LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa (formerly Tony Vilar, as Adam Corolla is so fond of pointing out) this week signed into law an ordinance requiring porn performers to wear condoms on adult films shot within the city of Los Angeles. Obviously, this rule will be easily enforced, impossible to get around, and obeyed by all porn performers. (*shoots Peter North load of sarcasm*)

There are a couple of potential loopholes in the ordinance, however. The city ordinance does not apply to filming that occurs on certified sound stages that don’t require film permits. And porn studios, which often use homes in the Valley and backyards to film, could opt to move their shoots into L.A. County’s other 87 cities or in unincorporated areas of the county.

Shocking. The LA Times calls the bill a “landmark” and the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, who sponsored it, are hailing it as a huge victory. Even though, well, it doesn’t really do anything, and the problem it’s solving seems to be entirely imaginary.

The mayor’s approval was a huge victory for the L.A.-based AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which has waged a lonely battle for years arguing to protect the health of porn performers. Porn production across the industry has been halted several times over the last decade following concerns that adult film performers have been infected with HIV. Two porn performers who were infected with HIV have since become vocal proponents of a mandatory condom policy. [LATimes]

The AIDS Healthcare Foundation forced the issue after gathering enough signatures to get the ordinance put on the June ballot. They were able to gather those signatures because of the PR push they got from an HIV case that shut down the porn industry back in August, a case mentioned in both the LA Times’ and Time‘s coverage of the new law. What neither mention is that the case in question actually turned out to be a false positive.

In fact, current rules require porn actors to have an HIV test every 30 days, and every HIV-in-porn case cited going back to 2004 has occurred outside of current testing standards (I broke those down here). With all the porn that gets made, two cases in seven years (three if you count the false positive) that both would’ve been prevented by the current regulations, doesn’t exactly speak to the need for a new law.

This is just the kind of meaningless, feel-good legislation that gets passed when politicians don’t want to argue about something “icky.” “Who could argue against condoms in porn!?” It’s a lot like when California lowered the legal drinking limit from .10 to .08. Everyone was against drunk driving, and it made it feel like they were doing something, even though they never actually made a case against those .08 and .09 drivers that it would actually affect. The actual result? More drunk drivers.

Is it your God-given right to make porn without a condom? I don’t know if I’d go that far, but I’d say you at least have to present a case against it before you should be able to ban it. (*hums Star-Spangled Banner while jerking off to Faye Reagan and firing hand gun in the air*)