come forward with a prosecution, any resident of California could bring a civil action against the production company on behalf of the state.  Not sure of the monetary details, but the individual would pocket a large portion of the revenue.  It was widely believe that Michael Weinstein, who funded the majority of the bill, planned on doing this.
    • #6
  7. captainpower Member
    captainpower
    @captainpower

    Joseph Eagar: I was a bit offended that I was being asked to vote on regulations for the porn industry. That’s what the legislature is for.

    When I see 17 initiatives, I know the legislature isn’t doing their job.

    Especially when I have to vote about chicken coops.

    • #7
  8. Kate Braestrup Member
    Kate Braestrup
    @GrannyDude

    captainpower:

    Joseph Eagar: I was a bit offended that I was being asked to vote on regulations for the porn industry. That’s what the legislature is for.

    When I see 17 initiatives, I know the legislature isn’t doing their job.

    Especially when I have to vote about chicken coops.

    I agree!  I don’t like having to vote for bond issues, either. How should I know whether its a good idea to borrow money to repair bridges, or put a new parking lot next to the VoTec school? Just do your dang jobs, people!

    • #8

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.