California to better regulate pornography

[Chessmistress]

Okay, I'll try to be extremely neutral regarding the sources, so I'll use a very neutral and also extremely detailed site:
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Prop ... ilms_(2016)

Proposition 60, the Condoms in Pornographic Films Initiative, will be on the November 8, 2016, ballot in California as an initiated state statute.[1]
A "yes" vote would be a vote in favor of requiring the use of condoms and other protective measures during the filming of pornographic films, as well as requiring pornography producers to pay for certain health requirements and checkups.
A "no" vote would be a vote against requiring the use of condoms and other safety measures during the filming of pornographic films.

More details in the link

Personally I think that isn't really important, not even closer, but still it's interesting: it's just a very little step, but still this initiative, if passed, will improve public health and public awareness about the use of condoms (though such awareness will be gained through watching pornography, that encourges violence against women ) and, perhaps more important, will give practically to all people the chance to sue the pornographers not properly using the minimum required protections.
Since the vote will be on 8 November, that is also Election Day, it's very likely that there will be a lot of people voting it.

What do you think, NSGs?

[Esternial]

Seems like a good idea to me.

Also you made a mistake with the link there.

[The Blaatschapen]

Won't the porn producers just move their production to other states? And thus this would only drive business out of the state (not that this particular business is wanted, mind).

[Shofercia]

Okay, I'll try to be extremely neutral regarding the sources, so I'll use a very neutral and also extremely detailed site:
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Prop ... ilms_(2016)

Proposition 60, the Condoms in Pornographic Films Initiative, will be on the November 8, 2016, ballot in California as an initiated state statute.[1]
A "yes" vote would be a vote in favor of requiring the use of condoms and other protective measures during the filming of pornographic films, as well as requiring pornography producers to pay for certain health requirements and checkups.
A "no" vote would be a vote against requiring the use of condoms and other safety measures during the filming of pornographic films.

More details in the link

Personally I think that isn't really important, not even closer, but still it's interesting: it's just a very little step, but still this initiative, if passed, will improve public health and public awareness about the use of condoms (though such awareness will be gained through watching pornography, that encourges violence against women ) and, perhaps more important, will give practically to all people the chance to sue the pornographers not properly using the minimum required protections.
Since the vote will be on 8 November, that is also Election Day, it's very likely that there will be a lot of people voting it.

What do you think, NSGs?

Bad idea. The industry will simply move from Hollywood to Vegas. Such laws only work if they're implemented in all states, not just one state.

[New Axiom]

Why don't the pornstars get their tubes cut? Both male and female pornstars. Sure, you will never ever be able to have kids, but that's why you don't be a pornstar.

[Esternial]

Why don't the pornstars get their tubes cut? Both male and female pornstars. Sure, you will never ever be able to have kids, but If you want to be a pormstar, you don't deserve kids.

Pregnancy isn't the only relevant subject here...

[The Emerald Dawn]

Why don't the pornstars get their tubes cut? Both male and female pornstars. Sure, you will never ever be able to have kids, but If you want to be a pormstar, you don't deserve kids.

Because vasectomies and tubal ligation don't protect against STI/STD?

[Des-Bal]

This isn't about safety so much as it's about throwing another fuck you at the pornography industry.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Won't the porn producers just move their production to other states? And thus this would only drive business out of the state (not that this particular business is wanted, mind).

California really does want the porn business, Blaat. It brings in a metric fuckton of tax money.

[Des-Bal]

Won't the porn producers just move their production to other states? And thus this would only drive business out of the state (not that this particular business is wanted, mind).

That's the plan.

[New Axiom]

Why don't the pornstars get their tubes cut? Both male and female pornstars. Sure, you will never ever be able to have kids, but If you want to be a pormstar, you don't deserve kids.

Pregnancy isn't the only relevant subject here...

Right, there are diseases and stuff, but that's why no one should be a pornstar in the first palce.

I mean, we all watch it, but going in the business is very dangerous. And not all diseases are stopped by condoms.

[Gages Icelandic Army]

I would vote yes to the condoms, not to the regular health check ups. Having to buy condoms won't drive them out of the state and it's still safer.

[Shofercia]

Won't the porn producers just move their production to other states? And thus this would only drive business out of the state (not that this particular business is wanted, mind).

We want it. The business brings in good tax dollars for the state, and is only conducted in rowdy locations or private residences/studious. It's good money at very little social cost.

[The first Galactic Republic]

Why don't the pornstars get their tubes cut? Both male and female pornstars. Sure, you will never ever be able to have kids, but that's why you don't be a pornstar.

The vast majority of pornstars don't do it very long. They're also very young when they usually do it, so it's not fair to make them have that when they may want kids ten to thirty years in the future.

It'd be like forcing soldiers to have some permanent operation when most are only going to serve for a few years. Hell it'd be like making interns modify their body for a brief internship they'd leave soon.

[Esternial]

Okay, I'll try to be extremely neutral regarding the sources, so I'll use a very neutral and also extremely detailed site:
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Prop ... ilms_(2016)



More details in the link

Personally I think that isn't really important, not even closer, but still it's interesting: it's just a very little step, but still this initiative, if passed, will improve public health and public awareness about the use of condoms (though such awareness will be gained through watching pornography, that encourges violence against women :( ) and, perhaps more important, will give practically to all people the chance to sue the pornographers not properly using the minimum required protections.
Since the vote will be on 8 November, that is also Election Day, it's very likely that there will be a lot of people voting it.

What do you think, NSGs?

Bad idea. The industry will simply move from Hollywood to Vegas. Such laws only work if they're implemented in all states, not just one state.

Hmm, that's a good point, yeah.

[Des-Bal]

California really does want the porn business, Blaat. It brings in a metric fuckton of tax money.

They want the money, but they make a point of kicking the industry whenever possible.

[The Blaatschapen]

Won't the porn producers just move their production to other states? And thus this would only drive business out of the state (not that this particular business is wanted, mind).

California really does want the porn business, Blaat. It brings in a metric fuckton of tax money.

I did not know that. Then the whole Cali-fornication makes sense

[The Emerald Dawn]

California really does want the porn business, Blaat. It brings in a metric fuckton of tax money.

They want the money, but they make a point of kicking the industry whenever possible.

The divide between NorCal and SoCal is real, man.

[New Axiom]

I would vote yes to the condoms, not to the regular health check ups. Having to buy condoms won't drive them out of the state and it's still safer.

Yeah but condoms don't stop everything, and some STDs can be spread via sweat from rubbing your bodies together, and the condom only covers and protects a relatively small part of the body. So health checkups are a good idea

[Shofercia]

California really does want the porn business, Blaat. It brings in a metric fuckton of tax money.

They want the money, but they make a point of kicking the industry whenever possible.

Are you saying that the porn industry is like our jobber girl?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Bad idea. The industry will simply move from Hollywood to Vegas. Such laws only work if they're implemented in all states, not just one state.

Makes you wonder why they aren't in Vegas already, California sucks.

[Des-Bal]

Yeah but condoms don't stop everything, and some STDs can be spread via sweat from rubbing your bodies together, and the condom only covers and protects a relatively small part of the body. So health checkups are a good idea

Luckily they have those, they're pretty good about them, and the law isn't concerned with people's safety.

[Genivaria]

Health services are always good.

[Wallenburg]

Pregnancy isn't the only relevant subject here...

Right, there are diseases and stuff, but that's why no one should be a pornstar in the first palce.

I mean, we all watch it, but going in the business is very dangerous. And not all diseases are stopped by condoms.

We set health and safety standards for mining, meatpacking, and farming. Why is it acceptable to give the finger to the health needs of porn actors?

[Saiwania]

What California is attempting to do should be the law nationwide. This isn't just a luxury, it is beyond dispute that condoms would make the industry safer with regards to health.