Slashdot Mirror
IMDb Ignores New Law Banning It From Publishing Actors' Ages Online, Cites Free Speech Violations (betanews.com)
Back in September, the state of California passed a new law that banned sites that offer paid subscriptions, and allow people to post resumes, from publishing individuals' ages. It's a law that has the potential to affect many sites, but it is the Internet Movie Database (IMDb) that hit the headlines. From a report: IMDb was told to remove actors' ages from the site by 1 January, 2017, but the site has failed to take any action. A full week into 2017, IMDb has not only chosen to ignore the new law, but has also filed a lawsuit in a bid to stop California from implementing Assembly Bill No. 1687. The reason? IMDb believes that the law is a violation of the First Amendment and it says the state has "chosen instead to chill free speech and to undermine access to factual information of public interest" rather than trying to tackle age-discrimination in a more meaningful way.
Fuck off. California is batshit crazy.
IMDb believes that the law is a violation of the First Amendment and it says the state has "chosen instead to chill free speech and to undermine access to factual information of public interest" rather than trying to tackle age-discrimination in a more meaningful way.
While I don't actually care about the information in question, there is nothing private or sensitive about the age of actors or other public figures. They are public figures who have chosen a public life. If they don't like the consequences of that then they should chose another profession. There certainly is no compelling state interest worthy of such a law nor special group in need of protection. It's not as if their ages are some big secret to anyone who cares to find out. IMBd is probably right and there probably would win any first amendment related lawsuit should they chose to fight one.
This is absolutely a violation of the first amendment. It is an example of the totalitarian nature of progressivism where in the name of "fairness" they will implement totalitarian regulations that take away all free speech. This is just the tip of the iceberg, they want to ban anything they deem to be "offensive", in violation of free speech rights. The only issue with ages is that there is a right for privacy but since these are actors this information is publicly available anyway, and otherwise as long as we are talking about information people volunteer which they can later delete, people have a right to do so. I can more sympathize with laws that have a process for sites to take down personal information of private persons, but thats not what this law is.
Publishing basic facts like: "Mark Hamill was born 25 September 1951 in Oakland, California, USA" shouldn't fall under anti-discrimination laws. In fact, while looking up Mark's birthday for this comment, I noticed that IMDB doesn't actually post the actor's age. Sure, you can subtract 1951 from 2016 to get his age, but IMDB only gives you his date of birth. This is a fact, not a judgement call.
Now, if IMDB was regularly posting incorrect birth dates, there might be some issue, but posting the date that celebrities were born isn't discrimination.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
They're not discriminating, though. Some users of their service might choose to discriminate based on the age data, but IMDB is in the clear here. Citing the first amendment is valid, too. In this case, it's freedom of the press.
sig: sauer
Laws that limit freedom of expression are tyrannical in nature, and eventually no speech is free. Anti-Discrimination free speech laws are completely out of control "Dynamic" is prohibited in job postings, because ... it is ... code for "no black people". No, I am not making that shit up. Talk about racist bullshit, black people can't by dynamic?? WHAT???
The greatest threat to our liberties are people crying "There ought to be a law" and make it so.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Wikipedia doesn't offer paid accounts. This is a targeted law intended to get that info removed from IMDB. It not only fails first amendment scrutiny, but also arguably fails equal protection scrutiny, as there's no rational reason why a company should be banned from publishing publicly available information merely because it also happens to offer paid accounts for people working in the industry; the law can't make meaningful progress towards a legitimate legislative goal as written, and appears to exist solely to screw over a single company.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Yes, it is.
Sure. But this has nothing to do with the topic. The accuracy of IMDB's data is not in question, is it?
You can only respect "people's wishes" to a point. When a grown man wishes to use a women's bathroom claiming to be a female, or enroll in elementary school claiming to be 20 years younger than he really is, politeness ought to yield to the comfort and safety of others.
But, yes, I am willing to be polite at other situations — as long as we call these people's delusions, what they really are.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.