Also check out https://ballotpedia.org/California_Condoms_in_Pornographic_Films_Initiative,_Proposition_60_(2016) - doctors from the CDC have come out against this:
The Free Speech Coalition, a trade organization representing the pornography industry, said the group opposes the initiative.[9] In April 2016, the opposing ballot committee Californians Against Worker Harassment—funded by various performers, public health advocates, and businesses—was formed.[10]
Many performers in the porn industry also publicly opposed the measure, arguing that the measure would not protect performers but would drive the production of pornographic films underground.[11][12]
The Democratic County Central Committee (DCCC) that oversees San Francisco’s Democratic Party voted to urge the state’s Democratic Party to oppose this initiative. This position by the San Francisco Democratic Party was not official, as local Democratic committees cannot officially hold a position on a statewide ballot measure until the state party decides not to take an official position. Local committee member Matt Dorsey argued that the unofficial endorsement by San Francisco’s party was significant, however, saying, “San Francisco is a globally-recognized leader on HIV/AIDS issues. This is a very strong statement from San Francisco’s Democratic Party, and I hope it will send an influential message to the California Democratic Party, and to voters statewide.”[13]
On June 19, 2016, the California Democratic Party voted to oppose the measure.[14]
Lorelei Lee, an adult film performer, wrote a letter to the editor of the New York Times arguing against regulations like the ones contained in this initiative based on concerns that such laws would force porn production out of the state or underground. She stated that the initiative was “written without our [porn actors and actresses] input, with disregard for our actual safety, and in opposition to the views of doctors and epidemiologists from institutions like the CDC and Emory University.” An excerpt of her argument against a failed legislative bill that had some provisions that were similar to those found in this initiative is below:[12]
“This regulation would have pushed our industry underground where workers like me have fewer resources and less protection against all manner of safety violations beyond STI transmission, and, if passed, would have alienated us from the very government body assigned with our protection.[2]”
Lee also argued that porn actors and actresses banded together to create their own set of rules and regulations to protect against STDs, making this initiative and other proposals like it unnecessary.[12]
San Francisco Councilman and California State Senate candidate Scott Wiener wrote:[11]
“This ballot measure — which allows people to sue the actors who don’t wear condoms — will not result in a single additional condom being used in adult films. Rather, it will simply drive the adult film industry underground or out of state, to states with less public health infrastructure than California.[…] This ballot measure, of course, isn’t about public health, since it won’t have any public health benefit. Rather, it’s about a moralistic, ideological crusade that will do great damage to this California industry and to the health of its employees. It needs to be defeated.[2]”
Diane Duke, executive director of The Free Speech Coalition, argued:[15]
“Performer health is important. But performers, the most tested population on the planet, should have the ultimate right to control their bodies and their health. They don’t deserve to be shamed or treated as a public danger or to have their rights trampled. Michael Weinstein [President of AIDS Health Foundation] is using taxpayer money to fund a campaign that is opposed by performers, public health experts and civil rights groups, in hopes that he can use the ballot initiative to accomplish what has failed in every other venue.[2]”
The Free Speech Coalition argued in a press release issued on July 17, 2015:[16]
“The Attorney General’s office has estimated the initiative will cost California tens of millions of dollars. Weinstein has already raided the coffers of the nonprofit AIDS Healthcare Foundation for over $1.1 million dollars for this campaign alone. By AHF’s own estimates, that money could have provided healthcare care for over 1,000 patients living with HIV this year alone.[2]”
Eric Paul Leue, director of the Free Speech Coalition, told the Los Angeles Daily News:[17]
“Most people look at the state ballot initiative and say this is about worker safety. The problem is it’s not about worker safety. It’s not about sexual health. It is not about protecting people from something. This is completely about harassing workers. We need to stop pushing an industry that is legal and safe out of this state. We see this as a repetitive conversation. We’re launching a PAC, and we’re going to oppose this. Harassing workers, no matter if we agree with the job or not, is never the right thing.[2]”
Elizabeth Nolan Brown, a contributing writer for the Orange County Register, specifically touched upon the measure’s requirement that someone monitor pornographic films for condom use, writing:[18]
“Also troubling is the fact that the proposed condom law would create a state porn czar, of sorts – one authorized to use taxpayer funds to ‘investigate’ and prosecute non-compliant adult films. The measure, written by activist and attorney Michael Weinstein, would task Weinstein with monitoring all pornography produced in California for condom use and allow him to file lawsuits against anyone involved in an offending production. Weinstein could only be removed from this role by a majority vote from both houses of the state Legislature.
It’s clear what Weinstein would get out of the condom measure’s passage – a cushy government gig watching adult films all day. But, by both porn industry and governmental analyst accounts, the California Safer Sex in Adult Film Act would cost the state tens of millions of dollars in annual revenue and hundreds of jobs without actually making anyone any safer.[2]”
Ela Darling, an adult film performer, told Fox News 40 that she was concerned about the measure’s specification that any individual watching an adult film without condom use could potentially sue performers, saying the following:[19]“
I’ve had death threats, I’ve had rape threats, I’ve had someone threaten to kill my dog because they don’t like the work that I do. If these people were able to have their day in court, and if only costs them a few hundred dollars to do it, that terrifies me…because when people who are fanatics or crusaders against porn, who wish us harm find access to our personal information, they use it and they use it to harm us.[2]”
ellievsbear
theartofmadeline
janainaart
baratheonpilled
vaporwave
romaincrisis
kaledo-art
dailybridgerton
