The following comes from an August 17 story in the Los Angeles Times.
The porn industry suffered a defeat Friday when a federal judge rejected its contention that requiring adult film performers to wear condoms is unconstitutional.
The ruling involved implementation of the Los Angeles County Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act, or Measure B, passed by voters in November.
AIDS Healthcare Foundation president Michael Weinstein called the judge’s ruling “a tremendous, tremendous victory, one that will go a long way to safeguard the health and safety of those adult performers working in the industry.”
The measure was approved by an overwhelming majority of county voters. It was sponsored by five individuals affiliated with the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, a nonprofit group.
Vivid Entertainment and Califa Productions and porn performers Kayden Kross and Logan Pierce sued the county in January to prevent the implementation of the new law.
“The exercise of 1st Amendment freedoms cannot be limited by referendum,” the lawsuit said. The ordinance stands “as an unconstitutional prior restraint upon protected expression.”
Steven Hirsch, Vivid’s founder and co-chief executive officer, told The Times in January: “We will fight for our right to express ourselves as we please.”
After county officials declined to defend the measure, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation was granted “intervener” status to defend the law against the porn industry’s lawsuit.
The industry later tried to have the group removed, but the motion was denied.
In Friday’s ruling, U.S. District Judge Dean Pregerson wrote that the AIDS Healthcare Foundation presented evidence of the health risks the measure is targeting. He said the new law seeks to alleviate those harmed in a direct and material way.
“Plaintiffs [adult film industry,] by contrast, have presented evidence from individuals in the adult film industry, but not in the public health or medical profession, who claim testing is so effective and universal that condoms are unnecessary,” Pregerson wrote.
To read original story, click here.
Not sure why this story appears on the CCD website. Watching evil suing evil and the verdict handed down by evil and, in the end, promoting evil is nothing that I need to know about.
The only victor is the evil one.
I agree, and I certainly don’t see why this is considered a “setback” for this vile industry or a “victory” for decency.
I also am not sure why this constitutes “news” that we need to know (on this site). The evil L.A. Times reports on the evil bunch producing and distributing vile filth via the internet (mainly) and the rejection of their contention that their “actors” DON’T need to use condoms while filming this super-obnoxious stuff because of free exxpression under the Constitution, and we’re supposed to think exactly what? This is a victory over exactly what? The evil industry of pornography goes on and it’s still not shut down, so where is the victory? Because the “actors” HAVE TO wear condoms while generating vileness? Sorry, I don’t see a real story here, once again, that we Catholics need to know. God Bless all, Markrite
To the contrary, Adolfo, this is a wonderful victory and one that could be helpfully followed by others who might be encouraged to write and use laws that can mitigate the evils of our time using the logic of our time.
OK, Brian. I can’t say that I saw it that way and am still not convinced that this is any kind of a victory, but I honor your right, to your opinion.
I agree with the majority of the responses above. Why did you bother publishing this?
How absurd ! This is important only to the producers and users of a completely
vile industry. How the United States Constitution could possibly have been
intended to protect such garbage is way too far a stretch for a sane imagination,
in my opinion. And to see this as pertinent to living a Catholic Christian life
takes an even wilder leap into fantasy. It should never have been included
on this site.
I’m sure all here would be happy to see strict building codes hamper abortuaries. Here we have a health code making life problematic for pornographers. Is it so hard to see that positive use of this tactic could be made?
Didn’t we lose our legal battle for Prop 9 because the state wouldn’t defend it and it was eventually determined by the Supreme Court that the measure’s proponents lacked the proper legal standing to do so?
Isn’t that what happened in this case, I.e., the county refused to defend it, yet the measure’s proponents were allowed to defend it?
The porn industry is a horrible tragedy. But, I disagree. This story is very relevant to faithful Catholics.
Brian is right.
This decision says that the government’s regulatory power rooted in the commerce clause supercedes the porn industry’s free speech protections. That opens the door to many more regulations.
Whether the political will to exercise that regulatory power exists is another question.
However, this is a rose that does have thorns. I do not think anyone with a brain should trust government power to side with the cause of good on any kind of consistent basis. Government is inherently self-interested, and the people who have spent their lives winning that power aren’t going to let too many scruples distract them from their goal.
I distrust a government even more when it claims to be devoted to the cause of God. Show me such a government and I will show you the Spanish Inquisition—you just have to wait a few years.
Jon J., we have never had the Spanish Inqusition over here, but we sure have had a lot of porn and states of undress. There needs to be a move back to the center on all this, and it definitely has moved too far left. Stop the scare tactics.
St. Nicholas of Myra, you who protected women from all this, pray for us. Many of these poor women are drugged with illegal drugs just to get them to do what they have to do for this vile industry.
Anne T, we’ve never had the Spanish Inquisition here due to separation of church and state.
OK, John j, you DO have the right to spout off, obviously, but please make sense. And exactly HOW does the commerce clause impinge on the porn industry? And do you really believe that in California, land of the fruits, nuts and the gay mafia, among other things, with state government TOTALLY CONTROLLED by lefty Demoncrats, there’ll be anything done to shut down the pornocrats? Are you kidding me? And you even managed to work the Spanish Inquisition into your illogical mess of a statement, or whatever it was? Sounds like the noises of a troll being made through your comments. But I’m just commenting, don’t have a cow, Jon J. GOD BLESS ALL, MARKRITE
Hmmm…I didn’t read this story too closely. I was skimming.
Since it was in federal court I presumed it was a federal regulation which would make it a commerce clause case because that’s generally how the federal government can regulate industry. Later in the article it states that its a LA city law.
That means the case is in federal court because of the free speech issues vs. the LA city law or because VIVID is incorporated out of state. So you’re right, I guess it can’t be a commerce clause case because the law is from the City of LA.
The commerce clause theoretically could allow the federal government to regulate the porn industry because the films are distributed “into the stream of commerce” which goes across state lines. Its still a useful decision b/c it allows regulation of content in a porn movie due to health concerns—and that regulation isn’t trumped by 1st amendment free speech.
As for my reference to the Spanish Inquisition—that goes to the problem of enabling government to regulate private lives. Government can suddenly champion immoral purposes since it’s politicians are typically self-interested and will abandon moral positions in favor of self-interest.
On the other hand, Jon J., I do get your point. Wearing burkas certainly would be extreme, but than Spanish Christian women never had to wear any such thing, except perhaps under Muslim rule. Quite frankly, the Spanish were far more moderate for the times, even under the Inquisition. What was going on in Muslim countries I am sure was far worse. By the way, it is said that women were safe from rape, etc. under Franco, so there is something to be said for the “inqusitions”, sometimes those who complain are those doing the raping.