BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 332
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 9, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ARTS, ENTERTAINMENT, SPORTS, TOURISM, AND
INTERNET MEDIA
Ian C. Calderon, Chair
AB 332 (Hall) - As Amended: April 1, 2013
REVISED
SUBJECT : Adult Film Regulation
SUMMARY : This bill would establish workplace standards and
controls, as specified, for employers engaged in the production
of adult films, and mandate that the California Division of
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (CalOSHA) adopt
these standards as emergency regulations by July 1, 2014.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires that an employer shall maintain engineering and work
practice controls sufficient to protect employees from
exposure to blood and any potentially infectious materials.
Engineering and work practice controls shall include, but are
not limited to, the following:
a) Simulation of sex acts using acting, production and
post-production techniques.
b) Provision of and required use of condoms and other
protective barriers whenever acts of vaginal and anal
intercourse are filmed.
c) The provision of condom-safe water-based or
silicone-based lubricants to facilitate the use of condoms.
d) Plastic and other disposable materials to clean up sets;
and
e) Sharps containers for disposal of any blades, wires, or
AB 332
Page 2
broken glass
1)Provides that an employer shall maintain an exposure control
plan as specified.
2)Requires an employer to make the hepatitis B vaccination
available for any employee engaged in the production of adult
films, at the employer's expense.
3)Requires employer shall designate a custodian of records for
purposes of this section. A copy of the original production
shall be retained by the custodian of records.
4)Requires that an employer must pay the costs of required
medical monitoring such as STD testing and keep confidential
employee records.
5)In addition, the bill would require employers to adopt,
implement, maintain, and update, as required a written health
and safety program approved by the Department of Industrial
Relations (Department) and that meets the requirements of the
Injury and Illness Prevention Program and the blood-borne
pathogens standard, as specified.
6)Maintains that an employer shall provide Department-approved
information and training on health and safety, as specified,
and that the training must be made at the employer's expense.
7)This bill contains the following definitions:
a) "Adult film" means the production of any film, video,
multimedia, or other recorded representation of sexual
intercourse for the sexual stimulation of the viewer that
may involve exposure to blood-borne pathogens or other
potentially infectious materials.
AB 332
Page 3
b) "Employee" means a person who is an employee,
independent contractor, or unpaid individual, regardless of
whether the person is shown in the adult film, who performs
a penetrative sexual act or an act for the sexual
stimulation of the viewer that involves exposure to
blood-borne pathogens or other potentially infectious
materials.
c) "Employer" means a company, partnership, corporation, or
individual engaged in the production of an adult film.
d) "Sexually transmitted disease" or "STD" means any
infection commonly spread by sexual conduct, including, but
not limited to HIV/AIDS, gonorrhea, syphilis, chlamydia,
hepatitis, genital human papillomavirus infection, and
genital herpes.
1)Declares that the protection of workers in the adult film
industry (AFI) is the responsibility of multiple layers of
government and that this section shall not be construed to
prohibit a city, county, or city and county from implementing
a local ordinance regulating the AFI if the local ordinance is
consistent with this section.
10) Requires that the Occupational Safety and Health Standards
Board adopt emergency regulations to implement this section no
later than July 1, 2014.
11) States that nothing in this section should be construed to
require condoms, barriers, or other personal protective
equipment to be visible in the final production of an adult
film.
EXISTING FEDERAL LAW :
1)The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides
that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right
of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances.
AB 332
Page 4
2)Producers of books, magazines, periodicals, films, videotapes,
or other matter which contain visual depictions of actual, not
simulated, sexually explicit conduct are required to maintain
records of each performer portrayed in a visual depiction of
sexually explicit conduct and to affix a statement to the
product describing where the records are located. [Title 18
United States Code (USC) Section 2257.]
3)Each employer shall furnish to each of his employees
employment in a place of employment which are free from
recognized hazards that are causing or likely to cause death
or serious injury or serious physical harm to his employees
and shall comply with all occupational safety standards. [29
USC 654, Section 5(a).]
EXISTING STATE LAW :
1)Creates the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board
within the Department of Industrial Relations. (Labor Code
Section 140.)
2)Provides that the board, by an affirmative vote of at least
four members, may adopt, amend or repeal occupational safety
and health standards and orders. [Labor Code Section
142.3(a)(1).]
3)Declares that the board shall be the only agency in the state
authorized to adopt occupational safety and health standards.
[Labor Code Section 142.3(a)(1).]
4)States that the board shall adopt standards at least as
effective as the federal standards for all issues for which
federal standards have been promulgated under Section 6 of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-596)
within six months of the promulgation date of the federal
standards and which, when applicable to products which are
distributed or used in interstate commerce, are required by
compelling local conditions and do not unduly burden
interstate commerce. [Labor Code Section 142.3(2).]
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
AB 332
Page 5
1)Author and Supporter's Statement of Purpose: To Provide
Workplace Safety for Workers in the Adult Film Industry :
According to the author, "The AFI generates an estimated $14
billion a year in revenue. California based production of
adult films account for the vast majority of this business,
employing thousands of Californians and generating millions of
dollars in tax revenue.
"Workers in agriculture, food services, healthcare,
construction and many other industries benefit from stringent
work place safety requirements that keep workers' compensation
costs down and ensure a safe environment to earn a living.
The AFI, given the type of work required, disproportionately
exposes actors to a range of health and safety risks. The
industry is largely self-regulated and has done an inadequate
job of protecting its employees from disease infection.
"This measure, consistent with Los Angeles County's recent
voter approved Measure B, will provide statewide uniformity
needed to ensure that the thousands of actors employed in this
multi-billion dollar industry are given reasonable workplace
safety protections needed to reduce exposure to HIV and other
blood-borne diseases."
According to information provided by the sponsor, AIDS
Healthcare Foundation, "The AFI accounts for thousands of
workplace disease infections in California every year. During
the production of adult films, workers, including but not
limited to performers, are exposed to a number of sexually
transmitted diseases. ? At any given time, there are
approximately 2,000-3,000 Californians who are employed as
performers, but the roll call of performers is constantly
shifting.
"According to the Los Angeles County Department of Public
Health, workers in the AFI are ten times more likely to be
infected with a sexually transmitted disease than members of
the population at large. Also, a recent study found that 2/3
of the female study subjects and 1/3 of the male subjects had
an STD, vastly exceeding the STD rates in the general
population, and that 69% of them had worked in an adult film
in the previous 30 days.
AB 332
Page 6
"In addition, similar to the garment industry, the AFI
provides unusual obstacles to enforcement: there is not a
clear employer-employee relationship and the filmmakers that
actually employ the performers are often fly-by-night
businesses that are hard to track down and may no longer
exist.
"The AFI has steadfastly refused to take any steps to protect
its workers from diseases spread by blood-borne pathogens.
Therefore, this bill clarifies CalOSHA's authority relative to
the AFI."
2)Opposition :
a) AB 332 Standard is More Dangerous to Adult Film
Performers Than Existing Practice :
According to the Free Speech Coalition, AB 332 would
substitute a less safe protocol for the existing test-based
standard in place for adult film shoots, saying,
"Currently, the adult movie industry does not require any
performer to engage in filming with an HIV-positive
individual. The industry adopted the blood-borne pathogen
plan (BBP) in which EVERY performer is required undergo
advanced and regular testing for HIV or wear condoms.
Under industry testing protocols, all producers and/or
directors require performers to confirm a current negative
test panel prior to shooting. Each performer is also
entitled to receive confirmation that her partner has
current negative test results, thereby protecting EVERY
performer from the risk of transmission. The testing
protocols are based on recommendations of medical experts.
In large part due to the testing protocols, there has not
been a single reported incident of on-set transmission in
over eight years.
"Unfortunately, AB 332 will abandon this testing protocol,
leaving performers without the ability to identify the
status of their sexual partners. Instead, performers will
be forced to engage in sexual activity with individuals who
are HIV positive; a significant rollback of the industry's
health and safety plan. According to the FDA, the proper
use of condoms still carries a risk of transmission.
Therefore, AB 332 will actually put performers in greater
risk of infection than under the industry's own standards;
AB 332
Page 7
currently, a performer is notified of his or her positive
test BEFORE any sexual contact and the positive performer
is prohibited from participating in a movie shoot."
This sentiment is echoed, and a further concern is raised
by opponents, best stated in an editorial written in
response to an earlier proposal, similar that in AB 332,
which points out that if the safety standard in AB 332 is
adopted, HIV positive actors MUST be allowed to return to
the set, saying, "Condoms undeniably help lower the risks
of HIV infection. But that doesn't mean the government
should mandate condom use in adult movies - and it
certainly doesn't mean that such regulation is a good idea.
For one, the AFI would have to make every performer an
employee to satisfy the California's Division of
Occupational Safety and Health, better known as CalOSHA,
laws. This would be detrimental: California's
anti-discrimination laws prohibit requiring an HIV test as
a condition of employment; therefore the AFI's current
testing process, in which every performer is tested for HIV
monthly, would be illegal. Nor would adult film producers
be allowed to 'discriminate' by refusing employment to
HIV-positive performers. As a result, untested and
HIV-positive performers would be able to work in the
industry, raising the risks of HIV outbreaks - particularly
since condom breakage or slippage can occur." Not-So-Safe
Sex (Padilla) Jan.2009, Forbes.com.
b) AB 332 is Unnecessary and Will Drive an Important
Industry Away :
The Valley Industry and Commerce Association (VICA) writes
the committee in order to strongly oppose AB 332 (Hall),
based upon their belief, "It creates an unnecessary
additional workplace safety standard on adult film
production under the guise of HIV prevention." In support
of their position, they offer the following, "Between April
of 2006 and December of 2012 there have been 46,283 new
cases of HIV reported in the state of California. During
that same time period only two adult film performers
contracted HIV - off set - in their personal lives. No
transmission of HIV has occurred on an adult set since 2004
nationwide.
"Furthermore, LA County developed an epidemiological
AB 332
Page 8
profile in 2009 and a comprehensive HIV plan for 2012-14.
Neither of these documents identified the AFI as a risk or
a place where the county should focus any of its resources
for HIV prevention. ? AB 332 is a bureaucratic solution
without a problem. The best way to prevent the
transmission of HIV and other STDs is by providing quality
information and sexual health services. All of these
services are successfully provided through industry
protocols and best practices, which were created out of the
necessity to protect actor health."
They conclude by sharing their concern that the bill will
drive industry out of California, noting, "This six billion
dollar industry generates millions in state and local tax
revenue annually. Adult film production is responsible for
a sizable number of jobs in the San Fernando Valley and Los
Angeles County, including but not limited to actors,
producers, directors, editors, cinematographers, sound
technicians, costumers and craft services who would
otherwise be out-of-work due to the runaway of mainstream
film production. We ask that you oppose AB 332 and protect
film production of all types in California."
1)Background :
a) Incidents of Adult Film Performers' Exposure to HIV and
Other STD's Gives Rise to Concerns Over Industry
Practices :
According to information submitted by the bill's
supporters, "The US AFI produces 4,000 to 11,000 films and
earns an estimated $9 to $13 billion in gross revenues
annually. California is the largest center for adult film
production worldwide, although adult film production occurs
throughout the United States. An estimated 200 production
companies in Los Angeles employ up to 1,500 workers.
The supporters and opponents of this measure provided the
committee with voluminous and often contradictory
statistics about the incidence of STDs in the AFI, and the
threat that exists for performers in being exposed to these
pathogens. There is consensus however, that a number of
highly publicized events surrounding outbreaks of the HIV
virus within the community of adult performers raised the
public profile of this intra-industry issue, and have drawn
AB 332
Page 9
the attention of various regulatory bodies. A brief
recitation of these events includes a 1980's outbreak which
led to a number of deaths and led to the current system of
testing within the industry. Another outbreak in 2004 saw
three actors test positive for HIV, and resulted in a
voluntary month long shut down of the industry. In both
2009, and 2010, one person was discovered to be infected by
the industry testing process, however according to a Los
Angeles Times story, LA County Public Health officials
believe unreported incidents may be as high as 16 in 2009.
Outbreaks such as those detailed above have drawn concern
from many quarters, including the American Public Health
Association, who wrote the following in their position
paper entitled: Prevention and Control of Sexually
Transmitted Infections and HIV Among Performers in the
Adult Film Industry.
"The industry's method for responding to outbreaks of STDs
and HIV among performers in the heterosexual segment of the
industry is voluntary STD/HIV testing. Although testing
can contain the spread of disease, it does not prevent its
spread. Another limitation in the industry's use of
STD/HIV testing is the time period in which tests are
conducted. The current industry practice is to test
performers every 30 days; however, a performer could be
exposed to an STD infection immediately after testing, have
no symptoms, be highly infectious, and unknowingly transmit
the infection to others. The 30-day testing requirement is
not consistent with incubation periods for most STDs and
may therefore miss detection of disease.
"Despite repeated recommendations from local public health
officials, Cal/OSHA, and a Legislative hearing on how to
make the AFI safer, industry practices remain unchanged. ?
Flagrant violation of other Cal/OSHA worker protections
remains. Performers must still pay all STD screening tests
- a violation of Cal/OSHA standards, which requires the
employer to pay for medical monitoring. Further, to work,
performers must take an STD/HIV test and furnish test
results to their employer (production company) who posts
and shares these results with other production companies in
a database to which production companies and talent
agencies subscribe. Performers with a negative test result
can work, and those who are positive cannot work until they
AB 332
Page 10
receive a negative test. This practice violates a worker's
right to medical confidentiality and is not consistent with
the Cal/OSHA Blood-borne Pathogen Standard, which requires
employers to maintain a confidential medical record for
each employee." American Public Health Association Policy
Statement 20102, 11/9/2010.
b) Industry Response to Performer Exposure Events:
Self-Regulation Through Testing :
The AFI has implemented voluntary compliance with CalOSHA's
requirement for employers to have an exposure control plan
(ECP) to minimize the risk of employee exposure to
blood-borne pathogens. The following are excerpts from the
AFI Blood-borne Pathogens Exposure Control Plan, which was
provided to the committee by the Adult Protection Health
and Safety Services (APHSS).
Exposure Control Plan : This ECP is a key document to
assist our company in implementing and ensuring compliance
with the CalOSHA standard for blood-borne pathogens,
thereby protecting our employees and contractors. This ECP
contains the following:
Determination of employee and contractor exposure
Implementation of various methods of exposure
control including:
- Universal precautions
- Work practice controls
- Personal protective equipment
- Housekeeping
Post exposure evaluation and follow-up
Communication of hazards to employees and
contractors
Employee and contractor training/education
Recordkeeping
Procedures for evaluating circumstances
surrounding exposure incidents
Testing : APHSS Testing Protocols require each performer to
submit to regular testing for STDs, including HIV.
According to information supplied by APHSS, performers must
be tested at a minimum of every 28 days, and must take a
blood test for HIV (by "PCR RNA" Aptima) and Syphilis
(TREP-SURETM) cascading to RPR, and a urine test for
Gonorrhea (by "ultra-sensitive DNA amplification") and
AB 332
Page 11
Chlamydia (by "ultra-sensitive DNA amplification").
Following the results of these tests, the performers are
listed as "Available" or "Unavailable" to work on an APHSS
database.
Additional testing is recommended for performers new to the
industry, and includes the following for female performers
(re-examinations recommended every 6 months): Pelvic exam
that includes, evaluation for herpes, genital warts, Rectal
Pap smear (thin-prep with reflex HPV), PAP smear
("thin-prep with reflex HPV"), Vaginal culture for
bacterial vaginosis, trichomonas, Hepatitis A, B & C, and
Syphilis (an "RPR" and Trep-Sure test). For male
performers (re-examinations recommended every 6 months), a
genital exam including an evaluation for herpes and genital
warts and rectal pap smear if you are a "bottom" (thin-prep
with reflex HPV) is recommended.
1)Committee Comments :
a) The Model for AB 332 - Los Angeles County Ordinance
Measure B - Facing a Pending Federal Lawsuit :
On November 6, 2012, voters in the County of Los Angeles
approved Measure B, which makes findings and declarations
regarding the AFI, and requires performers and certain
others engaged in defined sexual activity in the making of
adult films to wear condoms during production. Measure B
also requires producers of adult films to pay an annual fee
to the county's Department of Public Health and obtain a
permit. Under Measure B, all principals and
management-level employees of adult entertainment-producing
companies must undergo blood-borne pathogen training. As
the author has stated, AB 332 is intended to expand upon
Measure B and take its worker protections statewide.
Measure B is currently facing a federal lawsuit, filed in
January of this year. Adult filmmakers Vivid Entertainment
and Califa Productions as well as adult entertainment
actors Kayden Kross and Logan Pierce filed suit against Los
Angeles County in the US Federal District Court, on the
grounds that Measure B is unconstitutional. The suit
argues that the law violates the First Amendment right to
free expression and further claims the measure is
unnecessary based upon existing industry regulations
AB 332
Page 12
protecting against HIV/AIDS and other diseases.
(Additionally, the lawsuit challenges the county's
authority to regulate the industry under the new law.)
Given that Measure B and AB 332 contain similar provisions
regarding work place safety standards for the AFI, and
specifically the use of condoms by performers and others in
adult film, it may be anticipated that the constitutional
issues raised in the suit against Measure B would be
similar to those raised against enforcement of AB 332.
Typically, it has been the policy of this committee to
withhold action on issues which are currently pending
before the courts.
b) CalOSHA is Already Drafting Workplace Safety
Regulations Specific to the AFI :
According to the sponsors of AB 332, they petitioned
CalOSHA to begin a rulemaking process to address the health
and safety needs of the AFI. This process is ongoing, and
CalOSHA has held hearings, solicited testimony, and is
engaged in the rule-making process to determine an
appropriate standard for a specific blood-borne pathogen
control plan for the AFI.
According to their website, the mission of the Occupational
Safety & Health Standards Board (Board) is "To promote,
adopt, and maintain reasonable and enforceable standards
that will ensure a safe and healthful workplace for
California workers. The Occupational Safety and Health
Standards Board conduct monthly open public meetings to
consider proposed revisions of the California Code of
Regulations." As public hearing regulations, their
supporting documents (an informative digest and initial
statement of reasons), and agenda of the meeting become
available and are posted on their webpage.
Once a regulation is adopted by the Board, it is submitted
to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) for approval and
submittal to the Secretary of State. OAL has 30 working
days to approve or deny the regulation. Generally, if
approved and submitted to the Secretary of State, the
regulation becomes effective 30 days from the date of
submittal.
AB 332
Page 13
AB 332 would provide that the Board shall adopt emergency
regulations and implement its provisions by July 1, 2014.
Adoption of AB 332 thus would circumvent the current
CalOSHA public input and hearing procedure, and would
substitute its provisions regarding the standard for
prevention of the spread of infection and disease for that
of the regulatory authority charged with making such
determinations.
c) Constitutional Questions Raised by Proposed
Legislation :
Most adult entertainment is entitled to some degree of
First Amendment protection. For example, in City of Erie,
et al. v. Pap's A.M. (2000) 529 U.S. 277, 289, the
Supreme Court noted that nude dancing is expressive
conduct, although the Court found that it fell "within the
outer ambit of the First Amendment's protection".
(It should be noted, however, that there are two types of
pornography that receive no First Amendment protection -
obscenity and child pornography. Under the Supreme
Court's 1973 decision in Miller v. California (1973) 413
U.S. 15, jurors must consider several factors in
determining whether matter is obscene. These include
whether the average person, applying contemporary
community standards, would find that the work, taken
together, applies to prurient interests; the work depicts
or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct
specifically defined by state law; and, the work, taken
together, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or
scientific value.)
Any law targeting the negative secondary effects of adult
entertainment (such as the spread of infectious disease)
will likely be subject to the intermediate level of review
set forth in United States v. O'Brien (1968) 391 U.S. 367.
In O'Brien , the Supreme Court applied a four-factor test
in evaluating a restriction on symbolic speech. The first
factor of the O'Brien test is whether the government
regulation is within the constitutional power of the
government to enact. The second factor is whether the
regulation furthers an important or substantial government
interest. Under the third factor, the government interest
AB 332
Page 14
must be unrelated to the suppression of free expression.
The fourth and final O'Brien factor is whether the
restriction is no greater than necessary to the
furtherance of the government interest.
The making of non-obscene pornographic films has been
found to enjoy constitutional protection as an exercise of
free speech. In the seminal case of the People v. Freeman
(1988) 46 Cal.3d 419, the California Supreme Court stated,
"Regardless of our view of the social utility of this
particular motion picture, our analysis must begin with
the premise that a non-obscene motion picture is protected
by the guaranty of free expression found in the First
Amendment."
In Freeman , the court was confronted with the question of
whether the "making of a film" could be regulated as
conduct apart from the first amendment protections
afforded to the "content" of the film. Freeman was an
adult film producer charged with pandering in the
production of his films. The court held it could not,
saying, "the People argue that there is a distinction
between 'speech' (e.g., a film), which is constitutionally
protected under the First Amendment so long as it is not
obscene, and 'conduct' (the making of the film), which may
be prohibited without reference to the First Amendment.
Such a distinction is untenable in this case."
The court then further analyzed the question under the
O'Brian test, wherein United States Supreme Court set
forth standards to determine the constitutional propriety
of governmental regulation of "conduct" which also
contains elements of "speech." As is relevant here, the
state's interest in prosecuting Freeman was asserted to be
prevention of the spread of communicable disease,
including HIV. However, the Court held that stated
rationale would not overcome Mr. Freeman's rights to free
expression under the First Amendment, stating, "Even if
the regulation attempted here were within the
constitutional power of the Legislature and the
governmental interest could be found to be important, the
application of Section 266i in the manner advocated would
clearly run afoul of the requirement that the governmental
interest be unrelated to the suppression of free
expression."
AB 332
Page 15
Here, the author has attempted to avoid constitutional
pitfall by providing that "nothing in this section should
be construed to require condoms, barriers, or other
personal protective equipment to be visible in the final
production of an adult film," suggesting that this language
shields the bill from challenge based on the main thrust of
the measure, which is the requirement that adult film
actors must use "condoms and other protective barriers
whenever acts of vaginal and anal intercourse are filmed."
In Vivid Entertainment vs. County of Los Angeles , an
additional constitutional claim against Measure B is made
which could be raised similarly against AB 332, based upon
prior restraint upon protected free speech under 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983. In their complaint Vivid asserts, "Measure B
pre-emptively prohibits the production of and adult film?if
the performers do not use condoms for all acts of anal or
vaginal sex, even if in their sound discretion and artistic
judgment they would opt to forgo doing so, Measure B thus
violates the First Amendment by standing as an
unconstitutional prior restraint upon protected expression
and the creation and distribution of protected speech."
There are two ways in which the government may attempt to
restrict speech. The more common way is to make a
particular category of speech, such as obscenity, subject
to criminal prosecution or civil suit, the second way is by
prior restraint, which may occur in two ways. First, a
statute may require that a person submit the speech that he
wishes to disseminate - a movie, for example - to a
governmental body for a license to disseminate it - e.g.,
to show the movie, or a court may issue a temporary
restraining order or an injunction against engaging in
particular speech.
With respect to both these types of prior restraint, the
Supreme Court has written that "any system of prior
restraint of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy
presumption against its constitutional validity." (Supra)
Prior restraints, it has held, are the most serious and the
least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights,
finding "a prior restraint ? by definition has an immediate
and irreversible sanction. If it can be said that a threat
AB 332
Page 16
of criminal or civil sanctions after publication 'chills'
speech, prior restraint 'freezes' it at least for the
time." Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart , 427 U.S. 539,
559 (1976)
1) Prior Related Legislation :
a) AB 847 (Salas), of the 2009-10 Legislative Session,
would have imposed a 20% tax on retailers that operate
adult entertainment venues which would be transferred to
the Adult Entertainment Venue Impact Fund, which would
have been created by this bill. AB 847 was returned to
the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 62(a).
b) AB 2914 (Charles Calderon), of the 2007-08
Legislative Session, would have imposed an 8.3 % tax on
the sale of, or the storage, use, or other consumption
of, tangible personal property that is adult material
which would be transferred to the Adult Entertainment
Impact Fund, which would have been created by this bill.
AB 2914 was held on the Assembly Appropriations Suspense
File.
c) AB 1551 (Charles Calderon), of the 2007-08
Legislative Session, would have imposed an 8% tax on the
gross receipts of an adult entertainment venue which
would be transferred to the Adult Entertainment Venue
Impact Fund, which would have been created by this bill.
AB 1551 was returned to the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint
Rule 56.
d) AB 2798 (Leslie), of the 2003-04 Legislative
Session, would have required that performers be tested
for the presence of sexually transmitted diseases before
production begins on a film containing sexual content.
AB 2798 was held in the Assembly Rules Committee and
returned to the Chief Clerk without further action.
e) AB 1013 (Charles Calderon) of the 1997-98
Legislative Session, would have imposed a 5% tax on adult
entertainment products and services and a comparable
excise tax on the storage, use or other consumption of
adult entertainment products and services into the
Victims of Violent Crime Support Fund, which the bill
would have created. SB 1013 was returned to the
AB 332
Page 17
Secretary of the Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
AIDS Healthcare Foundation (Sponsor)
American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
Beyond AIDS
California Communities United Institute
California Medical Association
Numerous private citizens
Opposition
Free Speech Coalition
Valley Industry and Commerce Association
Analysis Prepared by : Dana Mitchell / A.,E.,S.,T. & I.M. /
(916) 319-3450