Victoria Steffke
Throughout the history of America, the government has had many different laws regarding people’s sexual behavior. Some of these laws ban rape, child sexual abuse, incest, necrophilia, and sodomy to name a few. Most of these were created to protect people from others, benefit society, and are enforced. However, some sex related laws were created and are no longer enforced because they are out of date. The sodomy laws are an excellent example. Currently, twenty-four states have laws against sodomy (Lectlaw). In the 2003 case, Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court ruled that consenting, private sexual conduct is protected by the liberty rights in the due process clause of the Constitution. This further explains why sodomy laws are not enforced and should even be removed as a law because this is a right people are able to decide for themselves. Similarly, California’s Measure B, an amendment to the Los Angeles County Code that requires porn stars to wear condoms if any sort of penetration is occurring on set in San Fernando Valley, may be unconstitutional. Additionally, the law would require producers to get a permit to produce the film, which, according to the California League of Women Voters, pays for a government employee to monitor the set to make sure it is complying with standards. Measure B is not just a law telling people how to behave in regards to their personal sexual choices, but enforces the law, which is a step further than sodomy laws. With both actors being consenting adults to the actions performed, the law would be infringing on liberty rights to private sexual conduct.
Nevertheless, in November 2012, California voters passed the controversial Measure B.The controversy stems from the fact that the government would be controlling consensual adults’ sex lives and that this may be considered a misuse of tax payers’ money. The law was headed by the AIDS foundation to stop the spread of STDs and promote safer sex in the nation (Rogers). The adult film industry opposes this law because frequent tests are already conducted and the money the permit would cost would hurt the business (Lelyveld, 3). They are even threatening to leave the Los Angeles area. The question then is should Measure B be enforced, and is it even a needed and justified law.
Support for the Law from AIDS Activists
The main reason Measure B originally passed was to stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and AIDS. On average, each actor has sex with 12 new partners a month, or 144 a year (McNeil Jr.). This is more than most people have in a lifetime. With having such a vast amount of partners, it is easy to assume that diseases would quickly spread. These actors have their own personal lives too, so any diseases they get may not stay within that community. Diseases are adapting to medications and now some STDs are resistant to antibiotics. With these strains, a person has the disease for life so raising awareness is important. In addition, diseases such as AIDS do not show up on tests for potentially ten years (aids.gov). In the case of adult entertainers, the disease would spread like wildfire before a test would even show a positive result for the disease.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found that condoms are highly effective in preventing transmission of STDs and HIV. In 2009, 191,034 people in California died of a sexually transmitted disease (California Sexually Transmitted Disease Program 2011). These deaths could have been prevented had proper protection been used. If actors properly use condoms, they will have an almost full assurance they will not be infected. This is a precaution similar to nurses wearing gloves around bodily fluids. This law alludes that the porn stars should want to take all the proper precautions to stay healthy and questions whether the tests they rely on so heavily really effectively identify all diseases.
The other aspect the AIDS Foundation wanted people to think about was the influence of entertainment. Whether or not a person believes it, what one watches has some sort of influence on them. The AIDS Foundation wanted people to realize that those who watch porn are probably more likely to then want to have unprotected sex too. Requiring condoms would boost the subliminal desire of society to have protected sex, especially if people saw it could still be sexy. With one million people in the U.S. having HIV and one fifth of them not knowing they have it, encouraging a protective barrier to prevent diseases is a smart move (AIDS.gov).
Criticism from the Adult Entertainment Community
In Los Angeles, the city makes a large sum of money from the adult entertainment industry. While Detroit is the auto capital of the nation, L.A. is the porn capital of the nation. Thousands of people are employed producing a film from the actors to the make-up artists to the sound crew. Even more money, in the millions, is spent producing these and is made from these (Rogers). The money made is taxed so it is helpful to the economy and the government. The last time these films used condoms, sales went down 30%, which over time would hurt the city’s economy and potentially lead to some people’s jobs being cut (Lupkin). Along with this decrease is the large amount the city would charge to receive a permit to film. The money for the permit would cover the amount the city would have to pay to employ someone to watch the films to make sure they are complying with the law. In other words, a government employee would get paid to watch porn all day, which many people do not think is a wise use of government money. This fee would hurt the business even more and possibly shut them down.
While Measure B created the fee to cover the costs of the employee’s salary, one important factor was forgotten. This fee does not cover the cost of government employee benefits. The California State government salary benefits include paid time off, pensions, Employee Assistance Plan for help with personal issues, and retirement. The money to fund these benefits will not come from the film fee, but rather from taxpayer money. While the law comes across as not hurting the state’s budget, in reality it does. Right now, the California Governor Edmund Brown Jr. estimates that the state deficit is $15.7 billion. This seems like a time to cut spending, not create it.
Another point to think about is that the actors choose to perform in these films. At any time they could say they do not want to partake or they could demand protection use. These actors know the risks involved when they sign up for the job and still choose to perform. This is similar to professional athletes who know they could physically be injured while performing and potentially die, yet there are no government laws against sports. Also, all of the porn stars are required to get tested for sexually transmitted diseases and AIDS every couple of weeks. The results are shown to the director and the industry has made sure actors cannot alter the results. The industry seems to regulate these concerns on their own without the government needing to be involved. The actors also realize there is a great deal of money being involved in the production of the movies so a delay due to health reasons is inconsiderate.
Lastly, is the stance the adult entertainment community takes at perceiving this law: it is a freedom of speech and expression issue. Pornography is all about fantasy and the performers act out these fantasies. A certain image is trying to be conveyed to the audience and wearing protection may not be giving the right idea of the character trying to be portrayed. Actors should be allowed to say what they want through film, and this right is protected by our first amendment. In addition, since pornography involves consenting adults it should be seen as grouped into the Constitution’s liberty rights. Those opposing the law believe it is unconstitutional and have the laws to back up this claim.
Finding Middle Ground
Looking at all of the facts presented, it is easy to see that both sides have well thought out points, however, the reasons for the law are counteracted by reasons against the law. The idea that using condoms in the film would boost the public to also use protection is offset by the fact that people become less interested in the films and purchases go down when condoms are used onscreen. Both condoms and STD checks are not fool proof. These neutralized arguments leave us with the newfound idea that there was not a valid reason for this law. In fact, the argument of money being lost in Los Angeles and the taxpayers’ having to pay for the government benefits is a bigger issue and a good reason to denounce the law. The answer to the question of whether Measure B was necessary is no. The measure was specific in enforcing the law so it has no potential to become like the unenforced sodomy laws. California’s Measure B needs to be repealed to help sustain the state’s economy that is already in trouble.
The best idea in this situation is to find common ground on these two issues. Porn stars do engage in risky sexual behavior, but it is consensual. The actors receive testing every two weeks. California recommends getting tested for STDs once a year as a general statement and does not take into account how many partners a person has. Therefore, the actors are going above the call of duty in taking care of their bodies according to state recommendations. Instead of paying a government employee to regulate the films, an adult entertainment association should regulate the business. While this would still cost money, it would cost much less, would save taxpayers’ money and promote actors to be safe. Removing this law would keep the Los Angeles economy thriving. It will keep people employed and allow revenue to be put into local businesses and government taxes. Putting a disclaimer at the beginning of the movie would help remind viewers of the risks involved in unprotected sex. Making the general public more aware of the likelihood of contracting a disease and how to prevent them would be a better goal for the AIDS foundation and the government to have.
Works Cited
Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome. AIDS.gov. AIDS, 2012. Web. 27 Nov. 2012.
California. Department of Public Health STD Control Branch. “California Sexually Transmitted Disease Screening Recommendations 2010.” CDPH. STD/HIV Prevention Training Center, June 2011. Web. 28 Nov. 2012.
California. Office of Governor. “Governor Brown Releases Revised State Budget.” CA.gov. Office of Governor. May 2012. Web. 28 Nov 2012.
California. Sexually Transmitted Dieseases Control Branch and Division of Comunicable Disesease Control.Office of AIDS. “STD and HIV/AIDS Case Registry Matching to Estimate California STD-HIV/AIDS Co-Infection.” CDPH. Sexually Transmitted Disease Program, September 2011. Web. 28 Nov. 2012.
“California State Government Salary.” Sunshine Review. Sunshine Review. 2012. Web. 28 Nov. 2012.
Lawrence v. Texas. No. 02-102. Supreme Court of the United States. 2003. Supreme Court Cases. Lawyers’ Edition, Lexis Nexis Academic, n.d. Web. 24 Nov. 2012.
LectLaw.The Electric Law Library. n.d. Web. 23 Nov. 2012.
Lelyveld, Nita. “Condom Law Hot Topic in Porn World After L.A. Voters’ passage of Measure B, Industry Types Ponder Compliance and Departure.” Los Angeles: Los Angeles Times, 2012. Online.
Lupkin, Sydney. “Porn Industry Against Mandatory Condom Measure.” Los Angeles: ABC News, 2012. Online.
McNeil Jr., Donald. “How Sex-Film Makers Prevent H.I.V.; Testing Appears to Work but Officials Still Want to Enforce Condom Use.” Los Angeles: The International Herald Tribune, 2012. Online.
Rogers, John. “Measure B: Porn Industry Vows to Defeat New Condoms in Porn Law.” Los Angeles: Huffington Post, 2012. Online.
Smart Voter. Smartvoter.org. League of Women Voters of California Education Fund, 2012.Web. 11 Nov. 2012.
“Sodomy.” The Encyclopaedia Britiannica: Merriam-Webster. 2004. Print.
United States. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Condoms and STDs: Fact Sheet for Public Health Personnel.” CDC. April 2011.Web. 28 Nov. 2012.