S.F. Bay Guardian: Vote 'No' on Prop 60

SAN FRANCISCO — The San Francisco Bay Guardian yesterday urged a “no” vote for Proposition 60.

The Bay Guardian joins a long list of newspapers across the state that are opposed to the proposal that would offer bounties on porn producers delivering condom-less sex scenes.

The paper called Prop 60 “a solution in search of a problem.”

“There isn’t one documented case of a person getting infected with HIV on a porn set in California,” the Bay Guardian’s editorial board said. “Performers are tested regularly.”

In a statement today, Eric Paul Leue, campaign manager for Californians Against Worker Harassment (No on Prop 60) and executive director for the Free Speech Coalition, emphasized the initiative is a threat to the health and safety of performers.

“Prop 60 has been opposed by every major paper that has looked at it, and by nearly every political organization in the state,” he said. “Most tellingly, it is opposed by the performers themselves.

"Just about the only person supporting it is Michael Weinstein, the proponent and sole funder of the initiative, who has created a measure that would allow him to go after adult performers unimpeded, against the will of legislators or state health departments, and funded with state resources,” he said.

“This is a power grab which will disenfranchise and hurt adult workers in the pursuit of one man’s misguided moral crusade.”

Leue noted that Prop 60 has been opposed by numerous organizations and politicians, including the California Democratic Party, the California Republican Party, the California Libertarian Party, San Francisco Medical Society, Equality California, SF AIDS Foundation, AIDS Project LA, the LA LGBT Center, the Harvey Milk Democratic Club, Sen. Mark Leno, the performer group APAC (the Adult Performer Advocacy Committee) and others.

Also yesterday, the Riverside Press-Enterprise condemned Prop 60, urging a “no” vote on the AIDS Healthcare Foundation-sponsored initiative.

The Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, the San Jose Mercury News, the Orange County Register, the East Bay Times, the Sacramento Bee and the San Diego Union Tribune have all opposed the measure.

The FSC, in a release, offered select comments below from some of the papers' editorial boards:

• The Los Angeles Times says the “heavy-handed Prop 60 would deputize every Californian as a condom cop … an extreme approach — and demonstrably counterproductive.”
• The Orange County Register says Prop 60 “could be exploited by people trying to damage a controversial business or earn a cut of a resulting fine.”
• The Sacramento Bee says Prop 60 could create “an all-out war, in the courts and by the state, ... which could just drive performers further underground and make them less safe.”
• The San Francisco Chronicle says Prop 60’s condom requirement “doesn’t make sense” and “invites legal bounty hunting. Also performers, who often use screen names, could have their identities and addresses made public, a feature that invades privacy and could lead to harm from porn-addled stalkers.”
• The San Diego Union Tribune calls Prop 60 “excessive,” noting that the measure “is facing broad opposition, including the state Democratic and Republican parties, AIDS Project Los Angeles and the San Francisco AIDS Foundation.”
• The East Bay Times says "Prop 60 is one of those measures that might seem like a good idea until you actually read it .. what we really have here is the daft idea of giving a California porn czar the power to override the state attorney general.”
• And the Mercury News notes "state and federal laws already protect adult performers, who are routinely tested for sexually transmitted diseases … this measure could undermine ongoing efforts by the California Division of Occupational Health and Safety (Cal/OSHA) to improve regulation of the industry.”