Porn Condom Ballot Initiative For L.A. County Gets Half The Signatures it Needs

As per the rule of mandatory condoms must be used in every porn video. According to me it is very useful for the porn stars because it gives the best security to the users against the AIDS.

So I ask- if condoms are deemed necessary for making porn because it is a safety issue- why are law enforcement officers allowed to confiscate condoms as evidence of prostitution? If an alleged prostitute is using condoms- for safety- how foolish is it to discourage them from continuing to do so? California has a law that allows the cops to charge an individual with 'possessing the intent' to commit prostitution, and if a porn star is on the way to a shoot, gets stopped and has condoms on his/her person, could that be misconstrued by cops as 'intent to commit prostitution'? Does the government really care about the safety issue (of either porn actors or prostitutes) or is it just trying to find a way around constitutional protections and individual rights?

How powerful is drug addiction that it compels people to join the porn industry and engage in sexual immorality with multiple partners without so much as the use of a condom in this day and age? I am just wondering.

Way to go California!   chase ANOTHER industry out of town!

Soon we will have no companies in this state to hire people or contribute tax dollars.

but we will have clean air and no taped sex without condoms..  Freaking ridiculous!

Hey porn industry!,   just move out of state like all the other companies have..   Hell I bet Nevada or Arizona will give you a building and free videotape just to get you there

Dennis, you're incorrect that it's "all talk." I have personal knowledge of recent shoots moved out of LA and out of state. It has already begun. Those shoots went ahead as planned, and the only losers were LA residents: the city didn't receive revenue from permit fees, and the owners of the location properties within the city of LA that were not rented will have a harder time making their mortgage payments.Furthermore, the adult industry doesn't only argue that "consumers won't buy condom porn. And ... that its once-a-month testing protocol for performers is safe," it also maintains that this entire scheme represents an outrageous example government overreach. The government is demanding the power to invade private property to inspect the genitals of citizens who are engaged in constitutionally protected behavior (see Lawrence v. Texas). 

The behavior at issue between performers on porn sets — sex — is consensual behavior between adults of the type that is not only legal to engage in but constitutionally protected everywhere in the United States. The notion that consensual sex could constitute a public health threat only when it’s being recorded is preposterous on its face — even more so when you consider that adult performers, unlike the population at large, are tested every 30 days (and many, many performers test even more frequently than that).

Additionally, there are free speech issues involved here. I emphasize this because making a construction welder wear a helmet doesn’t impact free speech, just as public health laws requiring a sink at a tattoo shop don’t alter the content of the tattoo.  

As for the supposed need for public health permits --- production facilities are not "open to the public" the way that businesses like tattoo shops or restaurants are. They are only open to those employed by (or are otherwise agents of) the owner of the facility and those who have contracted with the owners to be there. The production stages are private property. 

The government cannot regulate private property the way it does public areas.  It also can’t force you to get a public health permit for your home just in case someone might come over for dinner and pick up staph from the doorknob to your toilet. In short,you can't legitimately use public health laws in this manner.

And finally, if “public health” had been the true concern of these fanatic meddlers, they would not have attacked and destroyed the health clinic for performers. How did that make them safer? They endeavored to destroy the working system so they could claim that no working system existed — and that, therefore, condoms were necessary. AHF’s Michael Weinstein essentially admitted to that strategy in a June 2010 press conference.

This mandatory condoms crusade represents an attempt to use a regulatory scheme or regime to curtail constitutionally protected rights and liberties, and as such it is unconstitutional. The industry being regulated doesn't want it, it's no better than (and is quite possibly far worse than) the system currently in place, and it it fails for many legal reasons.