Wednesday, January 11, 2012

LA Porn Panic 2012: The Requiem - LA City Council Clears Way For Condom Mandate Bill...The End Or The Beginning?

Sorry that I've been away this past few weeks, but other business took precedence.

But, this latest is enough to bring me back, and it's a blockbuster.

It seems that Michael Weinstein and the AIDS Healthcare Foundation finally got their way with the Los Angeles City Council in his attempt to bypass his own initiative for mandating condoms on porn shoots.

You will remember originally that the LA City Attorney's office had filed suit to block the proposed initiative from being sent to the voters in LA in June, citing legal and financial issues.

Well, all that money that AHF sent to the LA City Council got them some results, because they were able to browbeat the Attorney's office to dismiss their suit and tenatively pass their own legislation mandating condoms in porn shoots through approvals through FilmLA.

Here's how the Huffington Post wrote the story (via LukeIsBack.com):


LOS ANGELES — An ordinance that would require porn actors to wear condoms during film shoots was tentatively approved by the City Council on Tuesday.
The council voted 11-1 for the proposal. The ordinance still requires a second vote next week for final approval.
Under the ordinance, porn producers would have to provide and require the use of condoms on set in order to obtain permits to film in the nation’s second-largest city.
Approval of the ordinance would supersede a proposed ballot initiative by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. The group has long advocated for mandatory condom use in adult films and urged council members to approve the ordinance.
"This long struggle to move us to a place of making Los Angeles a safe place to make adult films has taken a huge leap forward today," said foundation President Michael Weinstein, referring to advocacy work and legal attempts to create a mandate for condoms in porn and to enforce it.
 [...]
The council also agreed to form a group comprised of law enforcement, state occupational safety regulators, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and other stakeholders to hammer out how to enforce the new rules.
The council also voted unanimously to drop a lawsuit filed by the city attorney against the foundation aimed at stopping its proposed ballot measure.

 I'm assuming that "other stakeholders" will NOT include actual porn performers who will be forced under this potential law to wear condoms against their stated will or be denied their paychecks and livelihoods, right??

As for that lawsuit?  Well, it was dropped when AHF reached a deal where they would pay the legal fees for any challenges to the law forthcoming, releasing the LA City Council from any liability.

In other words, the fix was in from the very beginning, and AHF's economic might and capacity for bribery ultimately carried the day...or at least, will when the proposal gets final approval next week.

So...does this mean the beginning of the end for porn production in Los Angeles?? Will the major companies (VIVID, Wicked, DP, and so on) simply adjust to the new regime and once again condomize their performers?? Will other companies simply uproot to new venues or simply go overseas to less stringent regulatory markets, leaving performers fundamentally to the whims of the underground?

What about the replacement of the testing regime that has basically worked well to contain STI panics with a "just wear the damn condom, and trust it not to break" mentality that generates huge bucks for Lifestyles and Durex, but puts performers at even greater risks??  (Remember, they won't be able once the new condom regime kicks in to inquire whether or not their partner is HIV+ or not, thanks to California anti-HIV+ discrimination law.)

And, how about the total undermining of all the work done to fight against porn piracy...because we all know that the majority of fans wanting bareback porn will go to great extents to get it...and if they won't get it through legitimate channels, they will just go through free tube sites and bitTorrents and message boards.

But it gets worse....if AHF is genuinely serious about their stated goal of protecting people from STI's through massive condom usage, then how in the hell do they enforce the law against home-grown porn websites or simply people using their own camphones and websites to put out bareback sex?? Will we ultimately get a "condom police squad" raiding the Internet and targeting sites which don't wrap their schlongs?? Or, maybe, they team up with the dotXXX folk and announce legislation that forces all uncondomized sex portrayals into the .XXX domain under threat of censorship or jail time?? (Thus making lots of instant bank for both AHF AND ICM.)

I'm so sure that some of the more elitist "sex-positive" liberal gurus (Violet Blue, Dr. Gloria Brame, Tony Comstock) and the more avant garde porn artistes (Mike South) will welcome this new age of "safer sex protection", since they will be the ones most likely to profit from more mainstream porn getting smashed. And, I'm just as certain that certain antiporn "activists" (yes, Ministress, I'm looking straight at you), are practically creaming in their blessed panties in anticipation of the new potential of fresh recruits when performers are forced underground into far more dangerous venues to make their livelihood.

In the meantime...if I was a porn addict...ahhhh, I mean, porn connisseur, I'd seriously start investing on some external hard drives..the more space, the better. All the more to store up all that old porn that you will have to do with once wrapped sex becomes the rule.

Happy Freakin' New Year, indeed.

No comments:

Post a Comment