The most recent news coming out of the California State Assembly is all about porn. Specifically, it’s about AB 1576, a bill introduced that would have criminalized the shooting of pornography without a the use of a condom. To me, that sounds like a great idea. To be fair, I don’t know much about the porn industry, but logically, protected sex is usually a good thing. So, you would think that no one would have a problem with the California proposal.
Well apparently, not everyone agreed as bill has now been shelved. The porn industry itself took a big issue with the bill. Apparently, a lot of porn is filmed in California; the industry employs roughly 12,000 people in that state alone, and is estimated to pay about $36 million in taxes each year. Porn is a six billion dollar industry in California. I guess that’s not too surprising–we’ve all heard the story of the small-town girl who goes to Hollywood to be an actress, but ends up acting in more mature films than she originally anticipated.
But this bill really pissed off a lot of the pornography makers and actors in La-La Land. One of the big objections to the bill came from the fact that it mandated certain types of STI testing, which the industry says it already mandates. They claim that further regulation requiring testing by the government is an unnecessary waste of time and money. The porn industry has apparently always had pretty strict STI testing in place–starting 2013 it mandated testing every two weeks for each performer. Since 2004, there has not been a single case of HIV transmission during the filming of a scene. And while there was a scare last year, it never materialized into any performers being infected, other than a couple that were in an outside relationship.
Porn performers and creators also claim that they were never really consulted about the bill, and that the bill became invasive. The industry has its own measures in place, and they’ve been working. Critics of the bill argue that there is no real reason to open up privacy concerns by including the government.
There was also a concern that this would drive business out of the state of California. Pornography is acting, it’s based on fantasy, and like most fantasies, it doesn’t always match up perfectly with realities. Members of the porn industry were worried that by requiring a condom, the fantasy would be less desirable. Whether or not that’s true, the bill sparked both concerns of marketability and privacy, and even led to fears that the backbone of the porn industry would leave California.
The debate led to several interesting splits in the California advocacy community. The bill was being driven by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, but other groups stood with the producers and performers, claiming that this was a harmful idea. Accusations were also waged against the man who introduced this bill–Assemblymember Isadore Hall:
Assemblymember Hall (D-AHF) never approached performers to find out what they wanted — he gave them what he and AHF dictator Michael Weinstein wanted. That’s why the Harvey Milk Democratic Club, the Transgender Law Center, the Erotic Service Providers Union, the Center for Sex and Culture, St. James Infirmary, the Adult Performers Advocacy Committee , The Center for HIV Law and Policy, HIV Prevention Justice Alliance, Positive Women’s Network-USA, and others stand in opposition to a bill that strips performers of vital protections.
After pressure began to mount, the bill has been officially set aside, at least for now. But the debate probably isn’t over–the AHF has vowed to continue pushing for condoms on set. And while I still think that that’s probably a good idea, I understand the argument of the performers. Just because they work in an unorthodox industry doesn’t mean that they do not deserve to be consulted on a bill that affects their livelihoods. This bill seems like a messy attempt at a truly good idea–hopefully if comes up again, but next time with significantly more thought put into its crafting.