LOS ANGELES — The Los Angeles Commission on HIV has recommended that the LA Board of Supervisors oppose the controversial Safer Sex in Adult Film Act, as part of the full legislative slate of recommendations. The so-called Safer Sex in Adult Film Act would allow private citizens to file lawsuits against adult performers and other industry workers if a condom is not visible in a finished adult film.
Performers spoke passionately against the initiative at this week’s Board of Supervisors meeting, explaining how the initiative would leave adult performers, including those members of the LGBTQ community, vulnerable to lawsuits, outing, extortion and other forms of harassment. Leading performer group APAC (Adult Performer Advocacy Committee) has already formally opposed the measure.
In addition to the LA Commission on HIV, the controversial ballot initiative has been opposed by leading HIV and AIDS advocacy groups, such as AIDS Project LA and the San Francisco AIDS Foundation, as well as a bipartisan political coalition, including the San Francisco Democrats, the California Republican Party, and the Valley Industry and Commerce Association (VICA).
Karen Tynan, an attorney and a member of Californians Against Worker Harassment, a committee opposing the ballot measure, says the proposed Act would create dangerous working environment for performers.
“This measure would not result safer sets, but instead would push a legal industry underground and out-of-state, and performers into the shadows. This initiative is not about protecting adult workers, it’s about one man’s inexplicable crusade to control the content of adult film.” She noted that a similar Los Angeles ballot measure in 2012 resulted in a 95% drop in adult film permits.
Performers are tested every fourteen days for a complete panel of STIs, including HIV. There has not been a single transmission of HIV on a regulated adult film set since 2004, when comprehensive testing protocols were introduced.
*This release replaces an early release, which mistakenly used the word “testified” rather than “spoke” to describe performers public comments at the Board of Supervisors meeting, and a sentence construction (“Performers joined in opposition”) that could have been construed to suggest that the Commission had spoken at the meeting as well. It was not our intention to suggest that performers had given official testimony, nor that the LA Commission on HIV spoke at that meeting.
Communications Director, Free Speech Coalition
Paid for by Californians Against Worker Harassment, sponsored by the Free Speech Coalition