A law that would require porn producers to protect performers from STDs was recently amended to dele - GoFuckYourself.com

DVTimes · 04-02-2014, 05:29 AM

A law that would require porn producers to protect performers from STDs was recently amended to delete the word "condom" and instead include the term "personal protective equipment."

What does that mean? Backers of the law say not much - that it's still a mandatory condom rule at-heart.

http://www.laweekly.com/informer/201...ortant-hearing

DVTimes · 04-02-2014, 05:34 AM

Surly a female condom could be used.

This could then be shown at the end of the film, ie, taken out.

"personal protective equipment" would I presume could be a female condom.

DVTimes · 04-02-2014, 05:37 AM

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/...ed_asm_v97.pdf

Theo · 04-02-2014, 08:14 AM

female condoms don't provide protection from STDs

ottopottomouse · 04-02-2014, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DVTimes

A law that would require porn producers to protect performers from STDs was recently amended to delete the word "condom" and instead include the term "personal protective equipment."

What does that mean?

It means you can't stand on a bible and say that will look after you.

dgraves · 04-02-2014, 09:34 AM

I could understand this if the performers were employees but in most cases it's contract work.

You don't have to provide any kind of "personal protective equipment" when a contractor works on your house.

Robbie · 04-02-2014, 10:15 AM

I really need the govt. to "protect" me more.

This isn't enough!

Any nightclub that I go to should be required to "protect" me from an STD in case I pick somebody up and get laid.

Any restaurant that I go to should also have to "protect" me from any STD's I might get if I get lucky with the waitress.

The other day I was walking down Fremont St. here in Vegas and saw some fine looking girls that I wanted to fuck...The city of Las Vegas should have to "protect" me from any STD's that I might get.

Personal responsibility? Fuck that! I NEED to be "protected" by the almighty govt.

sandman! · 04-02-2014, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

I really need the govt. to "protect" me more.

This isn't enough!

Any nightclub that I go to should be required to "protect" me from an STD in case I pick somebody up and get laid.

Any restaurant that I go to should also have to "protect" me from any STD's I might get if I get lucky with the waitress.

The other day I was walking down Fremont St. here in Vegas and saw some fine looking girls that I wanted to fuck...The city of Las Vegas should have to "protect" me from any STD's that I might get.

Personal responsibility? Fuck that! I NEED to be "protected" by the almighty govt.

Cherry7 · 04-02-2014, 01:04 PM

If the performers choose with whom they perform with you have a point.

BUT if the employer decides what happens and with whom it happens they then have a duty of care.

You can't have it both ways.

I find that better performances happen when models decide you they want to fuck, but even then if they don't know each other I am not going to vouch for their behaviour off the set so they must wear protection.

With couples who live together it is an easier situation if condoms upset the delicate sensibilities of your audience.

DVTimes · 04-02-2014, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

I really need the govt. to "protect" me more.

This isn't enough!

Any nightclub that I go to should be required to "protect" me from an STD in case I pick somebody up and get laid.

Any restaurant that I go to should also have to "protect" me from any STD's I might get if I get lucky with the waitress.

The other day I was walking down Fremont St. here in Vegas and saw some fine looking girls that I wanted to fuck...The city of Las Vegas should have to "protect" me from any STD's that I might get.

Personal responsibility? Fuck that! I NEED to be "protected" by the almighty govt.

To be honest I think its nothing to do with safety, but a back door way of shutting porn down.

Its like in the UK with Atvod pretending its about pretecting kids.

Sarah_Jayne · 04-02-2014, 05:31 PM

Side note: I hate LA Weeklys coverage of the industry. I've had to stop heckling them in their FB comments section because it was just frustrating me. You'd think they could access one decent source that understands the industry.

pornlaw · 04-02-2014, 05:57 PM

In most states performers are or would be considered employees for health and safety issues. Perhaps not for taxes though. In California there are different legal tests for each.

There have also been cases in California where studios have been fined by the Franchise Tax Board for misclassifying actors/actresses as independent contractors instead of employees. Not paying payroll taxes on employees can be a crime.

04-02-2014, 05:29 AM	#1
DVTimes Holedex.com Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: UK Posts: 31,532	A law that would require porn producers to protect performers from STDs was recently amended to dele A law that would require porn producers to protect performers from STDs was recently amended to delete the word "condom" and instead include the term "personal protective equipment." What does that mean? Backers of the law say not much - that it's still a mandatory condom rule at-heart. http://www.laweekly.com/informer/201...ortant-hearing __________________ My old and new pics I have shot

04-02-2014, 05:34 AM	#2
DVTimes Holedex.com Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: UK Posts: 31,532	Surly a female condom could be used. This could then be shown at the end of the film, ie, taken out. "personal protective equipment" would I presume could be a female condom. __________________ My old and new pics I have shot

04-02-2014, 05:37 AM	#3
DVTimes Holedex.com Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: UK Posts: 31,532	http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/...ed_asm_v97.pdf __________________ My old and new pics I have shot

04-02-2014, 09:34 AM	#6
dgraves Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Scottsdale Posts: 2,283	I could understand this if the performers were employees but in most cases it's contract work. You don't have to provide any kind of "personal protective equipment" when a contractor works on your house. __________________ Gloryhole Swallow \| Cumpsters \| Spy Tug \| Cum Clinic \| Chica's Place

04-02-2014, 10:15 AM	#7
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,841	I really need the govt. to "protect" me more. This isn't enough! Any nightclub that I go to should be required to "protect" me from an STD in case I pick somebody up and get laid. Any restaurant that I go to should also have to "protect" me from any STD's I might get if I get lucky with the waitress. The other day I was walking down Fremont St. here in Vegas and saw some fine looking girls that I wanted to fuck...The city of Las Vegas should have to "protect" me from any STD's that I might get. Personal responsibility? Fuck that! I NEED to be "protected" by the almighty govt. __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

04-02-2014, 08:14 AM	#4
Theo HAL 9000 Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 34,524	female condoms don't provide protection from STDs

04-02-2014, 01:04 PM	#9
Cherry7 Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: UK Posts: 3,564	If the performers choose with whom they perform with you have a point. BUT if the employer decides what happens and with whom it happens they then have a duty of care. You can't have it both ways. I find that better performances happen when models decide you they want to fuck, but even then if they don't know each other I am not going to vouch for their behaviour off the set so they must wear protection. With couples who live together it is an easier situation if condoms upset the delicate sensibilities of your audience. __________________ My Neighbour Butterfly PORN-The Musical The Long Goodbye Cinema Erotique

04-02-2014, 05:31 PM	#11
Sarah_Jayne Now with more Jayne Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 40,077	Side note: I hate LA Weeklys coverage of the industry. I've had to stop heckling them in their FB comments section because it was just frustrating me. You'd think they could access one decent source that understands the industry.

04-02-2014, 05:57 PM	#12
pornlaw Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 1,740	In most states performers are or would be considered employees for health and safety issues. Perhaps not for taxes though. In California there are different legal tests for each. There have also been cases in California where studios have been fined by the Franchise Tax Board for misclassifying actors/actresses as independent contractors instead of employees. Not paying payroll taxes on employees can be a crime. __________________ Michael www.AdultBizLaw.com