(Oct 21, 2016 10:57 PM)Syne Wrote: They could always refuse to work with said producers. Much like king crab fishing is unavoidably dangerous, making some forms of "art" could be as well?
Permitting a dangerous activity does not entail it being allowed to proceed with zero safeguards, though. Apparently the decades of helmets, padding, finicky penalty rules and player fines for illegal hits in American football hasn't lessened its injury stigma.
There's no widespread exemption from safety standards in mainstream movie "art", either. Even in Harold Loyd's reckless
Safety Last!, where the actor performed his own dangerous stunts, protective measures were taken. The city would have "refused the production a film permit" if preparation and safety equipment requirements had not been met.
I have no idea what the average porn flick / video's budget would be, but it's probably well below "Plan 9 From Outer Space" pecuniary standards. So difficult to imagine any potentially harmful exploits and FX taking place other than unprotected sex; or why there would ever need to be such. Nevertheless, wherein porn does feature a threat, that has somehow flown under the legislative radar since the days when AIDS, mega-STD contagions and antibiotic resistant microbes dawned firmly in public awareness. Perhaps it's hangover from olden times when explicit sex photos and films were as illegal as prostitution, and just as "couldn't care less" about what was happening to the perpetrators health and abuse wise, type of attitude from authorities.
Quote:If the restriction effectively "bans" what some may consider a form of "art", would it be safety regulation or censorship of free speech?
If it can't produce a convincing reason for being privileged or "special" from the rest of the entertainment industry and workplaces in general out there, then "safety / nanny-state" agenda should outrun any hypothetical "creative liberties" of the Old School porn producers and the risk-taking actors who might desire to accommodate their "latex-less" style of sex fantasies.
A [creative] license (in the non-trivial sense) should not be an entitled immunity which art in general is universally allowed. Rather than such a grand right, "license" should mean a particular permission of official status for deviating from normally applicable rules or practices (which themselves are at least "universal" over the community, domain, or country they apply to). Which is earned / paid or passes some qualification for (set by the appropriate authority).
There's also the "sending the wrong message of unprotected sex" from California to around the globe (via its porn-making) in an otherwise golden celebration (since the '60s) of promiscuous sex activity. Which has perhaps finally developed enough political-preachy "incorrectness" muscle around it on the Left Coast to serve as further drive to avoid that kind of international mis-perception (i.e, "Unprotected sex is good!").