General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCA Prop 60: Shut Up And Listen to the Porn Stars
The battle over Californias Proposition 60 is the best example possible of why the first step in making laws about sex work is to ask sex workers what they want.
Proposition 60 looks great at first glance. I wouldnt fault anyone who doesnt know anything about it for voting yes if thats all they knew about it. I can easily imagine myself getting suckered into voting for it if I didnt have such strong connections to the sex worker communities. But the fact is, its a lousy law, the latest in a long string of attempts by the AIDS Health Foundation to profiteer off the fear of sex and the stigmatizing of sex work. I want to talk about why its a lousy law here, but I want to do more than that, too: I want to use it as a demonstration of why its important for everyone in this country who works for a living to pay attention to the organizing efforts of sex workers and support them.
Link
Since lots of folks opine on porn here, we have an actual prop up for vote in CA this month. Thoughts?
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)more of a popular thing
itsrobert
(14,157 posts)Out of state or the country.
Blue_Adept
(6,384 posts)I know a ton of stuff is done around the world and there are a lot of great sites that are from different states, but the bulk of the industry with all it deals with is still CA based.
dembotoz
(16,734 posts)so we can eliminate most of the north.....ice rinks are not that sexy....and rolling around in a snowbank...would anticipate shrinkage would be a problem
kcr
(15,300 posts)Let's just always roll over for every industry every time they try that threat? Or how about we don't.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Like when John Hopkins Hospital began using medical gloves in 1889 and all the sick people went out of the state or country...
skylucy
(3,734 posts)and who was against it. I agree, it looks good at first glance...but first impressions can be very deceiving.
kcr
(15,300 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)So you believe one specific indicates a general?
(six of one, half a dozen of the other)
kcr
(15,300 posts)I tend to just assume what is most likely. I could have just left it alone with that assumption and gone about my day.
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)Makes the poor assumption there's only one way to regulate safety standards.
kcr
(15,300 posts)I mean, yes, of course there are lots of ways to regulate. But there's only one being proposed, see? I'm sticking to the topic in the OP, I assure you.
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)Making the implication someone who is opposed to the bill must be against safety is a half-fast argument.
kcr
(15,300 posts)I see nothing half assed about pointing that out, actually. And if it gets anyone to change their mind, bonus.
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)Which is another half-fast assumption.
kcr
(15,300 posts)that some Dems seem to think is oh so effective. That's getting this country somewhere! Look at our robust middle class!
I think I'll take my way. We should try it.
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)Which is another half-fast assumption.
MindPilot
(12,693 posts)from the article:
The big production companies tend to favor the most conventional, privileged kinds of bodies: slim, white, and cisgendered. Those who are fat, transgendered, people of color, or otherwise fall outside of conventional beauty standards are more likely to have to rely on carving out their own alternative channels of distribution in order to make a living.
Besides who it targets, the enforcement mechanisms of Proposition 60 are weird and poorly thought-out. If the state doesnt act on a reported violation, any Californian is able to act as plaintiff and sue the producer for not showing condoms in their film. If the lawsuit is successful, the plaintiff who again, can be any Californian who watched a porn film and didnt see condoms being used gets 25% of the judgement. Fines can go up to $70,000 for repeat violations, which is a pretty strong motivation to sit around watching porn that doesnt turn you on.
In its editorial opposing Proposition 60, The Los Angeles Times called the law heavy-handed, especially because of the enforcement mechanism:
Proposition 60 is far worse than Measure B not just because of its unusual provision allowing any Californian to sue and collect damages without having to show that they suffered any harm. It also extends the financial liability to, potentially, small-time performers who produce and distribute their own content (and who are unlikely to have been coerced into not wearing condoms). Theres also the possibility that some people might use the new law to harass adult-film performers.
kcr
(15,300 posts)because I decided to also do a little research myself, and I didn't even have to look very far. And really, it's not this huge secret that porn is one shitty industry to begin with. But, given the general attitudes right now about labor in this country I shouldn't be too surprised. It's sad how labor and worker's right's seem to have fallen as a concern even with liberals. When a really shady and exploitive industry like porn can convince people that, hey! They should just self-police! That's just sad, right there. Going by these comments you'd think no one is supporting it at all. Or there's vague comments about dark forces supporting it. Who, like the Aids Healthcare Foundation? In my research I've yet to see a whole lot of reasonable arguments against it. I just see the typical industry led oppositional arguments whenever well needed regulations are proposed. And the porn industry is in real need of them.
Throd
(7,208 posts)davidn3600
(6,342 posts)But my opinion on these types of laws in California or anywhere else is to do what the sex workers and porn stars want. They are the ones who this law would effects more than anyone else so I value their opinions more than some elitist fools in the government who claim to have a superior intellect.