Los Angeles Mandates Use of Condoms for Sex Films
By JENNIFER MEDINA
NYT
LOS ANGELES — The Los Angeles City Council approved a new mandate Tuesday requiring all actors in pornographic films to wear condoms during any filming that takes place within city limits. The law is the first of its kind in the country, advocates said, and could have a significant impact on what some say is a $1 billion industry.
The AIDS Healthcare Foundation has pressed for such legislation for years and last year secured nearly double the number of signatures needed to place the issue on the ballot in June, when the state is scheduled to hold its presidential primary.
But the ballot initiative would have cost the already strapped city roughly $4 million. Several council members suggested that voters were likely to approve the measure by a large margin anyway and that the Council should simply save the money by approving it. The Council did that on Tuesday, without debate, in a 9-to-1 vote.
“The issue itself is so common sense and intuitive, why put the city through the costs and ordeal when the outcome is really preordained?” Councilman Paul Koretz said. “This is a no-brainer of an issue. It’s not going to cost us very much to enforce — we won’t spend any more money enforcing this than we do any other law. And in this case, if you don’t follow the law, it will be on film.”
(More here.)
NYT
LOS ANGELES — The Los Angeles City Council approved a new mandate Tuesday requiring all actors in pornographic films to wear condoms during any filming that takes place within city limits. The law is the first of its kind in the country, advocates said, and could have a significant impact on what some say is a $1 billion industry.
The AIDS Healthcare Foundation has pressed for such legislation for years and last year secured nearly double the number of signatures needed to place the issue on the ballot in June, when the state is scheduled to hold its presidential primary.
But the ballot initiative would have cost the already strapped city roughly $4 million. Several council members suggested that voters were likely to approve the measure by a large margin anyway and that the Council should simply save the money by approving it. The Council did that on Tuesday, without debate, in a 9-to-1 vote.
“The issue itself is so common sense and intuitive, why put the city through the costs and ordeal when the outcome is really preordained?” Councilman Paul Koretz said. “This is a no-brainer of an issue. It’s not going to cost us very much to enforce — we won’t spend any more money enforcing this than we do any other law. And in this case, if you don’t follow the law, it will be on film.”
(More here.)
Powered by Blogger
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home