Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Porn stars in LA must continue to wear condoms, US appeals court rules

A three-judge panel upheld a 2012 Los Angeles County ordinance

Antonia Molloy
Tuesday 16 December 2014 09:53 GMT
Comments
Actors perform on the set of a pornographic movie
Actors perform on the set of a pornographic movie (Getty)

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Porn actors in Los Angeles must continue to wear condoms during sexual intercourse scenes – after a US federal court ruled the law does not violate the porn industry's First Amendment rights of free expression.

Three judges from the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals decided that the Los Angeles County ordinance requiring actors to wear condoms should be upheld.

The porn industry had argued that the practice would interfere with a film's fantasy element by subjecting viewers to real-word concerns like pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

And it said it already had adequate safety regulations in place to protect the health of its actors.

For the First Amendment argument to apply, the court ruled, there would have to be a great likelihood that a film's audience would understand the intended message the makers might hope to convey by depicting unprotected sex.

“Here, we agree with the district court that, whatever unique message plaintiffs might intend to convey by depicting condomless sex, it is unlikely that viewers of adult films will understand that message,” said Judge Susan P. Graber, writing for the panel's majority.

There have been a number of HIV and other STD outbreaks in the porn industry over the years. In the 1980s almost 30 actors died after contracting HIV. And in 2004 the industry was shut down for 30 days after Darren James tested positive and urgent tests were carried out on other cast members.

First adopted in 2012, the ordinance was championed by the Los Angeles-based AIDS Healthcare Foundation as a means of reducing sexually transmitted diseases. The foundation's president, Michael Weinstein, hailed Monday's ruling as a “total vindication.”

“The court struck down every one of their arguments,” he said of the porn industry, which sued to have the measure overturned.

But for the industry the ban has seen the number of film permits in Los Angeles plummet from 485 in 2012 to just 40 last year. Industry officials have said some filmmakers stopped paying for permits and simply went underground while others moved film shoots to neighbouring counties or states.

They also say audiences don't want to see condoms in films. They also say the industry's own safety regulations, requiring actors be tested for venereal disease every two to four weeks, are sufficient.

In addressing that issue, the appeals court cited a 2009 letter from the Los Angeles County Department of Health stating the rate of venereal disease infection for porn actors is 20 per cent, compared with only 2.4 per cent for the general public.

It is unclear whether the case will go to the Supreme Court.

Additional reporting by agencies

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in