|
Adult Industry to File Suit Against LA County Over Measure B
LOS ANGELES?A group of adult industry leaders announced today their intent to file a law suit soon against Los Angeles County over Measure B.
On November 6, voters of Los Angeles County passed Measure B, an ill-conceived law that makes it mandatory for adult actors to wear lab coats, goggles and gloves as well as condoms while shooting adult films in the County. The law was funded solely by AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF). rest of the story: http://business.avn.com/articles/leg...-B-497499.html -------- That was pretty much out already as info. The timing is what most people want to find out. |
So even if it was voted on by the public, it can be appealed and possibly overturned ?
|
yes of course
|
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8 :smilie_we ADG |
Quote:
|
I saw this story but naturally Im a bit skeptical
for starters my read was that most porners are taking more of a wait and see attitude to see what the enforcement mechanism will be, that could add more ammo to the suit should it become necessary At first it looked like AHF would quietly let it die down then last week they sued LA County for not enforcing it all along....which puts LA County in an interesting position...sued from both sides They key word here is "intend" they havent sued yet and with Manwin possibly out of the picture due to Fabians arrest in Germany funding this lawsuit may be an issue, specially when it's a likely loser. While I have lots of respect for Louis Sirkin this one wont be easy by any stretch and finally this may just be running a flag up a flagpole to see if they can even get the donations to follow through. The whole thing could also backfire. Claiming that its not in LA jurisdiction but a Cal-OSHA state level matter could bring more attention on the enforcement issue by the state, pushing them to have to enforce it which is a worse situation for porners I expect, though it may nullify the licensing issue and that may be all they really want anyway The challenge on constitutional grounds is the one that would have the most promise though I expect it's unlikely to survive that one except MAYBE and i do mean a slim chance that it could be seen as a prior restraint on free speech. Im no lawyer but from a political and logical perspective I expect this is grasping at straws if it even happens. |
Just got your email: AVN and GFY Package against Measure B - Part 1
:2 cents: :thumbsup BUMP :thumbsup |
They should move to Las Vegas. LA is only four hours away from here and warehouses are cheap.
\ |
Doesn't somebody have to be charged first before you can challenge a law? Obviously not i guess. So if I'm rich or have a lawyer willing to work for free I can file a lawsuit challenging any law I don't like?
|
Quote:
The Court does not rule on ballot measures until after the vote, and it is challenged, the same way the Supreme Court does not create legislation, they simply rule on it. The wording on the ballot measure was badly worded and vague in many areas, so I think that the lawsuit against Measure B has merit, and could have some positive impact regardless of the outcome, including slowing down the process (an injunction can be sought until the court rules, which could take years until the appeals process is exhausted), and ultimately by challenging the ballot measure, FSC, et al, may be able to have some effect on the interpretation of whatever policies/laws, if any, are finally implemented. To not engage would allow AHF to continue to attempt to dictate the terms by pushing their own agenda, and we know where that could lead. I, for one, am happy that the industry has some outstanding lawyers such as Paul Cambria and Louis Sirken, who are willing to do the heavy lifting, and for that I feel, they deserve our moral and financial support. :thumbsup :2 cents: ADG |
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:19 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123