by Maurice Bobb 2 hours ago

The adult entertainment industry has been arguing against a law that would require porn actors to wear condoms, but they suffered another setback when the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Los Angeles rejected their First Amendment argument on Monday (Dec. 15).

Simply put, the adult entertainment industrys position revolves around the idea that condomless sex is part of their right to free speech. Vivid Entertainment and the other plaintiffs in the suit were seeking relief from the 2012 law (Measure B), which was voter-initiated, in response to the widespread transmission of sexually transmitted diseases among porn industry workers.

While the entertainment industry is indeed content-based though, the 9th Circuit ruled that speech that is sexual or pornographic in nature earns an exception to free speech when the primary motivation behind the regulation is to prevent secondary effects like STDs, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

Vivid also argued that condomless sex onscreen is essential because it projects a particular fantasy for viewers, one where sex doesnt have real-life consequences like disease or pregnancy.

But ninth Circuit Judge Susan Graber saw the safe-sex precaution a different way, and explained in part in the ruling:

To determine whether conduct is protected by the First Amendment, we ask not only whether someone intended to convey a particular message through that conduct, but also whether there is a great likelihood that the message would be understood by those who viewed it. Here, we agree with the district court that, whatever unique message Plaintiffs might intend to convey by depicting condomless sex, it is unlikely that viewers of adult films will understand that message. So condomless sex is not the relevant expression for First Amendment purposes; instead, the relevant expression is more generally the adult films erotic message.

The federal courts decision means that the law requiring porn actors wear condoms during their onscreen expressions doesnt conflict with their First Amendment rights.

Outside of the legal ramifications of the ruling and the effect it will have on the porn industrys fanbase, the question we have to admit to wondering about is: Did the justices have to actually watch porn to rule on this matter?

What do you think? Should condomless sex be protected under the First Amendment?

See the rest here:

Los Angeles Court Says Condom-less Sex Isnt Protected Free Speech