Quote:

Originally Posted by pornlaw Measure B would even require the general public to wear condoms... even those who are married monogamous couples who cam together and share bodily fluids within Los Angeles County. It does not make a distinction between commercial pornography or amateur camming.

The is another way to look at this: Personal responsibility.

If you don't use a condom, have knowledge of your infected status -- you have committed both a crime and a tort.

The subject you raise in aspect of camming is not a legal issue for us -- we are a Dutch corporation with no production operations in LA County. I'll have to defer any statement of policy of ours for now in this matter.

The real intent of the law should be toward performers in multiple partner settings -- 20 or more? The odds of increased risk are a factor in the propagation of these STDs that are resistant to effective treatment.

Realistically, there was never any real threat to amateur webcam performers -- that was just hype. Same as §2257's threat to small time secondary producers. Someone prosecuted is either someone as an example (the fear factor) or some big fish (for many reasons). Of course there are real violations with malice and in violation of the underlying legal reasoning and not the prosecutable threat -- that is what we hope the (responsible) bench can differentiate between.

That being said, county health inspectors gunning to find porn producers to fine (or prosecute) cannot be a good thing -- so this outcome is probably a win.