@BT

Who do you think is going to be monitored? The porn industry or an artist without a formal company. What I’m saying is that the only way you may be able to get away with it is to do it as art and that isn’t cost-effective for porn. If you aren’t getting paid then how is it work? If one is fucking in front of a camera it doesn’t instantly become “work”. It doesn’t make anyone involved become an “employee”. Is an artist fined for not wearing a hard hat and having regulation ladders while building a sculpture out of wood in his own home? No. It is not work. Now, if he has people doing internships and paid assistants providing help, then yeah. One could have something there to go after them with.

I agree with you. The industry is breaking the law if they don’t use condoms and forcing them to use condoms is entirely legal. If they operate in their current fashion without condoms then they are breaking the law.

to answer your question Mitch, YES.

“But they’re not looked at as performers. They’re looked at as a commodities; they’re looked at as body parts that are going to be edited into a prouct thats going to make money.”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125526713

Did you ever wonder why producers never gave a dime to AIM?

Also, Jamie my understanding of the meaning of Shalom is essentially peace be with you. With that understanding (I am not Jewish so if there is another definition I am unaware of it) I wish you and your family peace during this holiday season as well. You have a wicked sense of humor (so do I) and some interesting opinions whether we agree or not — both helpful to the conversation here. Jamie, Happy Hanukkah and Happy New Year! Also Merry Christmas to everyone else!

@BT

Slogged through the whole 29 pages of the opinion and skimmed the attachments. You’re spot on with what I saw.

Two things really stood out for me…the STI and a reference to how they undermined their arguments on permitting.

Up front the Condom mandate survives because it has minimal effect on expression and narrowly tailored to meet governments overriding interest of reducing rate of STI.

The judge discusses that LACPH was a reliable source of data but also pointed out that they don’t do anatomical testing which means the numbers are likely higher. In one area they mention reducing ‘higher’ rates then later mention simply government duty to prevent or minimize STI.

All that leads me to believe it isn’t done…the industry will argue rate comparison and government health will argue district court erred by omitting ‘oral’ from Measure B.

At the district court plaintiff’s argued that Measure B had drastically reduced the number of films produced in LA and in total because they depend heavily on the ‘regular’ film industry infrastructure in LA. On appeal they argued measure B wasn’t narrow enough and largely ineffective because of the adult film industry high mobility allowed them to easily cross county lines. So their earlier argument undermined their appeal argument with respect to mobility but doesn’t address industry production reduction overall.

With respect to an En Banc hearing the defendant intervenors would still be out of it but the government health would still be able to show up and would likely defend their position to act as mandated to minimize public health concerns which includes workplaces. The health departments position of defending their function without taking a stand on the actual measure is a smart move because it solidifies general industry safety for easy adoption elsewhere. Folks aren’t mentioning the county approved educational portion of this measure or speaking about how it’s been applied to other industries eg food with specific employees mandated to attend and pass county approved food safety educational programs.

The fat lady hasn’t sung on this one.

At this point, Logan Pierce and Kayden Kross are irrelevant to any action going forward. They argued economic harm – Pierce said that as a result of a condom mandate there would be fewer scenes filmed and as a result, fewer opportunities for him to ply his trade. I didn’t read the entire decision, but the court didn’t address that up front. They really hung their hat on the First Amendment issue. If you think about it, Pierce’s argument is the equivalent to saying: if you make construction workers wear hard hats and steel toed shoes, there will be less construction activity and I’ll have fewer opportunities to work, so you should allow me to get a concussion and lose a toe.

Kayden’s argument was similar but different. She argued as a small producer, not really a performer, saying that she films her scenes in her home in LA County. If she complied with the law, traffic to her site would drop off, so she would be compelled to go outside LA County to film in venues that don’t require a condom and she couldn’t afford that expense. Hers was really the argument of a small producer. Again, the court didn’t focus on the cost to producers or impact on work to actors. It said that LA County has an interest in public health and they were convinced that there is a higher incidence of STD’s in the porn community than the community at large that could be reduced through the use of condoms. Further, they did not think that porn’s right to express itself was harmed by the condom requirement – specifically, they did not buy porn’s argument that its primary message is sex with abandonment, no consequences and no responsibilities.

End of the day, Pierce and Kross played no role in the decision. They’re just pretty window dressing.

So again, porn can keep fighting all the way to the Supreme Court. But it is a go for broke strategy. They just lost in the most liberal appeals court in the country, especially with regard to the First Amendment. As it stands, this ruling could be used by other jurisdictions like Las Vegas, Phoenix and Miami to require condoms and regulate how porn is produced in their jurisdictions. However, porn companies in those jurisdictions could sue over those laws and perhaps get a different outcome. If that happened in Florida, for instance, an appeal would be heard in a different district from the 9th and maybe have a different outcome. That’s happened in rulings over gay marriage.

However, appealing this all the way to the Supreme Court is a go for broke strategy. Lose there, and any ruling would automatically apply to any locale in the US. Porn will either bank on lack of enforcement – Yeah, its the law in LA County, but no one cares or is going to enforce it; or relocate to an area that just doesn’t care – yeah, Las Vegas knows porn is being produced in the city or county limits but doesn’t care as long as pornographers pay their taxes, keep a low profile, act like adults, and no one dies. They’d be smarter to fight this one battle at a time rather than roll the dice in the Supreme Court.

Anyone recall how Rudy Giuliani got the nickname ‘duty Rudy’? The first amendment display and funding wars his removal of an art work caused from NYC to DC and beyond?

Right now federal OSHA is working on record keeping portions of the fed equivalent of Cal/OSHA 5193 Asa stepping stone to revising the entire BBP…so I’m sure at some point that will also come Into play.