California Proposition 60 (2016)

Proposition 60 was a California ballot proposition on the November 8, 2016 ballot which would allow the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) to prosecute an enforcement action anytime a condom is not visible in a pornographic film.^[1] The proposition failed to pass.^[2]

Proposition 60 allows any California resident to sue a pornographer and obtain their personal information. Frivolous law suits and actor safety are a major concern, as well as millions of taxpayer dollars it will cost to enforce.^[1]

Enforcement of Proposition 60 is predicted to cost more than $1 million annually.^[3] State and local tax revenue are predicted to lose tens of millions of dollars per year if the industry leaves the state.^[3]

If the state decides not to defend Proposition 60’s constitutionality in court, the measure empowers its sole sponsor, Michael Weinstein of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, to defend the measure himself.^[4] Weinstein’s legal expenses would be paid by the state and he could only be removed by a majority vote of both houses of the California State Legislature.^[4] These provisions are included in response to the United States Supreme Court ruling in Hollingsworth v. Perry that only state employees have standing to defend state ballot propositions in federal court.

Proposition 60 is similar to Measure B, passed by Los Angeles voters in 2012, which resulted in a large drop in permit filings for pornography shoots.^[1] Proposition 60 would require adult film performers to use condoms during filming of sexual intercourse, and requires producers to pay for performer vaccinations, testing, and medical examinations, and to post the condom requirement at film sites.^[5] Additionally, producers would be required to renew their adult film licenses every two years as well as contact Cal/OSHA if and when a film is being made.^[6]

The statewide California pornography industry employs 2,000 people.^[4] Pornography in California is estimated to be a $9 billion industry.^[3]

California law already requires all workers to use protection against infectious bodily fluids, and the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration has already interpreted the statute to require porn actors to wear condoms.^[1] In early 2016 rulemaking, Cal/OSHA drafted detailed regulation requiring condom use but it was withdrawn after widespread industry criticism.^[1]

Proponents spent $4.6 million fighting for the measure, all of it from the AIDS Healthcare Foundation.^[1]

Opponents have spent $433,614, with the top donor being Wicked Pictures.^[1] Other top donors include Cybernet Entertainment and the California Democratic Party.^[1] The editorial boards of the Los Angeles Times,^[7] the San Francisco Chronicle,^[8] and the Sacramento Bee oppose the measure.^[4]

The proposition failed, with a nearly 54% against and 46% in favor.^[2]

References

1. Dembosky, April. "Election 2016: Proposition 60". KQED News. Retrieved 20 October 2016.
2. "Condom Mandate For Porn Industry Falls Short In California". NPR.org. Retrieved 2016-11-10.
3. "Proposition 60: Condoms in films". Cal Matters. Retrieved 28 October 2016.
4. The Editorial Board of the Sacramento Bee (11 September 2016). "Prop. 60: How hardcore do we want to get in policing porn?". The Sacramento Bee. Retrieved 20 October 2016.
5. "Proposition 60. California General Election November 8, 2016. Official Voter Information Guide.". California Secretary of State. Retrieved 10 October 2016.
6. "California Proposition 60, Condoms in Pornographic Films (2016) - Ballotpedia". Retrieved 2016-10-11.
7. The Editorial Board of the Los Angeles Times (28 September 2016). "Heavy-handed Proposition 60 would deputize every Californian as a condom cop". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 20 October 2016.
8. The Editorial Board of the San Francisco Chronicle (2 September 2016). "A condom requirement for porn actors doesn't make sense". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 20 October 2016.

External links

• Yes on Prop 60
• No on Prop 60