Porn Company Sanctioned For Unsafe Work Conditions Over Failure To Require Condoms

There is an interesting dispute in San Francisco after state safety officials fined a pornography company $78,000 for maintaining a dangerous workplace. The citation includes allowing performers to have sex on camera without using condoms. That led to objections that the officials were singling out this controversial but legal industry and they may have a point. Wearing condoms is not legally required, even though it is clearly a best practice for “performers” and non-performers alike. However, the actual complaint against Cybernet Entertainment, the parent company of Internet porn producer Kink.com, was not brought by conservative or religious groups but the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, a Los Angeles-headquartered advocacy group.

The AHF Foundation successfully lobbied for condom requirements on porn sets in the city of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County. The group filed complaints after two Kink.com performers involved in a romantic relationship were found to be HIV-positive. However, Kink.com insists that this is a moral issue not a health issue because it found that the two have contracted AIDS in their private relations. The adult film industry notes that it has adopted testing of all active performers biweekly for a range of sexually transmitted diseases, including syphilis, hepatitis and HIV.

Here is what I find interesting: if the company guarantees biweekly testing, shouldn’t the regulators have to show that condoms are still necessary? If there is little danger with testing, why should the industry be required to impose the wearing of condoms. Once again, I like the practice of requiring the wearing of condoms in these films because it encourages safe sex. However, these films are a form of expression and, at least viewed by their makers, a claimed art form. That raises first amendment concerns.

The site itself speaks of its curious mission and history:

The company was started in 1997 by bondage enthusiast Peter Acworth. After launching his first website – Hogtied.com – and running it from his graduate school dorm room for a full year, Peter moved the company to San Francisco, where it has continued to grow into the worlds most recognized and respected company promoting the acceptance of human sexuality.

Many find this work offensive and immoral. However, he does not and views the films as that expression with not just sexual but political meaning.

If the company can show that it tests biweekly, should the burden be on the government to show a need for this requirement?