Not true - a film set is a workplace. There are many restrictions on safety in the workplace that don’t apply to private interactions.
Weren’t most safety regulations (like hard hats) originally instituted on the basis that the affected businesses had federal contracts? The government isn’t going to be able to use that principle to regulate the porn industry. They also won’t be able to use the limited airwaves argument to justify this either. So they’d have to fall back on the interstate commerce clause.
Well, it depends on how committed they are to the issue…
Based on, errr, research ; that’s not a problem where condoms are mandated. Most French porn intended for TV involves condoms during penetration (no law that I’m aware of, just a gentleman’s agreement between the Government, TV stations, and porn makers).
Then there’s a jump cut and a money shot sans condom. The actress doesn’t even have to rip it away with her teeth or nothing. It just vanishes. That’s the magic of *Bois de Houx *!
What constitutes a porn performer? There’s an awful lot of homemade porn out there these days. Can the government mandate that a husband and wife use a condom if they make a commercial sex tape in their own home?
Because getting a TB shot doesn’t involve limiting any expressive conduct on your part, and thus is inoffensive to the First Amendment.
Is there any requirement that a regulation like this has to provide a net benefit for the individuals’ health and safety? From what I’ve read, the proposed law is based on the notion that porn is real, that it is two people having sex while other people film. Actually (so I understand) it’s made like any other movie, with mulitple takes for each shot. As a result, the most important thing for a performer is to avoid chafing, which puts them at greater risk for STDs than going without condoms would.
I can’t imagine the framers were considering cum shots when writing the First Amendment. For someone who opposes revisionism, Bricker, you sure do surprise me.
There have been other threads regarding what the framers were or were not protecting with the first amendment, and I offer the same comment here I do everywhere else: please point out the adjectives that modify the types of “speech” and “press” that are protected under the first amendment, because I am apparently having difficulty seeing them.
I don’t see any reason why not, given that the government can require HIV+ people to disclose their status to sex partners.
Seems to me, the government can avoid expressive issues by permitting the simulation of unprotected sex in films, no problem, but still demanding that porn actors not actually engage in unprotected sex on the job. If the government’s goal is spreading a message through porn, this won’t work, except slyly/underhandedly because of the potential difficulty of effectively simulating unprotected sex; however, if the goal is simply regulating the health/occupational safety of the porn performers themselves, this may be an argument the government can try to make.
The issues mentioned by Dio about “Who counts as a porn actor?” are, in my not particularly legally-backed opinion, fatally thorny, though, anyway.
I happened to be walking past a TV that was showing porn, not watching it myself mind you 
. The actor was wearing a condom and when it came (heh) time for the “money shot” he (get ready) took the condom off. :eek:
“Money shot” saved.
What religion forbids condom use but doesn’t mind creation of porn?
This would be an example of government explicitly attempting to control the ‘message’ put out by the makers, and is exactly why this is a first-amendment issue. Would you approve if the government mandated that no movies be allowed to show people smoking? Or driving without a seatbelt?
It’s not the government’s job to police the ideas in the heads of the public through control of the media, and under the constitution the government does not have the right to do so.
Now, there are probably other ways to attack this issue. For example, placing a heavier burden for proof of health on porn producers and actors by requiring STD tests by law in lieu of condom usage, and making it a serious felony to fake the paperwork. Pass a law requiring porn producers to verify said paperwork, and make it a felony if they don’t do due diligence and as a result an actor is infected. This would avoid first-amendment issues because the act itself is not forbidden.
I think something similar exists for age of consent declaration already. The producers are required to get proof of age for the actors, and they’re required to keep them on file. Do the same for proof of health, and set guidelines for the documentation required.
We don’t allow cigarette commercials.
That doesn’t do anything. Porn ‘stars’ have sex outside of their jobs. Maybe even for cash.
as an aside:
I’m wondering who is and who is not a porn watcher on SD.
I think the individual actors’ interest in staying alive and undiseased trumps the filmmaker’s need to show, and audiences’ need to see, a non-latex-sheathed cock entering a vagina. As a practical matter, I’d be OK with it.
In this thread, this sounds like the most relevant post. Aren’t there California laws regulating safety on movie sets? Or what children can do on movie sets? Do those infringe on First Amendment rights?
It seems pretty clear to me that the e Los Angeles County Department of Public Health should be legally able to enforce condom use on all adult film sets in the County.
Would this be a good thing to do? It seems obvious that the answer is yes (more safety for the performers.)
I don’t see the First Amendment rights issue. If the director’s artistic vision (if one can say that with a straight face when talking about pornographic films) requires that the actors should be having sex without protection, that can be arranged with digital retouching.
What I think would be a First Amendment rights issue is if someone attempted to pass a law saying that you cannot show simulated sex without a condom onscreen (e.g. disallowing the showing of a scene where the performer wears a condom but the camera angle or retouching makes it appear as if he was not wearing one.)
The performers themselves are dead set against it, though, for the reasons I mentioned above. They’ve also been asserting a privacy issue. If the government can’t forbid you from using condoms, can they still require you to?
I don’t see why the performers’ opinion should be the deciding factor here. What if teenagers in Hollywood were dead set against the rules limiting their working hours? Those laws still exist and are enforced. The government can have certain requirements governing workplaces that won’t apply in the privacy of my home.
ETA: quoting from your link “Cal/OSHA officials say condoms are already required via federal rules that seek to protect workers from exposure to bloodborne pathogens.” The answer to the question “can the government require you to do this” is obviously “yes”.
The difference being, of course, that teenagers are not adults, and incapable of entering into any contract.
And again, this is something a little more personal than working hours. That and the fact that the rules would make the actresses’ jobs more, rahter than less, dangerous in their opinion.