Measure B California

[Will E Worm]

:dotdot: Just leave California.

 

[Mayhem]

 

[STDiva]

Is this serious?

 

[FreeOnes_Anders]

Moved to the talk section since this is regarding the porn industry.

 

[Little Red Wagon Repairman]

Ladies are gonna have to learn to be secretaries or invent a legal genre that would make the sickest Japanese pervert empty his guts onto his shoes or shove a sword in his belly.

 

[Will E Worm]

Is this serious?

It's more sad. California is destroying itself.

Moved to the talk section since this is regarding the porn industry.

This thread was already in the talk section.

Ladies are gonna have to learn to be secretaries or invent a legal genre that would make the sickest Japanese pervert empty his guts onto his shoes or shove a sword in his belly.

What?

 

[FreeOnes_Anders]

This thread was already in the talk section.

It was, but someone moved it to the politics section, so I moved it back.

 

[Will E Worm]

It was, but someone moved it to the politics section, so I moved it back.

Smart move.

 

[Will E Worm]

After condom law, porn film permits plummet


The number of permits pulled to make porn films in Los Angeles County has declined an estimated 95 percent — from about 480 issued in 2012 to only 24 through the first nine months of this year — since a law requiring adult film actors to use condoms took effect, officials said Friday.

Film LA, a private nonprofit that issues permits for filming in Los Angeles County, cautioned that its 2012 figures were just an estimate because it did not specifically track porn films until the condom requirement took effect in March 2012.

Now that it does, the organization said only 24 permits were issued this year as of mid-September.

The adult film industry trade group, the Free Speech Coalition, said those numbers show the law adopted by voters is costing the county hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The group's executive director, Diane Duke, said a typical porn film permit costs about $1,000, meaning the county lost about $456,000.

"And if you think about the associated vendors and jobs that have gone elsewhere, I think that speaks volumes about what this is costing," she said.

Duke said some filmmakers went to neighboring counties, while others headed out of state.

Some smaller producers could also be forgoing permits to keep from drawing attention to themselves.

Larger filmmakers who make their movies on closed sets and not in private residences are exempt from the measure.

The law, championed by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, was adopted by voters and took effect early last year. However, it wasn't enforced until the end of the year, and foundation officials have complained since then that county officials are making little effort to really carry it out.

The porn industry, meanwhile, is suing to overturn it.

The AIDS Healthcare Foundation says the condom requirement is needed to protect adult film actors and the public from sexually transmitted diseases.

The industry voluntarily shut down production twice this year after actors tested positive for HIV. It resumed after it was determined the infections did not occur during the making of a film.

The industry, which had required that actors be tested for sexually transmitted disease every 28 days, changed that requirement to every 14 days after the second outbreak.

Article


The stupid law is costing the county hundreds of thousands of dollars.







Now it's time to repeal the law.

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

Why repeal it? It's about workplace safety.

 

[Rey C.]

Duke said some filmmakers went to neighboring counties, while others headed out of state.

Some smaller producers could also be forgoing permits to keep from drawing attention to themselves.

Larger filmmakers who make their movies on closed sets and not in private residences are exempt from the measure.

Interesting...

 

[Will E Worm]

Why repeal it? It's about workplace safety.

No, its about taking away freedoms, it's about control.

Interesting...

Sure is.

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

No, its about taking away freedoms, it's about control.



Sure is.

When I have to wear protective equipment on the job, it's to prevent me from getting sick. I may have the freedom to not wear it, but then I'd also be putting my life at risk. It's mandated that I wear that stuff.

Just like a skilled welder who may have the "freedom" to be blinded if he chooses not to wear the mask. These are mandated for a reason.

 

[Rey C.]

When I have to wear protective equipment on the job, it's to prevent me from getting sick. I may have the freedom to not wear it, but then I'd also be putting my life at risk. It's mandated that I wear that stuff.

Just like a skilled welder who may have the "freedom" to be blinded if he chooses not to wear the mask. These are mandated for a reason.

The main problem with your argument (and this measure) is that it is not being universally applied: Larger filmmakers who make their movies on closed sets and not in private residences are exempt from the measure.

So using your analogy, a welder who worked in a mom & pop machine shop would be required to wear protective equipment, but one who worked for Caterpillar or John Deere would not.

Will is correct: this is about control, not about sensible protections for the performers. If it was truly about worker safety, then it would apply to all performers, whether they were shooting in a studio or in a private residence.

 

[Jagger69]

The government needs to stop trying to protect people from themselves. If I choose to risk possible endangerment to my health, life or limb for whatever purpose or reason and by whatever means....as long as it does not put others at risk without their permission or infringe on their individual rights and freedoms....ain't nobody's business but my own!!