Vote against the porn czar and Prop. 60

Proposition 60 is one of those measures that might seem like a good idea until you actually read it.

Its basic premise is requiring adult film actors to wear condoms during sex. Not unreasonable. But what we really have here is the daft idea of giving a California porn czar the power to override the state attorney general. Vote no. Really. How bad is Prop 60? In a rare display of unity, California’s Democratic Party and Republican Party are opposed.

State and federal laws already protect adult performers, who are routinely tested for sexually transmitted diseases. There’s insufficient enforcement. But this measure could undermine ongoing efforts by the California Division of Occupational Health and Safety (Cal-OSHA) to improve regulation of the industry.

Prop 60 purports to fix everything, but as state Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, notes, it actually could open performers to lawsuits, “fails to embrace the most current scientific research and could run counter to findings regarding more advanced approaches to protecting workers.”

All that’s bad, but here’s the worst of it:

Prop. 60 is the brainchild of Michael Weinstein, CEO of the Los Angelesbased AIDS Healthcare Foundation. He’s often described as uncompromising and dictatorial, and let’s just say he brought both those qualities to Prop. 60.

Consider Section 10. The second sentence reads: “The People of the State of California, by enacting this Act, hereby declare the proponent of this Act (meaning Weinstein, himself) has a direct and personal stake in defending this Act from constitutional or statutory challenges to the Act’s validity.”

It gets worse.

The third sentence reads: “In the event the Attorney General fails to defend this Act, or the Attorney General fails to appeal an adverse judgment against the constitutionality or statutory permissibly of this Act, in whole or in part, in any court, the Act’s proponent (again, Weinstein, himself) shall be entitled to assert his direct and personal stake by defending the Act’s validity in any court ...”

Weinstein is setting himself up as the state’s porn czar, apparently for life. He could only be ousted “by a majority vote of each house of the Legislature when ‘good cause’ exists to do so.” Funny, there’s no provision for the governor, Legislature or voters to name a successor if Weinstein is removed by the Legislature.

Opponents of the proposition also argue that it will drive the industry underground or out of the state. That, we’re not worried about. We won’t shed any tears if an industry that’s demeaning to women, addictive and emotionally damaging moves to another state.

But crowning Weinstein king of porn with absolute power over all this? No way. Vote no on Proposition 60.