It’s not over if Vivid decides its not over. Per my first post, Vivid can ask for an En Banc review. Even if the court turns that down, which is likely, it could take some time for the court to get around to handing that down. Then, Vivid could appeal it to the Supremes. Again, even if SCOTUS declines to hear it, that could take some time. If they do decide to hear it, that could take more time. Vivid could drag this out another two years if it has the stomach for it.
It’s unlikely Congress would do something about this – although Congress now has ammunition. The last time Congress decided to get involved in porn was the Meese Commission when Reagan was in the White House. That went nowhere. Now, Pat Truman, who heads up one of the anti-porn advocacy groups, is a really, really smart and really well-connected former federal prosecutor. It is conceivable that a group like his could take this ruling and use it as the basis to lobby conservative members of Congress to pass federal legislation requiring condoms in porn, but that doesn’t seem likely. Its hard to imagine who would stick up for porn during those hearings. I don’t think anyone wants to be on side of DP’s and double anal in their next campaign.
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.
3 Responses
What the Measure B Ruling Means and Where Do We Go From here http://t.co/ID8DfgnAI8
RT @MikeSouth1226: What the Measure B Ruling Means and Where Do We Go From here: The best analysis I have seen of this was written b… htt…
Is it me Mike or is this just stupid? I spent 12 years working in adult as a videographer and editor. I worked on plenty of condom shoots. No one had a problem with it. I have shot for so many solo girl websites such as Kaydan is trying to represent almost everyone of those scenes was with a condom. Unless it was with the significant other. Cost plays no part. I lived and worked in LA, Tucson, Phx, Denver, and Vegas shooting in all those locations. Vivid and Wicked went mandatory condoms for a good bit of time. Not sure if Wicked still isn’t. The actual SALES data is their. Not sure how accurate it would be since the net was taking profits from DVD sales and movies started to lose quality. To me it is a safety issues. Porn people are not the best about outside of work interactions. I would be really interested to actually hear your thoughts on the actual use of condoms.