The 2257 Ruling and AB332

Yesterday’s 2257 ruling hit me with something that related to the whole condom law issue but before I could articulate my views on it, my reader BT did a much better job than I could have.

BT Wrote in a comment:
Here’s the phrase I found most interesting in the decision.

“Rather, it was the pervasiveness of laws aimed at ensuring the industry’s practices did not undermine the safety of the public, which justified the reduced privacy expectations of the businesses. And here, federal anti-child pornography laws are similarly extensive.”

In other words, this is a First Amendment case in which a federal judge found that the government has an interest in regulation that protects the safety of the public.

Now, this law is in the context of the safety of underage performers. But, I don’t think it’s a stretch to argue that a condom law, like the 2257 regulation, is designed to ensure the safety of the public.

Just a thought.

I think BT nailed it. With the coming Cal/OSHA standards porn is probably in for a rough ride in Cali for the foreseeable future.

One thing I don’t get is porners unwillingness to even try to make condoms a performer choice issue, seems it has to be all or nothing.  I have been condom neutral since day one and it has never had any impact on my sales that I have seen.

A lot of companies are shooting non condom in places where they are not supposed to and right now the impact on them has been minimal but the first time a girl with an STD and a lawyer meet its gonna get very ugly for the Evil Angels of the world.



78490cookie-checkThe 2257 Ruling and AB332

The 2257 Ruling and AB332

Share This

3 Responses

Leave a Reply