Condoms required if on film

[Musicat]

In your private life, condom use is optional. But the LA City Council has decided that if your bedroom antics are filmed, you'd better wrap that rascal:

http://www.tvweek.com/blogs/tvbizwir...regulating.php

I wonder what the qualifications will be for the enforcement squad, AKA Pecker Checker?

[Ike Witt]

Originally Posted by Musicat

In your private life, condom use is optional. But the LA City Council has decided that if your bedroom antics are filmed, you'd better wrap that rascal:

http://www.tvweek.com/blogs/tvbizwir...regulating.php

I wonder what the qualifications will be for the enforcement squad, AKA Pecker Checker?

So, San Fernando, Pasadena, Glendale and others are still safe sex free?

[Musicat]

Originally Posted by Ike Witt

So, San Fernando, Pasadena, Glendale and others are still safe sex free?

There may be a mass migration. SF Valley doesn't have far to go.

[Hail Ants]

The 'enforcement' will be the market. Condom porn is gross and everybody hates it! Porn is the furthest thing from reality and rubbers have no place in it...

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Musicat

There may be a mass migration. SF Valley doesn't have far to go.

The options are not unlimited. The reason porn production is so centralized is because there are only a few areas where there's a court ruling explicitly declaring it's legal to pay people to have sex on camera. Porn film studios that relocate risk, at the very least, some expensive court battles.

On a related issue, I wonder if this law could withstand a legal challenge. Can the government mandate the content of a movie? Suppose the City Council enacted a law forbidding any movie and television show filmed in Los Angeles from depicting a person smoking? I can't imagine they'd be able to defend that in court.

[bienville]

Surprised by this, we had discussed it in a previous Thread when it was set to be a Ballot Measure with the June 5th Election. I didn't know there was an option for the City Council to just put it into effect.

From the OP's link

City law required the council to approve the initiative as an ordinance or place it before voters in an upcoming election. Council members and supporters said approving the ordinance would avoid the $4 million cost of putting it on the June ballot.

On the topic of "The Market will Decide" and all productions will just move out of the city, I'll repeat what I said in the other Thread:

One estimate says that 90% of all legally distributed porn filmed in the United States is filmed or produced in the San Fernando Valley. Even if that number is inflated (which I'm prepared to believe it is), we're still dealing with a hell of a lot of production companies suddenly looking for studio space in Burbank and Calabasas.

[Simplicio]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

On a related issue, I wonder if this law could withstand a legal challenge. Can the government mandate the content of a movie? Suppose the City Council enacted a law forbidding any movie and television show filmed in Los Angeles from depicting a person smoking? I can't imagine they'd be able to defend that in court.

Well, various townships have banned smoking from bars and the like to protect workers at those establishments, I don't see how this is different. Its been pretty well established that towns can pass regulations forcing safety measures to protect workers on the job.

FWIW, if the claims of STD rates amongst porn actors are true, I suspect that these types of regulations will follow the industry if they flee to LA suburbs. We wouldn't allow any other industry to continue as it had been if their workers were subject to similarly high health risks, especially when a cheap and effective countermeasure is available.

[Vinyl Turnip]

"All right, everybody suit up! CONDOMS ON, NOW!"

"Wait... isn't this a documentary about the impact of global warming on marine life?"

"NO EXCUSES! EVERYBODY WEARS A RAINCOAT! You too, catering boy!"

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Simplicio

Well, various townships have banned smoking from bars and the like to protect workers at those establishments, I don't see how this is different. Its been pretty well established that towns can pass regulations forcing safety measures to protect workers on the job.

FWIW, if the claims of STD rates amongst porn actors are true, I suspect that these types of regulations will follow the industry if they flee to LA suburbs. We wouldn't allow any other industry to continue as it had been if their workers were subject to similarly high health risks, especially when a cheap and effective countermeasure is available.

There's no clear evidence of any need. Several studies indicate that the STD rate among adult film performers is lower than the rate among the general public. Admittedly, these studies have been challenged and some people say the STD rate is higher. But there's certainly no consensus that there's a health crisis occurring.

[Sampiro]

Nothing to add other than

Eating sliders.
Condoms required if on film

is one of the best 'sequential thread' titles I've seen in a while.

[dropzone]

Originally Posted by Sampiro

Nothing to add other than



is one of the best 'sequential thread' titles I've seen in a while.

Tried to extend it, but failed.

[Tangent]

Originally Posted by dropzone

Tried to extend it, but failed.

That's what she said.

[dropzone]

Originally Posted by Tangent

That's what she said.

Hey, I'm not as young as I once was.

ETA: Had a job where one of my duties was providing the owner with "that's what she said" straight lines.

[Musicat]

Originally Posted by dropzone

ETA: Had a job where one of my duties was providing the owner with "that's what she said" straight lines.

Did you get paid by the line or the inch?

[Evil Captor]

I have never understood why it was OK for adult film performers to risk death and/or disease for my entertainment, I'm perfectly OK if those rascals all get wrapped. Of course, you may say, "Isn't it the same thing as high wire acts performing without a net?" To which I say, "I'm perfectly OK with them having a net."

That said, letting city councils regulate the content of films is probably a dangerous precedent.

[Simplicio]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

That said, letting city councils regulate the content of films is probably a dangerous precedent.

I don't really see it as regulating the content of a film so much as a safety regulation regarding the actors. Presumably there's a pretty long list of stuff I can't do in movies because it would be illegally endangering the safety of the actors. Indeed, as far as movie stunts go, there's a pretty large number of regulations due to reactions from past on-set accidents. So far as I know, they've never been challenged in court.

The effect on the content of the film is incidental. And if someone comes up with an invisible condom or something, presumably that could still be used legally.

[Sam A. Robrin]

Originally Posted by Simplicio

I don't really see it as regulating the content of a film so much as a safety regulation regarding the actors.

It isn't really either--it's yet another instance of petty politicians (and, vicariousy, their sycophants) extending their sense of power and control over others to make themselves feel important.
"The tyrant can always find pretext for his tyranny." --Aesop

[Simplicio]

Originally Posted by Sam A. Robrin

It isn't really either--it's yet another instance of petty politicians (and, vicariousy, their sycophants) extending their sense of power and control over others to make themselves feel important.
"The tyrant can always find pretext for his tyranny." --Aesop

Eh, chlamydia is a real thing, its not something politicians dreamed up to keep the Plebs in line. There seems to be pretty good evidence that actors are prone to having multiple infections over the course of their careers, and the main person pushing for these regs appears to be a former porn actress, not a "petty politician".

[bienville]

Originally Posted by Sam A. Robrin

It isn't really either--it's yet another instance of petty politicians (and, vicariousy, their sycophants) extending their sense of power and control over others to make themselves feel important.
"The tyrant can always find pretext for his tyranny." --Aesop

Originally Posted by Simplicio

. . . the main person pushing for these regs appears to be a former porn actress, not a "petty politician".

Yeah, what Simplicio said. Putting this at the politicians' doorstep is only an indication of having not read the links (or the Thread for that matter). This was born as a ballot initiative supported by some within the industry along with, the main backer of the initiative, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation.

The signatures on the petition hit 71,000- about 75% more than the minimum number required to put it to a vote.

from the OP's link

City law required the council to approve the initiative as an ordinance or place it before voters in an upcoming election. Council members and supporters said approving the ordinance would avoid the $4 million cost of putting it on the June ballot.

Vox populi, vox condoms

[tr0psn4j]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

I have never understood why it was OK for adult film performers to risk death and/or disease for my entertainment, I'm perfectly OK if those rascals all get wrapped. Of course, you may say, "Isn't it the same thing as high wire acts performing without a net?" To which I say, "I'm perfectly OK with them having a net."

That said, letting city councils regulate the content of films is probably a dangerous precedent.

Why not have this high wire a foot of the ground and get rid of that net?

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by tr0psn4j

Why not have this high wire a foot of the ground and get rid of that net?

If you filmed it properly, it would be just as exciting to see, I imagine.

[Elendil's Heir]

I'm wearing one now.

[aruvqan]

Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir

I'm wearing one now.

Are you in your bunk?

[miss elizabeth]

I don't particularly love the way condoms look in porn, but I don't think people should be getting sick so I can masturbate either.

In other words, I support this.

[brittekland]

Originally Posted by Musicat

I wonder what the qualifications will be for the enforcement squad, AKA Pecker Checker?

I don't know which would be better, Pujol Checker for the anti-sodomy law or Pecker Checker.

[TBG]

"My body, my choice" sure doesn't count for anything except one very narrow issue, does it?

[miss elizabeth]

Originally Posted by TBG

"My body, my choice" sure doesn't count for anything except one very narrow issue, does it?

It's a workplace regulation. Do you think "my body, my choice" would be sufficient argument against safety regulations in, say, a slaughterhouse? What if the workers really like the constant threat of danger? Shouldn't it be their choice?

Or wait... maybe it's really the industry who wants the right to create a harmful workplace that the employees can do little to stop. Hmm...