Close to Home: Why voters should say no to proposition about porn films

As a local attorney based in Sonoma County, my peers often wonder why I’m fighting an adult film initiative that largely affects performers in Los Angeles and San Francisco - the noxious Proposition 60. As a lawyer with an expertise in workplace safety, I’ve become an unlikely advocate for the rights of adult performers. And Proposition 60, which claims to protect adult workers, is about as misleading as they come.

Proposition 60 is the latest brainchild of controversial moralist Michael Weinstein. For years he’s been lambasted by LGBT rights groups and HIV/AIDS organizations for his regressive positions on safer sex. His organization, the controversial AIDS Healthcare Foundation, has been accused of Medicare fraud and union-busting and routinely sues those who disagree with him. He has deep pockets, thanks to a pharmacy empire, and has used the money to bully his way around the state. Eight years ago, he decided to take on the adult film industry, despite having rigorous testing system that no less than the New York Times called “an unlikely model” for HIV prevention. Instead, Weinstein believed that adult films should teach a safer sex message. He began filing complaints with Cal/OSHA against adult film producers and performers who did not use condoms in their productions, sometimes hundreds at a time. He tried to get three bills passed in Sacramento, all defeated thanks to legislators who saw the argument for what it was worth - and to performers who testified that they, not the state and certainly not Michael Weinstein, should have control over their own bodies.

This spring, Weinstein introduced Proposition 60, a statewide ballot initiative that will allow any resident of the state of California to sue anyone with a “financial interest” in an adult film if a condom isn’t visible - including the performers themselves. Under Proposition 60, producers, agents, retailers, cable companies, tube site operators could all be sued by anyone with a laptop. Those who sued would get a cut of any fine levied and have their legal costs paid by the defendant.

As an attorney, I can tell you: there’s an entire cottage industry of lawyers forming right now to sit in their offices “reviewing scenes” and filing lawsuits.

Proposition 60 is pitched as a “safe sex” law, but it’s not. There has not been a single transmission of HIV on a regulated adult set in the state since 2004. Performers are tested every 14 days for a full slate of sexually transmitted infections. But that hasn’t stopped Weinstein. As in most moral campaigns, scare tactics and dubious numbers are used as a pretext to violate constitutionally enshrined rights. In this case, Weinstein wants to be a taxpayer funded porn czar, with the power to override both the state attorney general and Cal/OSHA.

You can tell a bad initiative from its list of enemies - and I’m proud here to count myself in this band. Proposition 60 is opposed by the California Democratic Party, California Republican Party, the California Libertarian Party, leading HIV/AIDS organizations such as the SF AIDS Foundation and AIDS Project LA, civil rights organizations like Equality California, the LA LGBT Center, the Transgender Law Center; and leading progressive politicians such as state Sen. Mark Leno and San Francisco Supervisor Scott Weiner. Not a group you might think would band together to defend the porn industry.

Perhaps most importantly, it’s been opposed by the performers themselves, who see how a private right of action leaves them vulnerable to stalkers, harassers, extorters and profiteers. Even performers who do use condoms have spoken out and protested this retrogressive and dangerous method of enforcement. Weinstein’s AIDS Healthcare Foundation has a yearly budget of $800 million.

However, $800 million isn’t enough for Michael Weinstein. He wants more. He wants taxpayers to fund his moral crusade and pay him to do it.

Karen Fuller Tynan is a Healdsburg attorney.