If it passes, there is absolutely NO WAY (IMO as a non-lawyer) it would survive a court challenge. This law is almost as bad as the law that was passed some time ago that allowed anyone to sue for defamation in order to shut down free speech. Known as a SLAPP suit (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) several states, including California, passed laws to prevent such suits and other states do not take them well - they are often tossed by the courts. I think the Prop 60 suits would also get tossed by the courts for the same reason - that it is unconstitutional.
Now while I'm one whose stated my views (no condoms in movies, no condoms for appointments), this ballot initiative goes way beyond what Measure B did....It would open up a floodgate of frivolous lawsuits that could affect not only performers, but other entities like hotels, cable companies that provide xxx films to customers....It's so over-reaching that BOTH California Democrats & Republicans oppose this bill....It is one colossal overreach by the folks at AHF...
you cannot stop stupid people from voting for stupid things or for stupid people.
If it passes and doesn't get struck down swiftly by the courts, it will be the end of porn as we know it today.
I don't really believe thats going to happen though. There is no actionable harm that really exist here. How does one prove that a condom not being shown in a film caused any actual injury. I think if it does pass, a case or two will be brought, and those will be appealed up the chain because the law, in and of itself, is pretty shaky and I don't believe would pass constitutional muster if challenged.
If it passes, there is absolutely NO WAY (IMO as a non-lawyer) it would survive a court challenge. This law is almost as bad as the law that was passed some time ago that allowed anyone to sue for defamation in order to shut down free speech. Known as a SLAPP suit (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) several states, including California, passed laws to prevent such suits and other states do not take them well - they are often tossed by the courts. I think the Prop 60 suits would also get tossed by the courts for the same reason - that it is unconstitutional.
Yeah, if it does pass likely will end up at some point before a 3 judge panel on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (I'm no lawyer either, though i really follow the judicial nominations process)....But hopefully since its a presidential election year, which = higher turnout, it will be defeated...
And if it passes, it WILL be the law in California until struck down. It wouldn't take it long to do a lot of damage to the industry.
Within 24 hours there will be a lawsuit, which among other things, will request the judge to issue an order to halt enforcement of the law until the case resolves. The order will probably be granted. That's pretty much SOP, especially for a law like this. So, it won't have much of a chance to do any damage unless the law eventually goes into effect which will probably take years
The underlying question that congressmen should be asking is how much does porn contribute in taxes and to the state coffers. After that is answered, the next question is what new industries are coming to replace that income. Then with the question if all politics are local are citizens going to be affected with respect to real estate taxes and over assessment of their properties now since an important cog in the economy has left the state. At some point, even the state of California is going to feel the pain. When the bond rating goes down now since we know how much revenue the industry creates for the state of California, then legislators and other concern governmental parties will come to their senses. In fact maybe not this election cycle but in a couple, they could very well approach the industry begging them to come back and perhaps even changing some of those laws. Ultimately in the end, money will trump Weinstein and everything else.