Slashdot Mirror
California Enacts Law Requiring IMDb To Remove Actor Ages On Request (hollywoodreporter.com)
California Gov. Jerry Brown on Saturday signed legislation that requires certain entertainment sites, such as IMDb, to remove -- or not post in the first place -- an actor's age or birthday upon request, reports Hollywood Reporter. From the report: The law, which becomes effective Jan. 1, 2017, applies to entertainment database sites that allow paid subscribers to post resumes, headshots or other information for prospective employers. Only a paying subscriber can make a removal or nonpublication request. Although the legislation may be most critical for actors, it applies to all entertainment job categories. "Even though it is against both federal and state law, age discrimination persists in the entertainment industry," Majority Leader Ian Calderon, D-Whittier, said in a statement. "AB 1687 provides the necessary tools to remove age information from online profiles on employment referral websites to help prevent this type of discrimination."Bloomberg columnist, Shira Ovide said, "Congratulations, IMDB. You have now become the subject of California law." Slate writer Will Oremus added, "Sometimes I start to think California is not such a bad place and then they go and do something like this."
Isn't that directory information? I suppose removing it from imdb.com makes it harder to learn an actor's age, but it's still out there people. You're in the public eye. Knowing exactly how old Natalie Portman is because imdb prominently displays it doesn't change anything.
So, we'll have it that Wikipedia can post age data about an actor or some other public figure, but IMDB can't?
Instead of displaying age:
Age: This actor is so ancient they do not wish it displayed.
It seems unlikely to me that Hollywood has an age discrimination issue. It seems much more likely that Hollywood has a looks discrimination policy, and merely hiding the numeric age of an actor or actress isn't going to resolve this.
If an actor doesn't look the age for a part, they're not going to get the role. Trying to hide their "real" age won't help with that. Nothing short of completely changing Hollywood culture - and, really, American culture - to not be so youth-focused will change that. And that's not an easy task, and certainly not something this law will help with.
This is clearly a "this is something, so we're doing something about the problem!" law. It won't help in any way, but at least it's a bullet point on some lawmaker's resume!
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
No I have not read TFL. Why do you ask?
"Registrant Organization: IMDb.com, Inc.
Registrant Street: Legal Dept, PO Box 81226,
Registrant City: Seattle
Registrant State/Province: WA"
Dear California: How about "go fuck yourself". That a good answer?
Oh, you don't want IMDB operating in your state? Perhaps you could build some sort of Great Firewall. That's worked out so well for China (and North Korea).
That makes perfect sense, in California politico-legal logic. This is, after all, the same state that gave us the glorious legal logic "racial discrimination is mandatory by law because racial discrimination is illegal".
"Sometimes I start to think California is not such a bad place..."
Well there's your mistake right there.
Better known as 318230.
Whats your age? Your Birthday? Martital Status? Names of any children you might have ....
You sort of live in the public's eye, but not really. I know you are a work in tech, but try to pretend to have some empathy for a moment.
* Purely a rhetorical device, no one wants to stalk you.
Separate IMDB into the promotional site and the informational site; spin the informational site off as a 501(c(3)) non-profit. Make the for profit promotional site a permanent trustee and committed donor to the informational site, while IMDB-Pro operates as a for profit site. Even if denied federal non-profit status, they'd still be separate and exempt from the California law, IMNALO (In My Not A Lawyer Opinion)... They might consult some lawyers to see if that's viable. Alternately do what other corporations do when presented a hostile environment by a state. Move and that the jobs out of state.
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
This is just dumb - publicly available, non-PII information banned because you run a particular type of website.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Yeah I don't see hiding the ages preventing the studios from casting actresses as love interest for men their father's ages. And in an industry where they try to cast an actor of the right race, weight, height, etc (and occasionally get criticized for the same)... I'm not sure how standard anti-prejudice laws can work well.
"Click here for a list of actors who are so insecure that we cannot show you their age. Next to it you find a link to their Wikipedia entry."
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If Hollywood actually gave a shit about age as much as this article claims they do, then plastic surgery wouldn't still be running rampant today.
Hollywood cares about how you look, not how old a piece of paper says you are. They've cast plenty of twenty-somethings as teenagers, and the sheer power of makeup has allowed actors and actresses of all ages to portray dozens of roles that are either much younger or much older than their actual age. I find this particular information filter totally pointless.
I can't figure out that if they had their first appearance in 1965 they're probably at least 60? It ain't about age but having the look the directors want...
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Like wikipedia?
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
It seems unlikely to me that Hollywood has an age discrimination issue.
Oh they certainly do have an age discrimination issue, particularly for female actresses. They also have race discrimination issues, gender discrimination issues, and lots more besides. This isn't even a debate. The evidence is undeniable.
If an actor doesn't look the age for a part, they're not going to get the role.
That might have some credibility if they didn't also hire actresses who do not look the role at all. See Emma Stone in Aloha. See whitewashing. Same thing happens with them hiring actresses who are FAR too young for the role they are playing.
Hollywood aren't the consumers of the actors' work. They are the middlemen. We — the world-wide audience of viewers — discriminate. We want to be entertained by sexually-appealing people, which generally means younger ones. There is no escaping this — trying to legislate it away is just the kind of stupidity, for which California has been known (and mocked) for decades.
(Heinlein's Friday (1982) is a good example of such mocking...)
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
It's not even a issue if the discrimination is done for a bona fide occupational qualification.
It's also not just actors although they are visibly the most obvious example of looking an age. Directors, producers, other production staff, etc would also be covered. Not usually appearing on camera, it's harder to argue that they need to look an age in order to properly perform their job, yet they are the subject of ageism as well.
...California sure spends a lot of effort protecting/catering to multi-millionaires.
-Styopa
This feels like a total 1st amendment violation in every possible way.
I know in the US we have exceptions for first amendment, but this is hardly child porn. I can see how it can be an issue for age discrimination, but it's more a burden on the employer to no utilize this information. Besides, doesn't birthday come back on most standard background checks anyway?
You need to discriminate on appearance when it comes to acting roles, having someone with wrinkles and remnants of grey hair playing a teenage character would just look stupid.
There are plenty of roles for older actors because plenty of movies and tv shows feature older characters. You don't hear young actors complaining they weren't chosen to play a grandfather character.
Movie producers are just choosing actors who are appropriate to the role as envisaged in the story.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
But, is there some angle where we could blame Republicans for it?
Do you have ESP?
Why not just allow their birthdays to be posted, but forbid addition and subtraction?
You think the Supreme Court cares about Constitution? What rock are you living under?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Bad law bring it to the Supreme Court and get it overturned. IMDB probably has mega money from all that advertising they run on their site. They have plenty of money for a lawsuit
There's something wrong when you need "plenty of money" in order to assure your rights aren't violated. We need to modify the system where, if you challenge a bad law and prevail, you get your legal costs reimbursed.
This law says, you may not publish true information because some one else might do something discriminatory with it.
But, we already have laws forbidding the discriminatory thing that might happen. So, this law abridging freedom of speech and of the press is necessary why, exactly?
Answer: It isn't necessary at all. This is exactly the "won't someone think of the children" thinking that suckers us into whittling our rights away into nothing, one sliver at a time.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
If IMDB is going to post ages of people for whom age is a crucial factor in their career, they better be absolutely damn sure they are getting it right.
The fix for that is to allow the actor to demand a correction if the information is wrong, not ban the display of age entirely.
Well, as long as his priorities are in order.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
What's driving laws like this?
Although it's easy to dismiss this law making incident as an act of utter stupidity, I don't think it is reasonable to assume that lawmakers are really that moronic. Are they pondering to actor guilds as electorate? Do actors throw a lot of money at elected officials? Are there really that many actors so their votes worth the indignity? What's going on?
A side note: there are quite a few supporting comments on sites like Deadline, so it seems that many actors are under impression that this law would work... (Is weed really that good in California?)
you can't subscribe to imdb2.com. you can't have a membership of any kind. There's no one to pay. So that means it can legally post ages and birthdates. done.
In any case, discrimination in Hollywood is not a "problem"... it's by design. We, as a society, have for whatever reasons decided that Hollywood can feel free to consider race, gender, age, etc in a way that most businesses are not allowed. California is being a little bit schizophrenic here in that they still allow Hollywood to discriminate based on age but they want to mitigate the effects of this by forbidding the sharing of age information.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Californian once more proves it needs to slide off into the ocean and be gone....
I was under the impression that Birth, Death, and marriage information was publically available in California.
http://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic...
It would seem that this law is in violation of the existing laws, but IANAL, nor am I a rich 'celebrity'. Hollywood folks seem generally above most laws, or at least shielded from them.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
You will croak, you little clown
When you mess with President Brown!
To a lesser extent, men.
This is a wise method of using data.
Now, where this will next become an issue is when 62 yo women actresses with long IMDB film and TV credits, start asking their early roles be removed, as that can also tell you how old they are.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
At the very least, this pretty much IS a govt entity censoring a private entity on what they can publish as free speech.
I would have to imagine this law would be thrown out on first appeal...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Remove as well sex of the actor, race, oh, and also any movies the actor is ashamed of.
But I repeat myself
Hollywood is the place where they cast one of the 10 most beautiful people in the world for a role of a homely older person and then spend three hours in makeup every day getting her to look just right. And, they do this while there is a line of talented, average looking, age appropriate women around the block looking for work.
Personally, I don't think they do it because of age discrimination. I think they do it because there's only a handful of actresses that will guarantee ticket sales just by casting them. But, it certainly looks like age discrimination when you look at a case in isolation.
It should be a "loser pays all" system. That would stop a lot of frivolous suits. It could also end a lot of patent trolling.
It would stop a lot more non-frivolous ones from people who have a legitimate claim but not the resources to beat a team of $500/hr lawyers.
There's something wrong when you need "plenty of money" in order to assure your rights aren't violated. We need to modify the system where, if you challenge a bad law and prevail, you get your legal costs reimbursed.
In many states it does work that way. Recently in Wisconsin, our Republican Gov and Legislature had to reimburse Planned Parenthood over a million dollars for legal expenses when the latest anti-abortion law was thrown out.
The problem is you still have to have someone who can front the legal expenses as you go through the multi-year legal process.
The movie industry isn't anywhere near as bad as the porn industry. They don't seem to hire anyone over or under the age of 18. I mean let's face it most actors in the porn industry remain 18 long after the cellulite starts showing from under their schoolgirl outfit.
Or so a friend told me. Can someone verify this for me? I don't know because I don't watch such stuff. *whistles and looks at the ceiling*.
This is as dumb as the 'right to be forgotten'. Tell that to a sex offender. Oh, wait, the EU wants to use 'right to be forgotten' to sanitize a powerful person's past history of sordid acts. As if this makes sense. Rendering the truth illegal is a very interesting step, no?
But this is California, the land of the irrational. Most any serious casting director can use IMDB etc to work through an actor's history and make reasonable assumptions. Look through Helen Mirren's filmography, and you can reasonably conclude she is older than 60. Duh. And she's still fabulous.
the complaint her isn't the obviously old actors, it's the difficult older-than-they-seem bunch. In an industry based on illusion, it is both remarkable and understandable that they rely on perception, and if an actor is perceived as older than the role, or perceived age is critical to a role, well, they 'need' to address that.
In every way, though, this is a stupid idea. No one who intends to benefit from this will. No one.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Society has an age discrimination issue. Most of us, even women, would rather look at a fresh-faced young girl than at a woman with lines on her face.
Whatever issues society has, it doesn't follow that a movie producer has to indulge them because of some unsupported delusion that people won't pay to see a quality actress in an age appropriate role. Or a black actor. Or an asian one. Frankly I think there is a lot of credibility to the argument that a movie with some integrity would be more likely to attract fans than a movie that plunks whatever starlet-of-the-month into the role regardless of what it does to the movie.
Is it even possible to fix the problem of age bias in Hollywood, and if so, would that actually help address the problem of age discrimination in society?
Given that they are the image makers it would be a darn good place to start. Is it possible to fix? Maybe. Won't be easy though. The key would be proving that age discrimination is actually harmful to the economic outcome for a film. Challenging case to make since they don't let a lot of people who aren't white and young (if women) into movies to test the theory.
The Supreme Court hasn't seem to have made any rulings lately that I'd say are too far off-base, and their title *SUPREME* court basically means that they're the ones tasked with interpreting what the constitution means. You might as well accuse Hermin Melville of not knowing the ending of Moby Dick.
Of course I'm guessing your post is just another one of those "government is bad, mmmkay" type posts where everyone is always doing everything wrong despite never including any actual examples. It's always easier to bring generic discontent than specific talking points.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Exactly. Loser pays all system basically means you DO NOT sue a big company regardless of how solid you think your claim is. I don't care if Microsoft wrote a program that caused my computer to intentionally come to life and shoot my dog, I wouldn't sue them for fear of maybe just POSSIBLY losing, which would mean I'm on the hook for their legal fees and I'm basically screwed for life.
Now, loser pays some capped portion of the opponent's legal fees and I could get behind that.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
To everyone slamming California and "Hollywood" for this, how would you feel if your profile on LinkedIn or any other employment site posted your age without you having any choice about it? And what if those profiles were created without any participation on your part? I see people on Slashdot complaining about ageism in the IT industry all the time, and they don't even have to deal with something like this. IMDB is basically an employment profile site for people in the entertainment industry, and it's the dominant site in this regard, much more so than LinkedIn for other professions.
I'm not sure this would be a big problem for famous actors, but knowing someone's date of birth is an important piece is building a portfolio for identity theft. I think it's quite reasonable for people not to want their birth date published.
Loser pays his own costs, and his opponent's costs up to a cap equal to his own costs?
Dear California lawmakers,
We hate you.
Sincerely,
The rest of the nation
Of course I'm guessing your post is just another one of those "government is bad, mmmkay" type posts where everyone is always doing everything wrong despite never including any actual examples. It's always easier to bring generic discontent than specific talking points.
It's a combination of that as well as "these guys made a ruling that disagrees with my political leaning and my interpretation of the Constitution, so they're definitely corrupt and lacking in morals."
CH2O is an essential compound using by the human body to produce other, more complex compounds. Your body maintains a fairly steady 2 ppm CH2O by releasing any excess as you exhale. California bans plywood containing any more than 0.05 PPM - because CH20 is "known to the State of California to cause cancer". Your body needs 50 times that level. Apparently California didn't notice that even eating the plywood would REDUCE the overall concentration of CH2O (formaldehyde) in the body.
People that believe they have a legitimate claim, but do not believe that the court system is capable of rendering a just verdict in their favour simply because they don't have as much money as their opponent might have to spend on lawyers don't use the court system to resolve their disputes in the first place. I'm not saying that believing your opponent has more money than you won't stop some entirely legitimate claims, but that happens already if everyone pays their own costs anyways, and I cannot say for sure, but this demographic may not even be significantly impacted by implementing a loser-pays policy. However, the notion that a loser-pays policy would stop many more non-frivolous lawsuits that would otherwise happen simply because of how much money their opponent is likely to spend on lawyers than frivolous lawsuits is almost certainly a specious one.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Instead of displaying age:
Age: This actor is so ancient they do not wish it displayed.
Actually, it sounds like this is how they have it set up. You need pro membership in order to suppress your age. So it's a way for IMDB to make money from people who face age discrimination and want to make their age a little less obvious to fans and potential employers.
Real lawyers write in C++
Since this thread is likely to attract the attention of our readers from California, I'll add note here that's a bit of a tangent.
Many of you have moved to Texas or are considering doing so, because in Texas many more jobs are available, and you can get a house five times larger than what you can afford in the desirable parts of California*, etc.
* Based on:
Texas unemployment 4.2% vs California 6.3%
Average home price/sq foot of $661 in San Francisco area vs $121 in DFW
61K average income in California vs $53K in DFW
If you've moved here or are thinking about moving here, welcome to Texas!
What does this have to with dumb laws and ridiculous regulation in California? If you think Texas might be a better place for you to live, consider that there are *reasons* for that. The things we do in Texas *cause* Texas to have much lower cost of living, with lower unemployment and comparable wages. You left California and came here because the California way of doing things didn't work out. You're coming to Texas because the way we do things works better. Therefore, when you arrive please don't lecture us about "you should do it this way, the way did it in California." If you like the California way so much, including the results of the California way, please enjoy those results - by staying in California. Here in Texas we don't want to ban the use of dihydrogen monoxide in construction. If you want to live without dihydrogen monoxide, you can do that in California - there's not much H2O there. If you decide Texas would be better place to live, welcome. Now put down the bong, take off that dress, Fred, and hop in the truck. We have some work to do.
Watch me evade that stupid law by applying the difference between first and last movie appearances in the IMDB listing and adding a reasonable offset which is a guess at the age they started acting... once again, CA legislators prove that no law is too stupid to evade!
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
cap equal to his own costs or $1000, whichever is more (so doing things to minimize your own costs, like representing yourself, doesn't trivialize losing)
Recently in Wisconsin, our Republican Gov and Legislature had to reimburse Planned Parenthood over a million dollars for legal expenses when the latest anti-abortion law was thrown out.
Luxury! Here in Arizona we have a sheriff who openly violates court rulings, gets hit with contempt of court, and our lawmakers still approve $50 million or so of taxpayer money to fight his legal battles.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Assuming that they believe that the intrinsic merits of their own case are stronger than those of their opponent... the only reason that would be true is if one did not believe that the court system was capable of seeing this fact simply because of the amount of money that their opponent might be spend on lawyers. This can happen, of course, but if one does not have any confidence in the court to render a fair and just verdict, then why would one try and use the court system at all unless they were actually hoping to use the court system to render what they believe may be an unjust one?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Do you actually believe a jury of 12 of your "peers" are not swayed by the most eloquent orator rather than the "facts" as you "claim" them to be? Money talks in courts. Which sucks, and punishes honest poor people, but we haven't seen a better system. I'd use the court system in its current format simply because I have some faith in humanity still, but not enough to wager a million dollars if I lose. I put "peers" in quotes because showing knowledge and intelligence are often disqualifying criteria for jury selection, not always, but often.
This can happen, of course, but if one does not have any confidence in the court to render a fair and just verdict, then why would one try and use the court system at all unless they were actually hoping to use the court system to render what they believe may be an unjust one?
It is not a simple either/or question. The court system, being imperfect, is always a gamble to some degree. Therefore you must look at the situation with the dispassionate eyes of a professional gambler. I may risk $50k for a chance to gain justice and a big check for compensation. How I assess the odds is very different if my loss would not be just the $50k for my lawyer, but $50k for my lawyer plus $200k for BigCo's "reasonable expenses" plus $50k for court costs instead.
A loser pays system will inevitably cause some legitimate claims to be dropped. (In fact, it is probably already happening.)
The system that exists will inevitably cause some dodgy claims to be put forward.
There is no simple answer that guarantees the system will be fair to everyone.
It certainly will not discourage the professional trolls. They will hide their assets by creating small corporations who have "bought" specific claims. When they win, the profits will quickly flow upwards to the business owners. When they lose, there will be near nothing liquid to seize.
Yeah, poor Meryl Streep sure does have terrible problems getting roles, huh?
as having your age posted could lead to age discrimination. I just don't see how the law can really be enforced effectively so what is the point.
I'm really glad you enjoy where you live. Seriously.
> I could just stay in Canada and enjoy my universal healthcare vs paying hundreds a month in Texas
The average Canadian taxpayer pays about $20,000 / year for health care costs. Personally, I'd rather pay "hundreds a month in Texas" via my employer than thousands via the govt in Canada, but if you like what you have, great!
I would only think you were silly if you traveled to the US for the treatment you needed rather than sitting on the waiting list for six months in Canada, and while here complained that we should be doing it the Canadian way. That would be silly because if you actually liked the Canadian way, you'd stay in Canada for treatment. You'd come to to the US (and pay cash) only if there was a clear benefit from the way we do it here. We get a LOT of Californians doing that - fleeing the results on California policies and coming here, where they are quote vocal about trying to enact the exact same policies that sent their job outsourced from California.
Sadly a quick scan across the IMDB discussions on films starring actors whose age deviates from their characters shows that audience reactions can be based very much on age, irrespective of whether the player was right for the role.
Audience reaction is correlated to film success, and Hollywood is very sensitive to film success.
Ah, except the recent referral for criminal contempt will see that sheriff forced to pay out of his own pocket. You don't deliberately disobey federal court orders and get off with the taxpayers paying the fines. The criminal contempt order will bar the government from paying his portion and it's going to cost him a significant amount of money to make sure his criminal contempt of judicial orders is punished appropriately.
In fact because it's criminal contempt there is a damn good chance he's going to end up in his own jail and I hope he's in the tents in a 130degree summer.
Hmm. OK, I'll give that a go. Last film I watched was 'Welcome to Me', and I didn't recognise any of the male actors except Tim Robbins, so lets pick the first male actor to appear below Tim on the cast list.. Alan Tudyk.
Hmm, well established actor. IMDB includes his date of birth. He has been in a few films I've seen, he's just not memorable to me.
Google time. "How old is Alan Tudyk?" Yep, you're right. Gives his age, then his date of birth, then a photo, and on the right it also tells me how tall he is.
Well done California, you won that one.
It's not that it *causes* them to be put forward, its that it permits them... without regard for anything that one might expect or hope for with regards to a fair verdict.
Loser pays only allows for the possibility for legitimate claims to be dropped when one has very little confidence in the court system to deliver a fair verdict, and in such circumstances one ought to have equally little incentive to be using the court system in the first place to resolve a dispute. I'm not saying that people can't be unconfident in the court system to be fair... only that such people are only at best using the court system like a casino, and gambling on justice. That's not what the court system is for, and such usage *should* be discouraged, because such usage is, itself, a kind of frivolous lawsuit based on personal beliefs of what is right, rather that on what is objectively lawful.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
If I claimed that I always followed every law then I would be a liar.
If you don't like Joe, we'll take him.
Good, please do. Write to him and let him know where he should move his campaign to. And take his legal fees also.
All he does is enforce the laws that the Federal government won't.
Turns out that's not actually *all* he does. He also uses his power to intimidate his political opponents, hires private investigators (on the public's dime, of course) to dig up dirt on his political opponents, hires family members for big prison contracts, and yeah, openly violates court rulings that specifically block him from certain actions, like target Mexicans because they're Mexican. He's a wanna-be celebrity sheriff more concerned with a photo opportunity than doing his job. Go ahead and figure out how large the backlog for processing rape cases is right now. Instead of processing rape cases he would rather investigate Obama's birth certificate. If you want him, take him.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
You don't deliberately disobey federal court orders and get off with the taxpayers paying the fines.
Well, *I* don't, but I'm not a corrupt sheriff.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
If one were to believe that their peers can be so swayed then they have no confidence in the court to deliver a just verdict in the first place. After that, there is no rational basis remaining for them to even *want* to use the court system to resolve a dispute unless that person were actually wanting to manipulate the court into delivering an unjust verdict, or unless one figured that the court system was intended to be used as some sort of casino for justice.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
She just can't take it when people hold an opposing opinion. What a fucking intolerant cunt.
The proper term for that is a bigot, by definition. And Barbara is undeniably a bigot.
She just can't take it when people hold an opposing opinion. What a fucking intolerant cunt.
The proper term for that is a bigot, by definition. And Barbara is undeniably a bigot.
Yeah... Did she get into an argument with you where she resorts to saying that you're the type of man women never want to sleep with?
I got that repeatedly. I eventually had to point out that a) I've been married multiple times (so I've slept with more than one female), and b) She can continue ranting about how women must hate me but I had to go because my wife was waiting to give me my bi-weekly BJ :-)
For some reason, that just pissed her off more :-)
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
I heard one of the original 90210 actresses supporting this by talking about how she had to lie about her age because she was 27 and trying to get a job playing a teenager. That's not someone being a victim of age discrimination, that's sensible casting. Which the show didn't have by the way - it was famous for having the kids played by actors way too old for the roles.
She gets roles because she sells tickets. She got that rep when she was young and good looking. She isn't an example of acceptance of older actresses, she's an example of the acceptance of proven ticket sales. The fact that she happens to be a good actress is irrelevant.
"Even though it is against both federal and state law, age discrimination persists in the entertainment industry."
... age discrimination persists everywhere. If you don't believe it, check the computer-related fields.
Ummm
Even if my case appears to be stronger, there's lots of reasons I might lose. Clearly, having worse lawyers is a disadvantage, but I may also be interpreting the law differently from how the judge does, I may not know the facts on the other side, and there's plenty of room between "stronger intrinsic merit" and "open-and-shut case". My lawyer and I may simply have misjudged the case. Also, courts do screw up and deliver the wrong verdict from time to time.
With each side paying its own legal fees, the downside of a loss is that I'm out what I've spent. I can make sure that's bearable. With "loser pays", the downside of a loss is that I can be on the hook for millions of dollars.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The matter isn't binary. Suppose I believe that I have a strong case, and that the court system delivers a just verdict most of the time. Therefore, I think I'm going to win, but I might be wrong for a large number of reasons. I need to know that losing is bearable before filing suit.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
So long as Wikipedia exists, removing ages from IMDB will accomplish little. Removing ages and dates of birth from Wikipedia isn't going to happen because it would attack the fundamental nature of a reference work. Upcoming actors who are not yet sufficiently notable to merit a Wikipedia page may benefit.
That's an entirely fine position to take, but people who believe that the court system isn't fair aren't likely to want to use it in the first place to obtain what they genuinely believe is a fair verdict. They would be literally gambling that the court *might* side with them based only on their feelings about the matter, rather than what is objectively lawful, and such an approach, even if their claim otherwise may have had merit, is just another example of a frivolous lawsuit that loser pays is supposed to prevent.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
If you don't have confidence that the court will deliver a fair verdict (and I'm not saying that many don't), then you have correspondingly less incentive to want to use the court system to resolve a dispute in the first place, unless you are hoping you can manipulate the court into delivering an unfair one or are otherwise using the court system as a casino for justice... both of which are exactly the kind of frivolous lawsuit that loser-pays is supposed to prevent.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
>> The average Canadian taxpayer pays about $20,000 / year for health care costs.
> Your numbers are off by almost a factor of 4, actually. The per capita costs for healthcare in 2015 was $5292
$6000 on the government spending PERSON (plus $500 out of pocket). You probably have either kids or parents who are paying very little tax, if any. Guess who is paying the $6,000 each that they cost? It ends up roughly $20,000 per payer, per person employed full time. That is, each person currently paying pays an average of $20,000.
> that in USD, I would have an annual take home pay of $132 extra living in Texas
Employers provide health coverage in the US. It's not part of take-home pay in either place. In both places, the bulk of the cost is not seen by the consumer (which screws things up), with some incidentals like non-prescription medicine paid for from take-home.
The systems are actually quite similar, just basically in Canada the government runs the one and only insurance company. The only major difference is that in the US you have more choices you make, there are different plans to choose from. Here's something that would be really different:
My wife and I were referred for MRI scans. Since the cost wasn't paid out-of-pocket, we didn't care too much what it cost, but I did ask, for reasons that are slightly off-topic here. The place the doctors referred us to charged $2,000 apiece. I took 5 seconds to do a Google search for "MRI Dallas" and cAalled the first place listed. They said $1,200, but only $1,000 during off hours, and $650 if I filed the insurance form rather than having them handle it (which means they get paid immediately from my HSA). From $2,000 with the "normal" method that 99% of people do to $1,200 just by making one quick phone call! Another $200 saved if I came in after work, when they less busy. That's fully half the cost saved. What if there were a system that encouraged people to cut the costs in half by making a phone call and scheduling the appointment for 5:30, when they get off work.
Jeeez, folks. Doesn't this fall under the general auspices of a 'Public Citizen' who's lifestyle, job, and overall publicity revolves around their PERSONAL INFORMATION IN THE NEWS ? I guess the next step in the 'democratic' state of California is to make it illegal to report on ANY issue / data / personal information of ANY citizen - public official, high profile personage, or 'IN THE NEWS' individual. I would laugh my a** off if it weren't for real - but, sadly, I just mix another drink and bemoan the state of our legal system. ps - I STILL hope I live long enough to see 'the year they killed all the lawyers'.
redneck geek
The law doesn't mention IMDB at all. The idea where sites where people are posting their reusumes looking for work should not be required to provide birthdates or ages is perfectly valid, just remove the 'entertainment' part and apply it to any industry. In the tech industry, as in entertaintment, age discrimination is real. Older tech works find it extremely hard to get work in some places, so I would think that slashdot of any place would see through the IMDB crap and understand why this makes sense. Oh well.
I wish I had a lawn.
Just saw a new commercial where they obviously replaced the previously "most interesting man in the world" with a younger version (Dos Equis XXX beer commercial).
I'm sure some actors would argue (successfully or not) that the numerical age discrimination could limit roles because it might alter how people perceive them. Where they *might* have passed for a 26 year old in a movie, but if the director saw that they were actually 38 may have dismissed them outright.
> SOME employers. Many do not. Or many only partially pay.
There's a little law here in the US that says employers MUST provide health coverage for full-time employees. If you're not aware of the Affordable Care Act, no need to try to discuss the finer details with you.
What kinda pissed me off about ACA is that I preferred health INSURANCE, not a comprehensive health *plan*. You know, insurance, a system that covers unexpected high costs that I can't readily cover out-of-pocket. ACA basically made health *insurance* illegal, now everyone has to pay for "the system" to handle a $25 flu shot, doubling it's cost.
I have confidence that the court will deliver a fair verdict most of the time. I still have incentive to file a lawsuit if wronged, but I don't want to be financially ruined in the unlikely prospect that I lose.
Suppose we play a gambling game. You roll a ten-sided die, and on anything but a 1 you get $10. If you pay me $10 or even $50 in case of a 1, your expected payout is positive. If you pay me $1000, your expected payoff is negative. Assuming it's a fair die, you should be 90% confident that you'll win, but you may not want to play it, depending on what happens on a 1.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
As I said, it's not the job of the court to be used like a casino... even if you perceive that the odds, as you say, are in your favour.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Would you like to give me something to try to comprehend other than binary thinking and the rejection of rational analysis?
Court cases are normally not certain. Nobody goes into them knowing everything, and the verdict will be influenced and actually determined by other human beings, who are fallible. They can make mistakes. Some mistakes can be appealed, and some can't be. Therefore, it's reasonable to think that the courts usually deliver reasonably just verdicts, but that they get it wrong sometimes. It is usually worthwhile involving the court if you have a legitimate case that's significant enough, but that doesn't mean the court won't get it wrong, or that you're not making a mistake.
Any rational consideration about filing a lawsuit needs to consider what happens if the plaintiff loses.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
In a universal loser-pays situation, a lawyer will simply not take a case unless they are pretty darn confident they can win it. If the lawyer *is* confident that he can win, then he takes out a loan against his insurance, and pays the victor's legal fees himself if he should lose. The loser is out nothing more than the fees he might have otherwise owed his own lawyer.
Even at its worst, it is no worse for the little guy than where he might try and sue and lose anyways. The only bad part is that he may not find anyone willing to represent him in court, but even that definitely leaves him no worse off than if he had paid his own way and lost.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Currently, without loser pays, if a lawyer is 80% sure they can win, they'll likely accept on a contingency basis. It isn't perfect, but the plaintiff is going to get the majority of any winnings without taking any particular risk. The lawyer is taking the risk of not being paid, but that's a standard business risk anyway, but nobody's taking any bigger a risk than that.
Insurance isn't a miracle in the economy. It's what people pay to convert a risk of big loss into a certainty of small loss. If a lawyer loses a few high-bucks cases, their insurance rate will go up. If there's a serious financial risk to losing a case, the insurance is going to be correspondingly expensive.
Therefore, it will be harder for the little guy to get representation in court.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Yes, but this is certainly no worse off than if he had gotten a lawyer and still lost the case anyways. Presumably a lawyer will be able to predict if you had a good chance of winning or not, and if he won't represent you if he doesn't think you can win, then at least you're not out the money that you would have spent on the lawyer in the first place where you'd only ending up probably losing the case. Remember, the point of loser-pays is to discourage frivolous lawsuits, and if you don't objectively have a good chance of winning based solely on the merits of your position, then by very defnition, that is a frivolous case.
Now if you had, say, an 80% chance of winning, as you say, then the loan that your lawyer takes out on his own insurance is a risk, but it's only a 20% risk, so he factors that into whether he wants to take the case in the first place. If the lawyer loses despite believing he would win, his insurance rates go up... so he's got incentive to not take cases that he doesn't think he can win, but he doesn't get paid dick all if he decides he's going to refuse absolutely any case that's not a slam dunk just because he's risk averse.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Say I have a case where I rationally estimate I have an 80% chance of winning. I assume you agree that this isn't a frivolous case.
Under the current system, assuming I'm correct, I have costs that are reasonably predictable, that go into the case no matter what. If I lose, I'm out those costs. If I win, I basically get damages minus costs. A lawyer may well take the case on contingency, and in that case the lawyer risks the work put into the case, but isn't on the hook for any further expenses.
Under loser pays, if I lose I'm liable for a bill for an unknown amount of money without any way of negotiating or predicting what it will be. If there is a limit, it's likely to be pretty high. It's possible that my lawyer will cover that as part of contingency, but to make up for that my lawyer has to take a much larger chunk of any winnings.
Insurance doesn't help much here. As an individual, I effectively can't get insurance unless I'm pretty darn sure I won't need it. There's the concept of "adverse selection", which means that people who are more likely to get payouts from insurance are more likely to buy it. A lawyer will find it possible to get, but expensive. Insurance doesn't reduce the cost of what risks it insures against, but rather increases the total cost while absorbing some of the risk.
I have no problem with the idea of loser pays in a frivolous suit, but a setup where I'm 80% confident I'll get some damages awarded and figure there's a 20% chance I'll lose my house, I'm likely to just sit there and accept the injustice.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I would also point out that many of his actions fall on the wrong side of the "cruel and unusual punishment" amendment.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?