Pornography

Condoms-in-Porn Measure Would Cost California 'Hundreds of Millions,' Deputize Anti-Porn Zealot as State's New Porn Czar

|

Hey Paul Studios/Flickr

Since Los Angeles County passed a 2012 law requiring all male porn performers to wear condoms, some Californians have been trying to extend the requirement throughout the state. Legislation to this effect failed last summer, but activists are now seeking to put the matter before voters in 2016. Their proposed ballot measure would require porn-production companies to be licensed by the state, mandate condom use for all on-camera intercourse, and impose a fine (up to $70,000) for each failure to use condoms. 

Obviously, the industry isn't pleased. The measure—tentatively titled "The California Safer Sex in Adult Film Act"—is "not meant to protect performers, but to destroy the industry," said Wicked Pictures director Axel Braun. 

But at least one person is excited for the possibility of more stringent porn regulation: the man who would be California's new porn czar. If activist and attorney Michael Weinstein gets his way, he could be subsidized by the state to sit around reviewing porn.

Under the proposed condom measure, which he wrote, "Weinstein would be placed in charge of monitoring any adult film produced in California to determine if condoms were used," Eros Media reports. "If a condom wasn't readily apparent in each scene, Weinstein would be deputized by the Attorney General to review the raw footage of the production, and file lawsuits against anyone involved in the production, including but not limited to the producers, distributors, agents, and anyone with a demonstrable 'financial interest' in the production." 

The text of the proposed ballot measure states that "The People of the State of California, by enacting this Act, hereby declare that the proponent of this Act"—that would be Weinstein—"has a direct and personal stake in defending this act from constitutional or statutory challenges to the Act's validity." Should the Attorney General fail to adequately uphold its provisions, "the Act's proponent shall be entitled … to act as an agent of the citizens of the State of California." As such, Weinstein would be compensated by the state for "reasonable expenses and other losses." To remove Weinstein from this role would require a majority vote from both houses of the state Legislature. 

Diane Duke, head of porn-industry trade group the Free Speech Coalition, noted to Eros that "Weinstein has waged a 10-year personal crusade against the adult industry and now wants tax payers [sic] to pay him to control it." To Duke, this is not just a waste of money but a slip back into old morality-based censorship under the guise of public health.

"For the first time in nearly forty years, we're looking at the government spending taxpayer dollars to censor adult film," she said 

Under Weinstein's proposed measure, the state wouldn't simply be on the lookout for condom scofflaws but tasked with granting adult-filmmaking licenses, which means government officials deciding who is and isn't allowed to make porn in California and what kinds of films are allowed to be made. In addition to massive fines for failing to use condoms, the state could impose fines between $1,000 and $15,000 for failing to file the proper paperwork for each film's production. Distributors of porn films that don't use condoms and talent agents who refer actors to these films could also be arrested. 

California's Legislative Analyst's Office predicted that should the measure become law, "parts of the adult film industry likely would respond by either relocating outside of California in order to avoid or protest the law's requirements or continuing to make adult films in California while seeking to evade state and local law enforcement." As a result, "tens of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars of annual economic activity and hundreds of full- and part-time adult film industry jobs likely would be eliminated from the California economy" or driven underground, it said. Ultimately, the measure would reduce annual state and local tax revenue "by millions or tens of millions of dollars per year" while costing "a few million dollars annually" to enforce. 

NEXT: Law faculty diversity: Successes and failures

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Mandated condoms in porn? The Calif government is a bunch of sicko perverts.

    1. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I’ve been doing
      http://www.jobs-check.com

  2. How is Weinstein exempt from his own bill? He very clearly has a financial interest in the production of porn, and an even stronger financial interest in seeing that a certain percentage of porn is produced without condoms. He is directly and materially harmed should no porn be produced in CA or if no condom-fee porn were to be produced in CA.

    But of course, it’s ‘one law for me, one for the rest of you’. Very … progressive.

  3. Whether its the prick neigbour calling the bylaw officer, or this repressed prick trying to get a paid porn watching gig there is always a prick.

    I came to be a libertarian simply because I know how many pricks there are out there, and they love to power up their prick selves through government.

    it really is as simple as those memes where you see protesters asking for more of this or that from the government, while showing government spraying mace in their face. Pricks and idiots.

  4. It’s the political horseshoe theory in action. As the SoCons started to lose their porn-ban mojo, the proggies stepped up to take their place. If people aren’t attacking porn because it’s a Satanic anti-Christian anti-family fantasia that encourages women to be promiscuous, they will attack it because it’s racially unegalitarian, sexist, and entirely too unsafe for a generation of people raised to think that you shouldn’t be allowed to do anything remotely dangerous unless you’re clad in armor plate and accompanied by OSHA inspectors. And BOTH sides will flip out when the industry fails to respect government authoritah and moves its operations out of California.

    1. Good observation

  5. I guess the Democrats really don’t want to stay out of your bedroom either.

    1. Well, I’ve already seen some of the crazier progs start to apply their politics to sexuality. You have sex, which when left to people’s free choice is a highly-coveted thing distributed in a manner that defies political sensibilities about how the world should be arranged. You have modern political activists, who often come out of an upper-middle class bubble where they have been heavily shielded from competition. In high-school and college, these modern activists encounter sex, which is distributed mostly by free choice and where there is a lot of competition. Whoops, stuff like height, fitness, bodyfat, and race all suddenly MATTER, and if people don’t think you’re attractive then you’re left sexless and alone. That’s just SO UNFAIR. Time for redistribution. We need Guaranteed Minimum Booty.

      1. The thing that saves sex, I think, it that when it comes down to it, we are all just a bunch of monkeys. And just about anyone can find someone to be a sexual partner. There are plenty of fat, out of shape people with low standards to go around. I doubt progs are going to leap from “OMG sex trafficking” to forcing people into prostitution for sexual justice.

        1. Two Words: “Fat Justice”

          1. Fat straight men are the ones in the worst spot. Who is attracted to fat men? But no one cares about them because they are men and have all of that privilege and shit.

            1. Huh? It’s much easier to be a fat man than a fat woman. Lots of women just don’t care that much

    2. Very few porn movies are produced in my bedroom. Let me know when they want to make everyone wear condoms. It’s more of a “send the right message” thing (which is also bad). Like how you can’t show people drinking beer in beer ads.

      1. Is that true? No beer drinking in beer ads?

        1. It used to be anyway. I haven’t seen many TV ads for a while. You would see people pouring beers, opening beers and putting down empty beers, but never actually drinking.

          1. You know that Corona commercial? The guy who is sitting on an island in a beach chair, looking out over the ocean? Now that I think about it, I don’t think he ever takes a sip of the beer. He must be holding it for someone else.

            1. “Now that I think about it, I don’t think he ever takes a sip of the beer. He must be holding it for someone else.”

              No one *ever* actually drinks beer in beer commercials.

              “Ever watched an advertisement for beer and wondered why the people don’t just drink already? It’s actually a US law* that people cannot actually be shown consuming an alcoholic beverage on television! While there are countless commercials advertising their use, none have their actors consume the product. “

              Its actually not ‘a law’; its part of a self-regulatory code which was actually put in place voluntarily by broadcasters and brewers way way way back when TV was getting started, intending to pre-empt the Gov’mnt and keep them off their backs. People in the industry all blame each other whenever anyone gets around to pointing out how (@#*$ stupid it is, but no one will ever change the code.

              Did you never notice?

              1. I guess I was distracted by Clydesdales, chicks in bikinis, and Spuds Mackenzie.

                Also, I have Tivo. I don’t watch commercials.

                1. I guess I was distracted by Clydesdales, chicks in bikinis, and Spuds Mackenzie.

                  and TWINNNNNS! *guitar riff*

              2. They did change the code to allow advertising of spirits on TV.

          2. it still is that way. No one ever takes a drink. Of wine or spirits, either. Dougie Howser even made fun of that during a beer ad, saying something like “I can’t legally drink this beer on camera, so I’m going to step over here” and he moved out of the frame and so forth.

            It’s like if viewers don’t see an actor actually taking a swallow, they’ll never figure out what beer is.

            1. So instead, they show Clydesdale horses? Makes sense to me.

              Side note: The Budweiser Clydesdales are in town today.

              1. Showing the Clydesales is truth in advertising, Bud being their urine, with bits of beechwood floating in it.

                Kevin R

          3. You weren’t allowed to show gambling on casino ads, either, although that one has changed.

      2. Very few porn movies are produced in my bedroom.

        I hate to tell you but there is a lot that happens in you bedroom while your not there. You just need to look in the right places on-line/

      3. People watch porn in their bedrooms, and this bill prevents them from being able to get condom-free porn (which most consumers obviously prefer).

        It’s as much of a bedroom issue as abortion and birth control pills.

  6. Whatever happened to every sperm is sacred?

    1. I don’t know. What’s the Catholic position on porn if it features only married couples having procreative sex?

      1. *lights Eddie signal*

          1. Too late. I’m already swinging the thurible.

        1. Nice try, but at a guess, fornication is fornication, and porn is porn, with or without a condom.

          1. You sees to miss my original question. What if the porn doesn’t depict fornication?

            1. Oh, I see, that’s an interesting question, but I hope married couples won’t profane their relationship by parading their sex lives before the public.

              Without looking it up, I’m going to guess that Church authorities would frown on such things.

            2. Are you referring to Crush Porn?

      2. Wouldn’t that be a funny case to hit the Supreme Court? A religious exception to the condom law. Damn that would light my day.

      3. That’s an interesting question. If the couple intends the video to be used for record-keeping, medical usage, or education and instruction, I don’t see how it would run afoul of Catholicism.

        If it’s intended to be used by other people to satisfy voyeuristic desires and/or as an aid to their masturbation, which is what most porn is intended for, then it’s wrong because you’re leading other people to sin.

  7. I wonder at what point regulation of porn becomes regulation of speech. Hypo: The government doesn’t like certain sexual positions (rational basis = they are demeaning to women).

    If this is where it starts, where does it end?

    1. The condom thing might be a regulation of speech (or press). If porn films are protected by the first amendment (and I can’t see how they aren’t), then dictating the content would be a violation.

    2. “If a condom wasn’t readily apparent in each scene, Weinstein would be deputized by the Attorney General to review the raw footage of the production, and file lawsuits against anyone involved in the production, including but not limited to the producers, distributors, agents, and anyone with a demonstrable ‘financial interest’ in the production.”

      I don’t see how that couldn’t be a violation of the First Amendment.

      He’s watching to footage to see what’s in it, and going after the financial interests of the people who made the film becasue its content.

      Try a thought experiment by replacing the word “condom” in that sentence with something else:

      “If a [swastika] wasn’t readily apparent in each scene, Weinstein would be deputized to by the Attorney General to review the raw footage of the production, and file lawsuits against anyone involved in the production”.

      “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”

      1. The LA condom requirement went to court using (I’m pretty sure) a freedom of speech argument, and lost.

        1. That’s a very unclear sentence. Who went to court, what was their argument, and what was the outcome (so to speak)?

        2. My understanding is that the logic of the appellate ruling is still based in the original ruling:

          “While making actors wear condoms during porn shoots does not violate the First Amendment, enforcing such a law raises constitutional questions, and denied the adult film industry’s motion for a preliminary injunction.[35]”

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_B#2013

          If I understand this properly, they’re saying that making performers wear condoms is like making camera operators comply with local work-safety regulations.

          …but on the enforcement side, whether the government can step in and prohibit the distribution of a film because it violated work-safety regulations is another question entirely.

          In other words, the court is waiting for an aggrieved party to file suit after the distribution of their film has been blocked before they make a ruling–and the court wasn’t willing to grant the adult film industry’s request for a preliminary injunction.

          If the county wants to enforce these work place violations like making construction workers wear safety helmets while they’re on the job, the court is going to let them do that.

          If the county wants to seize the building under construction because the workers weren’t wearing safety helmets, well that’s another question entirely, and come enforcement time, it’s even worse than that for the county than it is my analogy–because the buildings the counts wants to seize are protected by the First Amendment.

          1. “…because the buildings the [county] wants to seize are protected by the First Amendment”.

          2. If I understand this properly, they’re saying that making performers wear condoms is like making camera operators comply with local work-safety regulations.

            Yes, which is BS. Cameraman work safety regs don’t prohibit you from producing the content you want to produce, while the condom regulations do.

  8. I need to get on this guy Weinstein’s good side. #dreamjob

      1. You, sir, are an asshole.

        1. Not even a semi?

          1. Concur…….! A Twinkie sized Viagra wouldn’t help at this point!

          2. Ruth Bader Jizzberg, amirite?

  9. That Weinstein is a piece of work. He also has a Drug Pricing measure he is trying to get on the ballot which also has a provision that allows himself to defend it legally on our dime.

    1. Give him credit for being inventive

    2. So he is not so much a progressive as a self-serving douche willing to fuck over all sorts of people to enrich himself.

    3. I presume this tax-paid private defense is because of how the backers of pop 8 were not allowed to defend it when the attorney general wouldn’t.

    4. It’s an interesting setup he’s proposing. I don’t know of any other instance where a specific person (as opposed to an office) was granted lifetime law enforcement powers by an act of law.

  10. Porn shoots take many hours, I’m told. I can’t fathom how unpleasant it would be to wear a condom for that long, let alone how unpleasant it would be to have a condomed cock chafing an orifice for that long. I wonder if that was the point of the law or merely a happy side effect. The kind of puritan assholes that push these laws love to make immoral filthy whores suffer.

    1. Progressives are the new puritan morality police. No question about it.

      1. New? The original Progressives were the ideological, and in some instances, genealogical, descendants of the Congregationalists/American Puritans. For example, Anthony Comstock, for whom the Comstock Law is named, was raised a Congregationalist in New Canaan, Connecticut. Though contemporary progressives try to write off Comstock as not one of theirs, he was also an alcohol-prohibitionist, anti-tobacco, and supported government regulation of food and drugs.

        1. New? The original Progressives were the ideological, and in some instances, genealogical,

          And now Genitalogical!

    2. Maybe they just like their porn single-take

  11. Ironic that despite decades of effort by team red, pron was knee-capped by team blue

    1. Kinda makes me snicker when I read these oldies but goodies, especially the comments section.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..87210.html

  12. Isn’t it funny how the fight between progressives and everyone else always boils down to an attack on individual rights?

    I think it’s safe to define progressivism as the belief in using the coercive power of government to force individuals to sacrifice their individual rights for–what they see–as the common good.

    I don’t think there is any progressive issue, from universal healthcare to fighting climate change, that doesn’t involve using the coercive power of government to force individuals to sacrifice their individual rights for the “common good”. In fact, that is the progressives only consistent characteristic.

    The only time progressives oppose using the coercive power of government to violate individual rights is when the objective of doing so violates progressive sensibilities about what constitutes the common good, for instance, if the apparent objective is racist, homophobic, or something like that.

    Otherwise, individual rights are the progressives’ natural enemy, and violating them for their “common good” is what progressivism is all about. When fascism comes to America, it won’t be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross. When fascism comes to America, its stated objective will be to stamp out individual rights in the name of tolerance and for the common good.

    1. Progressives don’t really believe in individual rights at all, I don’t think. Or if they do, they see them more as government granted privileges. They think that people are inherently bad and need to be controlled.

      1. And it’s no wonder they disbelieve in individual rights.

        The pesky things are always getting in the way of what they’re trying to do.

        The fastest, easiest way to make a progressives go apoplectic is to tell them, “Neither I nor my rights exist for your benefit”.

        And I admit, it’s an easy thing for people to get confused about. We libertarians tell them that society is better off, in the general sense, when it respects everyone’s individual rights, and that is easily misconstrued by others, in practice, as the idea that we should respect everyone’s individual rights whenever doing so is to society’s benefit.

        That’s a subtle change there, but the difference is humungous. A society in which people are only free to do things that generally benefit everyone else is a deeply oppressive society.

        1. Individual rights get in the way of the singular progressive philosophy of “building a better society”

      2. Rights are a thing to be defined strategically, bestowed politically, championed selectively, and confiscated suddenly. To the progressive mind, rights are inseparable from the political apparatus. The notion of rights pre-existing and preempting the political superstructure is an alien, dangerous concept. Rights are not an end of themselves but a means to ends of their choosing.

        1. “The notion of rights pre-existing and preempting the political superstructure is an alien, dangerous concept.”

          Especially dangerous for progressives when we discuss rights within the context of people like Rosa Parks.

          If a progressive thinks that Rosa Parks didn’t have the right to sit in the front of a public bus–no matter what the law said–then make them say it out loud. Make them stand on the side of Jim Crow and the police who enforced it. Did Rosa Parks have the right to sit in the front of a public bus or didn’t she? The government said she didn’t.

          Meanwhile, it doubly problematic for progressives who go around trying to convince a general audience–including minorities–that their rights don’t really exist. It’s objectively racist! Why would a progressive who claims to be all about “social justice” go around trying to convince minorities that their rights don’t really exist unless the majority says so?

      3. ?Progressives don’t really believe in individual rights at all, I don’t think.

        The left is utterly incoherent on this point. They go bonkers over nearly any right related to sex, and heavily borrow libertarian rhetoric of individual rights, but then treat pretty much any other claimed right as invalid if the govt doesn’t find it convenient.

  13. This is most excellent.

    I fully encourage the progs to go full on and completely fuck themselves to death. California is already broke and they think it is a good idea to run a multi-billion dollar business out of the state. Go California!

    1. It’s creative destruction! They are actually free market fundamentalists. They’re just doing the destructive part before anyone has actually created anything to take its place.

  14. Unless this can be justified as a health measure, I think it’s a waste of government resources. I say, just let the “adult film” industry die out naturally, without censorship, as computerized animation gets more and more realistic.

    “The text of the proposed ballot measure states that “The People of the State of California, by enacting this Act, hereby declare that the proponent of this Act”?that would be Weinstein?”has a direct and personal stake in defending this act from constitutional or statutory challenges to the Act’s validity.”…As such, Weinstein would be compensated by the state for “reasonable expenses and other losses.” To remove Weinstein from this role would require a majority vote from both houses of the state Legislature.”

    Nothing sinister about this – it’s based on California’s experience with Proposition 8, the SSM amendment which the Attorney General refused to defend. The proponents tried to step in as defenders of teh proposition in court, but the US Supreme Court ruled the proponents didn’t have legal standing to do this. Weinstein presumably wants to set up a system where if the AG falls down on the job, he (Weinstein) would be granted standing to defend his own law – and I imagine he hopes that by awarding himself compensation, he’s helping confer standing on himself as defined by the Court.

  15. One of the only real things our country still exports is entertainment. Going after that is crazy. Just keep killing jobs and making sheep. That will work out in the end.

  16. This sounds a little bit like the Americans with Disabilities Act.

    Private enforcement mechanisms for rent seeking members of the bar association.

    1. They’re just flooding into Las Vegas, anyway.

      I was in Vegas, recently. They’ve built quite an industry.

      There’s this place called Rollin’ Smoke BBQ, over in the industrial part of town. I go there, sort of like I go to Jay Bee’s or Bludso’s in Compton. Anyway, you know, they originally relegated strip clubs to the industrial part of town, too. Seems to be typical around the country, that if you go to industrial part of town, there’ll be an awesome BBQ restaurant and a lot of strip clubs.

      Only in Vegas? Sitting there at the BBQ place, those industrial warehouses have been converted into all kinds of businesses that cater to the women who work in the area. The whole street! It’s warehouse/industrial buildings that have been converted into production facilities for pr0n, webcam shows, etc. Then they’ve got giant retailers for trashy lingerie. They’ve got women only fitness clubs! Not to mention all the hair places, nail places, people doing hair removal. Wig shops.

      Then they’ve got multiple surgical facilities doing nothing but lipo, face lifts, and boob jobs for strippers and pron stars.

      1. You know the old trope about how there was a fortune to be made selling picks and shovels to prospectors during the gold rush? I wish I’d had the foresight to see that the run down industrial warehouses across the backstreet from the biggest strip clubs in Las Vegas could be bought during the downturn and repurposed into surgical centers doing boob jobs for the endless stream of strippers and porn stars that are relocating to Las Vegas.

        California chases more multibillion dollar industries out of the state! I guess that’s one way to decrease our carbon footprint.

  17. DAMN CALIFORNIA SO-CONS!! (Shakes Fist)

  18. Really, does anyone believe the porn industry was actually *remiss* in their regular, traditional, lavish donations to their local California politicians? Were they so foolish as to believe some see-through tissue like “the constitution” protected them from regulation? You have to believe that they’ve been greasing (suggestive metaphor intended) the system since at least the 1970s to ensure that they can go about their Very Important Business without being unduly harassed or nitpicked by the Sexual Temperance League.

    What happened? Who fucked up? You’d think that if ever there was going to be a Condom Mandate, that it would have happened in the early 1990s when “AIDS” (aka ‘Magic Johnson-orrhea’) was still a thing that made people universally uncomfortable. The fact that this thing has advanced to this late stage suggests either that there’s a real cadre of Untouchables-Like condom crusaders in L.A., or that the general public will simply vote “Sounds Good to Me!” to any idiocy that people can put to a ballot-initiative. Because they’re *Californians*, and that’s just how they roll.

    1. There has been a battle between the FSC (Free Speech Coalition) and the AHF (Aids Healthcare Foundation) for years now.

      The FSC is an industry trade group that polices itself. It has been incredibly successful in preventing the spread of STDs in the adult film industry through its voluntary testing program. It’s quite remarkable that a group of people who fuck for a living, multiple times a day, have an STD infection rate far lower than the general population. And, all of the performers who have tested positive for HIV were proven to have contracted it somewhere else. To date, there has never been a known transmission of HIV on set.

      This really pisses off the AHF. They have wrestled for regulatory control of the adult film industry for years now. The condom battle is one of the many fronts in their war for control.

      1. So its the ‘AIDS’ crusaders specifically who’ve seen their sources of funding ‘dry up’ and go limp. so sad.

        Not happy with the fact that the disease is now entirely manageable? unable to spread out into other areas?

        (i knew one of the former founders of Gay Men’s Health Crisis, which was the single largest non-profit org during the AIDS years and became something of a behemoth of ‘anything Gay’ politics – he flipped that into his own PR Firm which has gone on to win hundreds of millions from companies desiring Gay-Friendly bona fides. A glance at his client list now? mostly Government, NGOs, and people wanting to get free Social-Justice money)

        I would think a legacy ‘AIDS prevention’ organization would be mercilessly crushed by the power of Big Porn. The porn-lobby’s lawyers deserve a spanking.

        1. They did some good PR and outreach work around the Party and Play “epidemic”.

          Of course, no organization ever dusts their hands off, says “job well done”, and disbands.

  19. Under Weinstein’s proposed measure, the state wouldn’t simply be on the lookout for condom scofflaws but tasked with granting adult-filmmaking licenses, which means government officials deciding who is and isn’t allowed to make porn in California and what kinds of films are allowed to be made.

    This is the real goal of this proposed law.

    “An industry? Worth billions? And we, the TOP MEN, don’t have absolute control over it? Aw HELL NO!”

    1. as per my above comment =

      i suspect if anything, the law helps formalize the steady bribery and political donations by putting in place an actual bureaucratic infrastructure that needs to be pacified regularly.

      basically, it would seem the Porn business was way out of whack with their “Political Donations/Industry Revenue”-ratio, and the politicians needed to ‘fix’ this ‘problem’ stat.

      1. basically, it would seem the Porn business was way out of whack with their “Political Donations/Industry Revenue”-ratio, and the politicians needed to ‘fix’ this ‘problem’ stat.

        And yet, every time I refer to government as a protection racket with the thinnest veneer of legitimacy, people look at me as if I’ve just proposed that we go throw a box of newborn puppies into a lake.

        1. Don’t knock it till you’ve tried it. Drowning puppies make such cute cries of distress.

          /sarc sarc sarc

        2. How else are you supposed to correct dangerously low levels of puppy in your lake?

  20. Elizabeth Brown either didn’t do her homework or she is a paid porn promoter. Michael Weinstein has put up $100k of his own money to put together the agency that will police the porn industry since they won’t police themselves. The taxpayers are winning all the way to the bank by enforcing laws already on the books that Porn Valley is ignoring. They have an organized crime network admittedly break their laws. When criminals win, society loses!

    1. From link in its handle =

      “Welcome to ‘Porn Pimping Politics’ where the objective is to expose politicians, judges and other influential government leaders who are out there promoting and protecting pornography* [by NOT REGULATING IT, NATCH], prostitution and pimping through their decisions and actions as leaders in America. What they protect and promote is called Sex Trafficking and Human Slavery and it’s illegal so why would our leaders be promoting and protecting it??

      …Over 80% of the entire World’s pornography is shot right here in America. The internet is basically owned and regulated by America, right in the State of California. You can see who is letting our family’s online experience become flooded with obscenity. Children are viewing porn for the first time at the average age of 9-11 years old and by the time they are 16, 90% have viewed porn, many using it daily to masturbate to. Why is our government letting this happen?? Why won’t our government protect our children??”

      My only take away here = anyone who uses two question marks in a row in anything intended to be taken “seriously”? Is a fucking retard. The rest of the words are redundant to that effect.

    2. Weinstein has put up $100k of his own money to put together the agency that will police the porn industry since they won’t police themselves.

      Anthony Comstock would be proud

      The taxpayers are winning all the way to the bank by enforcing laws already on the books that Porn Valley is ignoring.

      Right up until the taxpaying smut peddlers (to willing customers). Then you have no smut to tax, and nothing to take to the bank.

      They have an organized crime network admittedly break their laws.

      I can’t help but get the feeling I’ve seen this show before….

      “The largest regular business in furnishing women, however, is done by a company of men, largely composed of Russian Jews, who supply women of that nationality to the trade. These men have a sort of loosely organized association extending through the large cities of the country, among their chief centers being New York, Boston, Chicago, and New Orleans.
      -The Large Business in Chicago, George Kibbe Turner, April, 1907

      When criminals win, society loses!

      Are we talking about the smutty criminals? Or the criminals with state-sponsored regulatory agencies and policing powers? I get the two confused sometimes. They look so much alike.

    3. The taxpayers never wanted this law. And $100K is an awfully cheap price to pay for supreme executive law enforcement power from the state to use as you wish.

  21. California, well and truly fucked. I will enjoy watching the left destroy the place – we just need to quarantine them all there.

  22. What I want to know is, who are the Republicans behind this sinister legislation? It’s like Mitt Romney got elected.

  23. Another question:

    We have technology now to digitally remove condoms from scenes. It would be more expensive than just not using condoms in the first place, but it’s not impossible. If the state banned that, how could they possibly claim it was just a workplace safety issue?

    1. You don’t watch a lot of porn I take it.

      The Matrix this shit ain’t.

      The big studios laying out financing for actual production values are a minority nowadays. Most of the stuff seems to be filmed in some AirBnB rental or abandoned parking lot on razor thin margins (with a lot of one-offs rather than those making it a career) . Hell, a girl can make good money doing web-cam work in her own bedroom.

      They ain’t footing for digital post-production work.

      The big studios get hammered because they’re the face of the industry and the crusaders like to point to them and say ‘look how much money these people are making, its just greed that makes them not want to pay for regulatory compliance’ but most production is just little guys with a camera and a bus trying to make their way in the world.

  24. TODAY ONLY : Get Your Own Mac Book Pro With $1000 Visa Gift Card .Get It Here

    http://goo.gl/LpNgjp

  25. “If a condom wasn’t readily apparent in each scene, Weinstein would be deputized by the Attorney General to review the raw footage of the production.”

    That’s a lot of hours of porn watching for someone who claims to be anti-pornography.

    1. He’s doing it for the children.

      *eeeeeew*

      1. He’s thinking about the children.

        1. He’s banging his own children.

          I would like to see Weinstein found dead in a seedy LA motel, tied to the bed, heroin needle still in his arm, surrounded by child pron.

          Failing that, we need to turn every PC, laptop and smart phone he owns into child pron distributing zombies and drop a dime to the CHP.

  26. What’s with all the white space on web browsers? I had to go to my smart phone to read comments.

  27. I foresee the creation of the broken condom genre..unless that’s already a thing.

  28. Hello everyone! Myself Nisha Verma I am working as Delhi Escorts to earn extra money and for taking some enjoyment with different clients. My main motive is to satisfy the customers.
    Escorts in Delhi
    Escort in Delhi

  29. This is a good thing happening in the industry i mean i can’t say what would happen to these sites after this law passed..
    https://www.escortserviceinbangalore.com/
    https://www.ritudubey.com/
    https://www.rohinisingh.com/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.