Porn and the Workplace

Vivid Entertainment is suing the City of Los Angeles for requiring its performers to use condoms, claiming it's a violation of the First Amendment.

That may be the Constitutional argument Vivid has to make to defend itself.

But it's probably not the best argument against the law. At least three other freedoms come into play here:

•  freedom of association
• freedom of contract
• private property

When proponents of the law say, "This is not a free speech issue. This is a workplace safety issue," they may be on to something, but they still miss the underlying moral point.

Who decides if the workplace is safe?

The owner and workers through negotiation?

Or outsiders?

Why should outsiders - voters, politicians, bureaucrats - decide? Who do they think they are?

Laws like these, supposedly designed to keep workers "safe," are an ATTACK on those very workers.

As I recall one observer (maybe Adam Carolla?) saying, porn deals in sexual fantasy, NOT responsibility. L.A.'s industry is bound to lose out to porn made elsewhere, if the porn-viewing public deems condom-less sex is preferable viewing.

That means porn stars out of work or with lower pay, causing stress that will probably damage their health far more than the risk of STD's.

This is the problem with all workplace "regulations." Yes, there should be criminal and civil liabilities for fraud and negligence, but otherwise, why can't the employer and employee negotiate their own terms? And why is it my business, as a citizen and voter, to mandate different terms than those which they had already mutually consented?

Workplace regulations are probably the main cause of unemployment, worse than high taxes. Anyone should be free to earn money doing anything that's peaceful and honest.