Attorney Won an Earlier Court Case Forcing Prop. 60 Foes to Drop Misleading Claims in Ballot Argument for Official California Voter Guide
LOS ANGELES (Aug. 30, 2016) In an op-ed published in a top legal newspaper, Los Angeles attorney Bradley W. Hertz demolished a half-dozen “deceitful myths” that opponents have been circulating about Proposition 60, the California Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act, the measure on the Nov. 8 ballot to strengthen the law requiring adult film performers to wear condoms during explicit sex scenes.
“Proposition 60 will be the antidote to the current malevolent practice in the adult film industry — whereby producers bully and blacklist on-screen talent who want condoms worn in their sex scenes,” Hertz wrote in an article published in the Daily Journal, the Los Angeles legal community’s newspaper of record.
Hertz, a partner at the San Francisco-based Sutton Law Firm, drafted Prop. 60 for the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF), a Sutton client, with input from senior management at AHF, adult film performers and officials at Cal/OSHA, the state’s premiere workplace safety agency. “We listened to what stakeholders were telling us and crafted the measure accordingly,” Hertz said.
In his op-ed, Hertz wrote Prop. 60 is a “measured response to an epidemic of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in the adult film industry that can be significantly mitigated by condom use. The measure starts with the premise that ‘all workers in the adult film industry deserve to go to work and not become ill.’”
Hertz also wrote that fears Prop. 60 would result in a torrent of lawsuits against the adult film industry are unfounded. “Proposition 60 does enable private parties to sue to enforce Cal/OSHA’s condom-use rule (in effect since 1992). But such lawsuits can only be brought if Cal/OSHA fails to act within a reasonable period of time to enforce violations. Far from being a ‘sue an adult film performer’ measure, as the opponents would have you believe, the ‘private attorney general’ provision serves only as a last resort.” Hertz also pointed out in his op-ed that similar provisions allow private citizens to enforce environmental, water quality and discrimination laws when government prosecutors fail to do so. Instead of encouraging frivolous lawsuits, such provisions serve the public interest.
Hertz recently won a favorable court ruling against Prop. 60 opponents. In that case, Burts v. Padilla, a California Superior Court Judge ordered opponents to remove several “false and misleading” attacks on Prop. 60 from their ballot argument, including false claims the measure would permit adult film performers to be sued for violating the state’s 1992 condom use law and result in “tens of millions” of dollars in lost tax revenues.
“The opponents tried to have their false arguments published in the official voter guide that is sent to millions of Californians and paid for by taxpayers,” said Hertz. “It was critically important that the many voters who rely on those guides not be misled. Our lawsuit accomplished that.”
In his op-ed, Hertz deflated several other false attacks perpetuated by “fear-mongering” opponents of Prop. 60. To read the entire op-ed, click here. The Prop. 60 website is http://www.voteyesprop60.com/
Rick Taylor, Dakota Communications
Bradley W. Hertz, Esq., Partner
The Sutton Law Firm
Los Angeles, CA 91364
Paid for by Yes on Prop. 60, For Adult Industry Responsibility (FAIR) committee, with major funding by Aids Healthcare Foundation