Ruling: LA County needn't mandate condoms in porn

[The Northerner]

An appeals court has ruled that courts can't compel public health officials to require and enforce condom use in porn.

The June 16 ruling by the 2nd District Court of Appeals in Los Angeles upholds dismissal of a case brought against county health officials in 2009 by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation.

In its suit, AHF contended the officials should be compelled to issue a regulatory order requiring adult film performers to wear condoms in sex scenes and get hepatitis B vaccinations.

In upholding a lower court's dismissal of the case, the appeals court said the county health officer has discretion in his duty to prevent and control disease.

Read more: http://health.yahoo.net/news/s/ap/us_porn_condoms_lawsuit

[David__77]

1. It seems reasonable.

That said, the condom-less sex films will simply be produced elsewhere, where such requirements do not exist. Many people do not find condoms to be particularly arousing.

[SoapBox]

2. True...but they can expect HIV to continue to spread.

Testing is testing...but the only way to test and keep the performers neg, would be to put them under lock and key.

And ditto to the out of country filming...way, way different "standards" for STDs / testing and barebacking.

For those that are non-porn class...play it safe!

[boppers]

3. Last LA porn HIV outbreak was started by out-of-country filming....

Jus' Sayin'.

[David__77]

4. Problem is that so much porn is amateur now.

I know people that just go on webcam for pay. I agree that you cannot confirm someone's health status without essentially locking them up, which requires basic health measures like condoms for sex workers.