Porn Industry to Leave Los Angeles Over Condom Law?
Few people are unaware that the San Fernando Valley is the pornography capital of California, if not the nation, and for decades, this seems to have served everyone well, from the “actors” to the producers to the city itself, which collects revenue.
Now some do-gooders in the health industry seem set to throw a wrench in this smoothly operating industry by requiring porn performers to wear condoms while, ahem, going about their job as of March 5.
This is looking to be a major shake-up in an industry that generates millions of dollars, and it is a rare attempt to regulate how these films are made. One group that is a large supporter of this legislation is, not surprisingly, AIDS activists, who are gathering signatures to extend the ban throughout the county-their argument is that porn films are propagating the idea that only unsafe (condomless) sex is “hot” sex.
“It’s certainly a fascinating conundrum,” Jason E. Squire, a USC professor of cinematic arts, told the LA Times. “You want all performers, whatever they do, to be safe. That transcends content. I don’t know what the proper solution is.”
This legislation is in response to incidents where adult-film productions were suspended because of concerns that AIDS had been transmitted among performers, and the Los Angeles City Council decided to take action. So where does the line get drawn between the health of the workers and the “content”, as Squire calls it?
And this is why the industry is fighting back. Porn-industry leaders say that they will fight back either in the courts or with their revenue-i.e., moving out of Los Angeles to a more condomless-friendly area. Their response to the condom requirement is that there is monthly testing to protect performers and, perhaps more importantly to those counting the profits, they say that customers won’t pay to see films where performers are wearing condoms.
How do you feel about this issue? Do you feel that customers won’t pay for films where performers are wearing condoms? Do you think this is more important than the performers’ health risks? Do you think they should have a choice whether or not to wear condoms? How do you think this issue will be policed? So you think that this industry is being targeted because it deals with a taboo subject like sex? Some people have said it’s like the risks that athletes or boxers take, even though they know the risk they still get in the ring. Do you agree? Or does the contagious aspect of AIDS cancel out that argument? Please use our comments section below to give us your opinion of this controversial subject.
At the Law Offices of Glew & Kim, we see all clients as innocent until proven guilty, and believe in equal justice for all. If you or someone you know has been involved in a crime and needs honest, unbiased defense, please call us immediately on 714-713-4525 or use our online form for a free case analysis.
*This is not an attorney-client communication, and as such no advice is being offered in this article. Any and all communications related to the Glew & Kim website and the MarijuanaLawyer.com website should be deemed and considered advertisement. This article is purely opinion, and the basis of this and any opinion was formed subject to the reporting by the actual news agencies, the information from with was used as source material.
This is not an attorney-client communication, and as such no advice is being offered in this article. Any and all communications related to the Glew & Kim Law website should be deemed and considered advertisement. This article is purely opinion, and the basis of this and any opinion was formed subject to the reporting by the actual news agencies, the information from which was used as source material.
“It’s certainly a fascinating conundrum,” Jason E. Squire, a USC professor of cinematic arts, told the LA Times. “You want all performers, whatever they do, to be safe. That transcends content. I don’t know what the proper solution is.”
This legislation is in response to incidents where adult-film productions were suspended because of concerns that AIDS had been transmitted among performers, and the Los Angeles City Council decided to take action. So where does the line get drawn between the health of the workers and the “content”, as Squire calls it?
And this is why the industry is fighting back. Porn-industry leaders say that they will fight back either in the courts or with their revenue-i.e., moving out of Los Angeles to a more condomless-friendly area. Their response to the condom requirement is that there is monthly testing to protect performers and, perhaps more importantly to those counting the profits, they say that customers won’t pay to see films where performers are wearing condoms.
How do you feel about this issue? Do you feel that customers won’t pay for films where performers are wearing condoms? Do you think this is more important than the performers’ health risks? Do you think they should have a choice whether or not to wear condoms? How do you think this issue will be policed? So you think that this industry is being targeted because it deals with a taboo subject like sex? Some people have said it’s like the risks that athletes or boxers take, even though they know the risk they still get in the ring. Do you agree? Or does the contagious aspect of AIDS cancel out that argument? Please use our comments section below to give us your opinion of this controversial subject.
At the Law Offices of Glew & Kim, we see all clients as innocent until proven guilty, and believe in equal justice for all. If you or someone you know has been involved in a crime and needs honest, unbiased defense, please call us immediately on 714-713-4525 or use our online form for a free case analysis.
*This is not an attorney-client communication, and as such no advice is being offered in this article. Any and all communications related to the Glew & Kim website and the MarijuanaLawyer.com website should be deemed and considered advertisement. This article is purely opinion, and the basis of this and any opinion was formed subject to the reporting by the actual news agencies, the information from with was used as source material.
This is not an attorney-client communication, and as such no advice is being offered in this article. Any and all communications related to the Glew & Kim Law website should be deemed and considered advertisement. This article is purely opinion, and the basis of this and any opinion was formed subject to the reporting by the actual news agencies, the information from which was used as source material.
