3 ms·
Overall I think he's right, but it also reminds me of arguments in the 1960s and 70s against seat belts and air bags: that by adding a new safeguard, people wou
by tlb 17y ago
Overall I think he's right, but it also reminds me of arguments in the 1960s and 70s against seat belts and air bags: that by adding a new safeguard, people would come to depend on it and neglect other more effective precautions like driving carefully. There is indeed a "risk homeostasis" effect, but history suggests that extra precautions do reduce overall risk.
- pyre 17y agoThe most important take-aways from that article are that the actors will have to become employees which: (1) makes mandatory HIV testing illegal and (2) makes discriminating against HIV-infected actors illegal. How could either of these things be considered a good for the industry or the employees?
- pbhjpbhj 17y agoIs it really impossible to create a law that makes it illegal to show unprotected sex in a film? I can't see any way in which such a law would require any particular employment regime. Sounds like posturing/obstruction to me.
- pyre 17y agoBy whom? Apparently the law is worded so that they have to be employees. This seems like it's part of the "this is for the protection of the actors" train of thought because then they call under OSHA. This might just be a way of convincing people that this is all about the actors'/actresses' safety and not about trying to curb public perception of sex with/without condoms.