Posted in: News

Porn Producer Sues Over New California Condom Law

condoms

Porn producer Vivid Entertainment has filed a lawsuit against Los Angeles County over a new law requiring porn stars to wear condoms.

Vivid says that the new voter-approved law infringes on the first amendment rights of the porn industry. Vivid, along with porn stars Kayden Kross and Logan Pierce, hopes to have the new law overturned.

The new condom law, known as Measure B, was approved by 56 percent of voters in Los Angeles. The law was sponsored by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and seeks to prevent the spread of STDs within the porn industry. Several porn producers, however, said that the new law puts unconstitutional restrictions on their films and many companies may try to relocate.

Paul Cambria, an attorney representing Vivid Entertainment, said: “You don’t have to win an Oscar to be protected by the First Amendment.”

Cambria told Reuters:

“They’re telling the production house that in order to produce legally protected expression, you have to first get government approval and you have to agree to shoot it in particular way, namely with condoms … I can tell you they are leaving L.A. County in droves. It’s a multi-billion dollar industry that employs thousands of people, and ever since this all started they have been leaving and filming in places other than L.A. County.”

According to the Associated Press, the new law would require film producers to get a permit from the county Department of Public Health before shooting sex scenes. The permit fees would finance periodic inspections to make sure that porn stars were using condoms.

Porn star Amber Lynn said:

“The idea of allowing a government employee to come and examine our genitalia while we’re on set is atrocious.”

Steven Hirsch, the founder of Vivid Entertainment, said that not only is the new law unconstitutional but it’s also unnecessary Hirsch says that more than 300,000 sex scenes have been filmed since 2004 without any HIV transmission.

Hirsch said:

“Overturning this law is something I feel very passionate about. I believe the industry’s current testing system works well. Since 2004 over 300,000 explicit scenes have been filmed with zero HIV transmission. The new law makes no sense and it imposes a government licensing regime on making films that are protected by the Constitution.”

Do you think porn stars should be required to wear condoms?

Articles And Offers From The Web

Comments

12 Responses to “Porn Producer Sues Over New California Condom Law”

  1. Paul G. DeCroix

    You porn pushers should be a shamed of yourself. The voters spoke get over it and follow the letter of the law or take your porn to another stat. I for one would love that!

  2. Nick East

    A MULTIMILLION DOLLAR COMPANY DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO INFECT THEIR EMPLOYEES SIMPLY FOR INCREASED PROFITS. How hard is that to understand? Steve Hirsch reminds me of Leonardo DiCaprio's character in Django Unchained!

  3. Roger Oster

    Children are requireed to have vaccinations before being allowed in school. There seems to be a precedent for "medical protection". It is hard to imagine that "freedom of expression" has greater constitutional protection than a parents right to decide on the medical care of their children.

  4. Paul G. DeCroix

    I think the porn industry rationalizes bad behavior for the almighty dollar. They pay these performers peanuts while they make millions that feed on people sexuality. Sure the demand is there and it's enticing… I don't see why the porn industry shouldn't want to protect the people that make them millions?

  5. Anonymous

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    When was 'having sex on video tape' added to the list of 'expression's definitions?

    Along those lines when was the definition of "speech' expanded to include actions?

    This lawsuit would be hilarious but for two issues.

    The first being that its a complete waste of taxpayer funds.

    The second, being that the moon bat judges who just decided that sex without consent only qualifies as rape in California if the involved parties are married. ( http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/04/justice/california-1872-rape-law/index.html?eref=rss_mostpopular&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_mostpopular+%28RSS%3A+Most+Popular%29) might just decide having sex on video tape is Constitutionally protected free speech. If they do, the question then becomes what action, if any, does not qualify as free speech? While I can see some comic irony in the concept of a judge ruling that anarchy is the law of the land, I can't see where his/her doing so would improve our society.

  6. Nick East

    John is new to this whole internets thingamabob. Nobody has taught him internet manners yet so he spouts off like a child and even shows his face! I suspect that he must be alone and doesn't have anybody to show him the right way to handle comment boards. That would explain the hating.