After a few months of debate on whether or not Utah would be considering porn a public health crisis, the state has finally pulled the trigger. Governor Gary Herbert signed a resolution earlier this week declaring porn a public health crisis.

While this bill does not in any way inhibit porn usage in the state, it does call for the:

Recogni[tion of] the need for education, prevention, research, and policy change at the community and societal level in order to address the pornography epidemic that is harming the citizens of Utah and the nation.

However, that education, prevention, research, and policy change could be difficult considering the state hasn’t laid out any kind of legislation or proposal as to what to do about this epidemic. In addition, the resolution doesn’t allot any kind of funding toward anti-porn education or anything of the sort–so how is this resolution helping with the so-called epidemic at all?

This resolution was created by one of the state’s Republican Representatives, Todd Weiler, with the goal of increasing awareness of the potential dangers of porn. Weiler claims that he wants default internet settings to be changed in order to make viewing porn more difficult than it currently is. The senator maintains that he is not trying to ban porn in the state of Utah, but rather make it less accessible for children and teenagers. Weiler was quoted saying that:

If a library or a McDonald’s or anyone else was giving out cigarettes to our children, we would be picketing them, and, yet, our children are accessing pornography on their tablets on these sites and we seem to be OK with that.

He is very concerned with how accessible pornography is on the internet because it leads to the corruption of children and young teens:

This is a $7 billion industry. Help us protect children from your evil, degrading, addictive, harmful substances. If adults want to do that, that’s their choice, but we’re talking about developing adolescent minds of our nation’s future.

Even after being mocked repeatedly when they first announced the state’s plan in January, the Utah legislature and governor are sticking to their guns and standing firmly by their decision to have porn listed as a public health crisis. Senator Weiler and Governor Herbert, along with several others, firmly believe that pornography is a danger to society because of how addicting it can be and the consequences that can come with a porn addiction.

One thing is for sure, if Utah wants to decrease porn usage in the state, they may as well just block the entire internet because, as we all know, porn is the one thing the internet is really made for!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTJvdGcb7Fs

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post It’s Official: Utah Declares Porn a Public Health Crisis appeared first on Law Street.

North Carolina has received a lot of ire over the passage of its anti-LGBT law; if you’re interested, check out fellow Law Streeter (and native North Carolinian) Alex Simone’s masterful takedown of the law. As a result of the new policies, multiple businesses are pulling out of North Carolina, performers are canceling their scheduled shows, and late night hosts are lampooning the state. The latest company to push back against North Carolina’s law? Porn site XHamster, which is blocking computers in North Carolina from accessing it.

XHamster is one of the largest porn sites in the world. According to the spokesperson for XHamster, Mike Kulich:

We have spent the last 50 years fighting for equality for everyone and these laws are discriminatory which XHamster.com does not tolerate. Judging by the stats of what you North Carolinians watch, we feel this punishment is a severe one. We will not standby and pump revenue into a system that promotes this type of garbage. We respect all sexualities and embrace them.

Kulich’s statement was a bit tongue-in-cheek–he pointed out that the search terms “gay” and “transsexual” had received tens of thousands queries in the state. Kulich also pointed out: “I think that porn has the power to do what Bruce Springsteen can’t”–a reference to the fact that Springsteen has cancelled a show in North Carolina.

According to Alexander D. Hawkins, Chief Marketing Officer at XHamster:

Some politicians won’t walk the walk they talk. All the fuss about moral values being destroyed by porn is ridiculous when checking the statistics on the porn consumption state-on-state, including North Carolina, Mississippi and Tennessee.

There are hypocrites who don’t practice what they preach. Respecting others (sic) sexuality may not come easy, but this is something we must all work together to address.

Users based in North Carolina who attempt to access the site will receive a pop up that lists the amount of searches for the terms “gay” and “shemale” in 2016, to date, as well as visits to those respective categories. The pop up is entitled “The Incredibly Hypocrisy of North Carolina: The Land Where Homophobia is Law.”

Ironically, some of the residents of North Carolina are totally fine with the porn site blockage, arguing that the “moral majority” supports Governor Pat McCrory.

North Carolina has been receiving plenty of criticism, and now some citizens are being punished by not being allowed to access their favorite porn site as well. So, what’s next for North Carolina? At this point, who knows. Maybe a great mock tourism video like this “Funny or Die” one for Mississippi:

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Porn Site XHamster Blocks North Carolina in Light of H.B. 2 appeared first on Law Street.

James Deen is back in the news for yet another not-so-good reason after his porn production company was slapped with an almost $78,000 series of fines for multiple health and safety violations.

California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) received a complaint about James Deen Productions, also known as Third Rock Enterprises, last December, and began investigating the production company owned by Deen. The violations that were discovered by Cal/OSHA include not mandating that performers wear condoms. The use of condoms in pornography is required by Los Angeles County law. According to the head of the agency, Juliann Sum:

Cal/OSHA requires condom use in adult films to protect workers from exposure to HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. Third Rock Enterprises failed to protect employees from illness and injury while on set.

The production company also violated laws by not providing vaccines or medical examinations to performers who were potentially exposed to diseases, including Hepatitis B. All said and done, the company racked up nine violations, four of which were determined to be so dangerous that “death or serious harm” could have resulted. The fines associated with all those violations combined total $77,875.

Deen responded to the news of the agency’s decision; according to a press release sent to ATTN:

At no point was any adult performer exposed to any disease while working for James Deen Productions. At no time did any performer contract any illness or suffer any injury while working for James Deen Productions. […] I am not ok with the government dictating what people are allowed to watch in the privacy of their homes. This is a case of an outside organization pushing their personal desires and agenda on the viewers of adult entertainment. Just because the AIDS Healthcare Foundation decides they are not comfortable with certain sexual acts does not mean is should be deemed illegal.

James Deen has been under a lot of criticism over the last few months. In December, he was accused of sexual assault by nine different female adult performers, including his high-profile ex-girlfriend Stoya. After the allegations surfaced, a few different porn companies dropped Deen as a performer.

A law that requires the use of condoms by porn performers in Los Angeles County, known as “Measure B”, was certainly controversial when it passed in 2012–although in this case, Deen was cited under existing Cal/OSHA regulations. However Measure B led to concerns of an exodus of porn companies from Los Angeles when it was first passed. Deen was opposed to that law from the beginning–seems like he’s about to put his money where his mouth is when it comes to regulations in porn.

Editor’s Note: The last paragraph has been updated to more clearly reflect the language of the Cal/OSHA regulations.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post James Deen’s Porn Company Faces Hefty Fine for Health Violations appeared first on Law Street.

Ted Cruz has used an approach to campaign ads fitting for the current race: bizarre, inflammatory, and slimy. You might remember his “send-up” of Saturday Night Live commercial parodies, Cruz Christmas Classics. How about his Donald Trump Doll ad, where children argue over Trump and Clinton action figures while concerned parents look on? His newest ad, however, won’t be airing on TV or the campaign’s YouTube account, because Cruz’s people took the video down over a scandal concerning one of the actresses. His campaign has quickly replaced it with a new, anti-Clinton ad.

The removed spot, called “Conservatives Anonymous,” riffs on Alcoholics Anonymous, showing a support group for conservative voters who feel spurned by centrist politicians who are “Republicans In Name Only.” The ad slyly suggests at which candidate Cruz is taking aim when a blonde woman says “Maybe you should vote for more than just a pretty face next time.” The punchline hits when a new member enters the room, wearing a Marco Rubio t-shirt, asking “Do you guys have room for one more?”

The campaign learned that Amy Lindsay, one of the actresses starring in the advertisement, has previously acted in erotic films, finding that her filmography includes movies called “Secrets of a Chambermaid,” and “Insatiable Desires.” To be clear–the distinction between hard and soft core pornography is that in soft core material, no sex acts are shown, and in some cases, no genitalia. The films featuring Lindsay fit in the latter category, as she performed topless, and didn’t perform any sex acts with her co-stars. Lindsay took to Twitter to voice her disappointment:

Extremely disappointed the #TedCruz campaign pulled the national television spot I had a role in… #moretocome #myvotecounts

— Amy Lindsay (@amylindsayLA) February 12, 2016

But is it really reasonable to pull an ad simply because of one actress’s past? It may not line up with Cruz’s “family values,” but there’s no reason to conflate Lindsay’s performance in this advertisement with her past roles. We don’t eternally see Charlize Theron as a psychopathic killer or Viola Davis as a house maid. These actresses are afforded the chance to re-invent themselves for each role, whereas any actor who participates in a salacious role isn’t offered that chance.

It’s not as though Lindsay drags Cruz’s message into a seedy pornographic underworld–70 percent of American males 18-24 watch actually-pornographic material–footage much more explicit than the soft-core projects Lindsay participated in. In fact, 20 percent of men admit to watching porn during work. Somehow, for all the ubiquity of adult content in mainstream America, the presence of a person whose naked body is in other videos invalidates the message of the ad. Lindsay even identifies as a Christian Conservative, and her personal views actually mirror those of her character in the advertisement.

By this measure, Cruz’s campaign would also refuse to cast Matt LeBlanc, Sylvester Stallone, David Duchovny, and Adam West. Even Helen Mirren acted nude in sexual scenes in the pornographic film “Caligula,” only to later portray Queen Elizabeth. All of these actors have performed in either hard or soft core pornographic programs, yet continued to have successful film careers after the fact. It wouldn’t surprise me if from now on soft-core porn production companies refuse to cast Lindsay, citing her appearance in a Ted Cruz advertisement.

This effort to save face isn’t surprising from Cruz, or similar conservative candidates who hinge on the support of religious voters–often Evangelicals and Baptists. Though it may be a shrewd move, it’s simply unfair to allow an actor’s past roles color their other performances. Clearly politicians can’t be held to what they said or did in the past–so why shouldn’t actors be afforded the same leeway?

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post In Defense of Ted Cruz’s ‘Porn’ Actress appeared first on Law Street.

I came across an article on Reddit (yes, college boys in my large lecture class, I know how to use Reddit too) with a headline claiming that Utah was banning porn. At first, I was shocked. Was this a joke? Could they actually enact legislation to ban pornographic material across an entire state? Isn’t there some kind of freedom of speech issue there? So, I started to read up on this law and Utah’s porn history–it’s all thankfully less NSFW than you might anticipate.

Here are the facts: Senator Todd Weiler, a state senator in the great state of Utah, introduced legislation this past week in attempt to have the state consider porn a “public health crisis.” Ironically, this is kind of along the same vein as what happened with the Zika virus recently, but on a smaller scale since it would only be statewide. The main concern Weiler seems to have is how accessible porn is becoming, especially to young teens, as he claims it “perpetuates a sexually toxic environment.” The proposed bill lists around 18 points describing the negatives affect that porn could have on society including, but not limited to, marriage failure, the fact that it treats women as objects, and that it can impact brain development and cause addiction.

So, Utah is not quite banning porn. Senator Weiler seems to be more interested in getting the potential negative effects on everybody’s radar; in fact, one of the specifically stated goals of the bill is to do just that:

This resolution recognizes the need for education, prevention, research, and policy change at the community and societal level in order to address the pornography epidemic that is harming the citizens of Utah and the nation.

To be fair, this whole thing may be a little overblown. “Epidemic” and “public health crisis” seem like strong words to be using when we’re just talking about porn, right? Honestly, after looking at some of the data behind porn addiction in the U.S., it seems like it’s a pretty scary reality for some people. On top of addiction, according to some studies, the average age of exposure to porn may be as low as 11 years old, which certainly doesn’t seem like a good thing.

Utah in particular has has an especially interesting history as far as porn is concerned. In 2005, Governor Jon Huntsman Jr. signed H.B. 260 into law, which essentially required internet providers to block pornographic websites at the request of consumers and heightened penalties for distributing porn, especially to minors. Then, in 2009, a man by the name of Benjamin Edelman conducted a study on which states consumed the most porn and why. The results? Almost every way you look at it, Utah came out on top, whether it was users per thousand people, per thousand homeowners, or per thousand broadband users.

In 2013, satire sites made fun of Utah by spreading a story that one of its cities had implemented a 30-day in jail minimum for first offense porn watching. The best part of this satirical news? People believed it, and, for a while, the nation thought Utah had really implemented jail sentences for watching porn–which is obviously ridiculous. The good news for Utah residents is that their laws to decrease porn use and subsequent embarrassment for being the country’s highest porn consumer led to some overall changes, and they have now slid back down the scale to a more moderate consumption of adult videos per capita–as you can see below in a graphic drawn up from Pornhub data in April of 2014.

All in all, I don’t really think this bill is the draconian First Amendment violation that it originally appeared to be. What Utah is trying to do is educate people on the potentially harmful effects that porn can have on children, teens, and even adults (when they get too attached). The senator seemingly has the stats to back up his claim and porn problems seem to be a lot more prevalent in our country than I ever really assumed they were, so maybe some public awareness could be a good thing. Then again, with the attention grabbing and misrepresentative headlines this legislation has been getting, I expect this bill to have some stiff opposition.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Is Utah Really Trying to Ban Porn? appeared first on Law Street.

Porn’s glorified boy-next-door, James Deen, was once hailed as the adult film industry’s “feminist hero.” The 29-year-old porn pioneer repeatedly rebuked the title, but as of this weekend he can officially kiss the moniker goodbye. Deen has been accused by three female adult actresses and one anonymous woman of sexual assault.

The accusations began after Deen’s former girlfriend and fellow porn star Stoya sent out two tweets Saturday that called out his feminist persona and accused him of rape.

That thing where you log in to the internet for a second and see people idolizing the guy who raped you as a feminist. That thing sucks.

— Stoya (@stoya) November 28, 2015

James Deen held me down and fucked me while I said no, stop, used my safeword. I just can’t nod and smile when people bring him up anymore. — Stoya (@stoya) November 28, 2015

Deen responded to the allegations with his own series of tweets Sunday night reading:

There have been some egregious claims made against me on social media

— James Deen (@JamesDeen) November 30, 2015

I want to assure my friends, fans and colleagues that these allegations are both false and defamatory — James Deen (@JamesDeen) November 30, 2015

I respect women and I know and respect limits both professionally and privately

— James Deen (@JamesDeen) November 30, 2015

But it didn’t take long before two more female porn stars accused Deen of sexually assaulting them as well.

Adult actress Ashley Fires shared her story with the Daily Beast saying Deen is the only performer she absolutely refused to work with. She told the Daily Beast, “the reason I put him on my ‘no list’ was because he almost raped me.” Retired porn star Tori Lux quickly came to her side, recounting her only violent encounter with Deen, where he slapped her repeatedly and shoved her face into his crotch. Both incidents allegedly happened behind the scenes of major porn sets while they were changing or getting ready. Prior to those incidents, both women hardly knew Deen.

Now a reported fourth woman has come forward to LAist.com with her own rape allegations against the porn star. She asked the site not to name her, but instead to identify her using the initials T.M. She told the site that after only meeting Deen once, he forced her to have sex with him in front of a crowd of friends and fans at a hotel party.

So far there have been no formal charges filed against Deen, but the porn industry quickly began cutting ties with the star. The San Francisco-based BDSM and fetish porn company Kink.com has dropped Deen from its roster saying “consent and respect are sacrosanct” for the company and its performers “deserve the ability to work without fear of assault.” The porn company Evil Angel also broke off ties with Deen, suspending sales of newly created scenes featuring him.

Sex toy maker Doc Johnson has ceased production on a dildo molded from Deen’s penis and the Frisky, a women’s entertainment and lifestyle website, has announced that it will no longer publish Deen’s “What Would James Deen Do” sex-advice column on its site. OH Joy Sex Toy, an adult webcomics series, also removed ads for Deen’s website from its site and edited posts featuring him.

Johanna Angel, an alt-porn actress and producer who also dated Deen for six years, tweeted in support of Stoya.

You have my support @stoya . I’m here for you . https://t.co/KQZzHVIwcP

— Joanna Angel (@JoannaAngel) November 28, 2015

He’s dead on the inside and dead to me . He’s literally the worst person I’ve ever met . That’s all I’ll say for now #solidaritywithstoya

— Joanna Angel (@JoannaAngel) November 29, 2015

So is James Deen the Bill Cosby of porn?

Both men were considered role models in their respective fields, before having their reputations tarnished due to shocking sexual assault scandals involving multiple women. While we haven’t heard any stories of him drugging women, it’s the disappointment attached to such a popular star that likens him to Cosby.

In the past Deen has been lauded as feminist for his positive support of female sexuality, and history of making porn films aimed at appealing to women. Now his pro-women persona is kaput.

What’s incredibly sad about these women’s stories is that many of them said that were it not for the stigma attached to sex work, they most likely would have reported these assaults earlier. Unfortunately many people believe that when sex workers are assaulted they deserved it in some way, or it was their fault due to their line of work. However, sexual assault happens to all different types of women–and men–and its important to rally behind the victim, instead of the abuser.

Deen has denied these claims and has not be charged with anything, but the concern is entirely justified. Usually where there’s smoke, there’s fire.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 4 Women Accuse “Feminist” Porn Star James Deen of Sexual Assault appeared first on Law Street.

Revenge porn is a real problem, especially in the age of the internet. But now, one of the go-to destinations for internet smut is taking action against revenge porn, by making it easier for victims to get the videos and photos taken down. While this big change by PornHub certainly won’t prevent all cases of revenge porn, it’s definitely a strong symbolic move.

Revenge porn can take a few forms, but the most traditional are videos or pictures in the possession of an individual’s former partner that are posted online or shared in an attempt to get “revenge” for some perceived wrongdoing, or even just embarrass the individual. The victims are usually, but certainly not always, female.

While PornHub has always had policies in place to get rid of any revenge porn that was posted or taken without an individual’s knowledge, the company just announced that that process will be streamlined with the introduction of a new form that will allow users to report abuses right away. Previously, the appeals process was done via email, but PornHub wants to cut through that “red tape” and also deter the posting of non-consensual content.

Corey Price, the PornHub Vice President said in a press release:

With nearly 60 million visitors to Pornhub daily, it’s imperative that we remain ahead of this perpetuating victimization of innocent individuals and continue to combat this illicit behavior. We will persist in enacting measures that we believe will strongly reinforce Pornhub’s stance against revenge porn. We are fully committed to the removal of this type of content from our site, in the pursuit of instilling a sense of safety and community that keeps our users’ minds at ease.

This certainly won’t lead to a complete removal of all revenge porn from PornHub’s site, much less the internet as a whole. Given the ease with which new videos can be uploaded, as well as the fact that the system to take it down relies on user participation, revenge porn will probably still make its appearances. There are also more things the company could be doing–according to Mary Anne Franks, who teaches law at the University of Miami and works as the Vice President of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative–sites should be more proactive about making sure that illegal content doesn’t become publicly available in the first place. According to the Verge:

The deterrents she suggests seem easy to implement: a clearly displayed reminder that revenge porn is illegal in most US states, or a simple checkbox for users to verify that the materials they upload are being distributed with the full consent of all parties.

So it’s not perfect. But as a company that saw 18.5 billion visits in 2014 alone, PornHub is making a rather visible statement that revenge porn is wrong, and should not be tolerated.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post PornHub Takes a Stand Against Revenge Porn appeared first on Law Street.

Users looking to post a nude photo or video to Reddit will soon have to do something they’ve never done before–get consent!

Reddit is taking a stand against revenge porn and sexual exploitation by making revisions to its digital privacy guidelines that will become effective March 10. The user-curated news and social networking site is banning sexually explicit images or videos where those photographed or filmed haven’t given their permission. These changes come as a somewhat delayed response to Reddit’s major role in the massive iCloud hack of celebrity nude photos in August.

Yesterday morning Reddit executives addressed their mission to protect users’ digital privacy in a post writing:

Last year, we missed a chance to be a leader in social media when it comes to protecting your privacy — something we’ve cared deeply about since reddit’s inception. At our recent all hands company meeting, this was something that we all, as a company, decided we needed to address.

No matter who you are, if a photograph, video, or digital image of you in a state of nudity, sexual excitement, or engaged in any act of sexual conduct, is posted or linked to on reddit without your permission, it is prohibited on reddit. We also recognize that violent personalized images are a form of harassment that we do not tolerate and we will remove them when notified

The “missed chance” the post is referring to was when a subreddit called “TheFappening” was created to link to curate all of the criminally obtained images procured in the 2014 celebrity photo hack. Some of the celebrities targeted included Jennifer Lawrence, Kate Upton and Olympic gold medalist McKayla Maroney, whose images may have constituted child pornography since they were taken while she was reportedly underage. The subreddit garnered thousands of followers in just one day and stayed live until September 6 when it was banned by the site after being widely chastised.

The whole nude photos leak controversy definitely led to some backlash against Reddit, including this entertaining flowchart by New York Magazine:

Should we ban that subreddit? A flowchart by Reddit admins: http://t.co/RhS9wKEyI1 pic.twitter.com/Tz54dsWdr8

— New York Magazine (@NYMag) September 9, 2014

But all that’s changing. Now, if you feel like you have been a victim of involuntary pornography a new section added to Reddit’s privacy policy asks you to send an email to contact@reddit.com with a link to the image or video in question and they will “expedite its removal as quickly as possible.”

The real question is whether or not other social sharing sites will join Reddit in improving their digital privacy policies. Tumblr will be one of those sites to watch, as it was also used to distribute the controversial and illegal leaked nude photos. While the site nicely urges members to not upload sexually explicit content in its community guidelines, it essentially operates as a unofficial porn site in many ways–nude photos and videos are regularly and eagerly shared. Adopting a policy like the one Reddit is looking to implement would drastically change its microblogging platform and potentially anger users. Still a precedent needs to be made to protect both women and men from having their personal photos become public either unknowingly or unwillingly.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Reddit Finally Prohibits Revenge Porn appeared first on Law Street.

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.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post California Bill Requiring Condoms in Porn is Set Aside appeared first on Law Street.