Photo via Pixabay
Photo via Pixabay

A measure that would require adult-film performers to wear condoms during sex scenes, and make producers and film distributors liable for violations, was being defeated by voters Tuesday night.

Proposition 60 was strongly opposed by the adult-film industry, including producers and many performers, and was primarily backed by the Hollywood-based AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which spearheaded a similar law that was approved by Los Angeles County voters in 2012.

In addition to requiring condoms, the measure would also require adult- film producers to pay for performer vaccinations, testing and medical exams for sexually transmitted diseases. It would also mandate that a notification be posted at film sites, and film producers would be required to obtain health licenses. The proposition imposes liability for violations on producers, distributors and performers who have a financial interest in the film, as well as on talent agents who refer performers to non-compliant producers.

Early vote tallies showed the measure being defeated by 53 percent of voters.

AIDS Healthcare Foundation officials argue that condom use has been required by state law since 1992, but there has been no enforcement of the requirement.

“But pornographers blatantly ignore the law,” according to a ballot argument signed by AHF board chair Cynthia Davis and Derrick Burts, a former adult-film performer who is HIV-positive. “They complain condom use in their films will hurt their profits. They fire and blacklist adult film performers who want to protect themselves with condoms.”

Opponents of the measure, however, contend it will do little to improve the safety of performers, but will create a “lawsuit bonanza.”

“The initiative creates a new private right of action authorizing the proponent and all 38 million residents of California to file lawsuits directly against those who produce or distribute adult content, which could include adult film performers, even injured performers, on-set crew and cable and satellite television companies,” opponents argue. “No other worker in California can be sued this way.”

–City News Service

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.