As the Tony award-winning musical, Avenue Q, declares, "The internet is for porn." While many would contest that the purpose of the internet is not to spread this scantily-clad 18+ material, few would deny that porn is one of the most common uses of the internet. As of September 2016, six of the 100 most popular websites are porn sites. 70% of men ages 18-24 visit a porn site in a typical month and 1 in 3 porn viewers are women. So if someone says they've never watched porn, especially if they're a millennial, chances are they're lying. Society has a complicated relationship with porn. Most people consume it, but many then turn around and shame the people involved in it. There's a common saying in the industry that "People shame you with one hand and jack off with the other." Sometimes the notions are not intentionally shameful. Sometimes people are trying to "protect" the "victims" in these videos. However, these statements and actions, as well-intended as they may be, often come across as patronizing and infantalizing, assuming that the speaker knows what's best for these workers, not that the workers themselves do. California's Proposition 60 is a perfect example of this.

On the first read, Prop 60 looks like a wonderful thing. Its main selling point is that it would require the use of condoms in all pornography filmed in the state of California. It would also require producers to acquire health licenses from the state and to pay for STI testing for the actors. Any producer who didn't follow these regulations would be subject to fines and civil lawsuit. Great, right? Who doesn't like safe sex? Sounds like a wonderful plan. Well, not exactly. Because that isn't all it says.

Prop 60 also would allow for any California resident to enforce this law through what's known as a "private right of action". That means that any California resident who viewed pornography that didn't have a condom visible would be able to sue the producers. But not only the producers as laypeople would think of them. The measure would make anyone with a financial interest in the film legally responsible and the majority of adult film performers are involved in production anyway. That means that the performers could be targeted. Sex workers of all types, including adult film performers, are already subject to discrimination, harassment, and even death threats. There is a reason that they use stage names, but this law could require performers to release their legal names and other personal information to the public. It puts performers at risk of even more harassment than they already face.

Encouraging safe sex and safe working conditions for people in all lines of work is great, but this measure would not achieve that end. Performers in the industry are already required to have been tested for STIs within 14 days of filming and performers do take the risk to their health (and their career) very seriously by being discriminatory about the people that they have sex with off camera. Services like Performer Availability Screening Services (PASS) and Talent Testing Services (TTS) are used to confirm that a performer has indeed tested negative for STIs. In fact, the state of California already has a law requiring STI testing and condom use (though the latter isn't always followed.) While there is evidence of a higher rate of chlamydia and gonorrhea in the industry, the quality and validity of those results are heavily contested and the last recorded transmission of HIV on a porn set was in 2010. (This transmission occurred on an independent set outside the commonly used Adult Industry Medical Healthcare Foundation's (AIM) reach. The last transmission on an AIM related set was in 2004.)

This measure is opposed by both the California Democratic Party AND the California Republican Party, as well as the California Libertarian Party. More tellingly, it is opposed by the Adult Performer Advocacy Committee (APAC), a California independent adult film performer organization with hundreds of dues paying members. A full list of people and groups opposing the measure can be found here. The entire funding in support of the bill has been provided by Michael Weinstein, president of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and notorious opponent of the porn industry. (Note that several AIDS-related groups including AIDS Project Los Angeles and San Francisco AIDS Foundation are against the bill.) It would also likely hurt the California economy, much as Measure B (which had similar requirements and was passed in Los Angeles several years ago) hurt the Los Angeles economy, only instead of pushing porn production into another county, it would push it to different states like Nevada or Arizona. The other possibility is that it would push production underground, making working conditions more hazardous than ever. The official arguments for and against the bill as well as funding, support and opposition, and other information can be found here.

Ultimately, the measure would make working in the industry more dangerous for performers. Improvements could definitely be made on the health and safety measures in the adult film industry, but instead of doing this, Measure 60 would open adult film performers to harassment, stalking, and other terrifying prospects. So please, Californians, don't think that you know what's best for performers more than they do, and #VoteNoOn60.