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.
If they can forcefully display the silly localized movie titles when I set it to be English, I'm sure they will manage filtering the age field for California.
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.
Sure. Now, are you prepared to go through around 225 years of legal precedents through various circuit and supreme court rulings to thoroughly and rigorously define what the law says on the nature of Freedom of Speech when it comes into direct conflict with laws intended to prevent doing harm?
Freedom of Speech is not absolute. It's already law that it may not be used to incite violence, it may not be used to precipitate a dangerous situation through an intent to cause panic, it may not be used to defame. If the State of California can demonstrate that a resource used for employment is causing undue harm to a specfic segment of the population because its disclosure of age and/or birthdate through the the most obvious means to do further background research on those that audition, then that state has an interest in taking what steps it can to try to curb that behavior.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
...if just once, money/power didn't win out on this one.
-Styopa
I'm not that into following actors and actresses, and not much of a movie goer. That said, every time I have looked someone up they have a Wiki page which displays their birth date. Often with accompanying stories of childhood, family, and other personal notes. If the information is already available, why is it only IMDb that can't display it or calculate today-birth date = current age?
Going a bit further, acting already discriminates on all kinds of issues. Casting requires it. How popular would Buffy the Vampire Hunter been if the actress was 45 years old? How about the 40 year old virgin played by Sean Connery in his 70s? Like a whole lot of political issues coming out of CA, I question the sanity of this one.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
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.
There should be a difference between private persons and public persons. In the age of Botox, it is very important to know the actual age of the people we vote for...
If you can figure out a way to conduct blind auditions like most symphonies do, we'd love to hear your technique.
FYI, that's what orchestras did to combat problems with bias due to gender, race, and age. They stopped looking at those who auditioned and simply listened. Unfortunately that doesn't work so well for a visual medium. But if you've got a better idea let's hear it.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
It is hard in California.
Here are your roles for actresses:
0 - 16: cute
17 - 24: sexualized
25: high school student
26 - 29: sexualized
30: mom of a teenager
31 - 55: not needed
56+: mentor
Lies about your age make movie stars. Posting this information "is causing undue harm to a specfic segment of the population".
We are going to need a corollary for this. How about the Meryl Streep rule?
Nah, they shouldn't even show the picture, just a head covered by a paper bag. After all, if people can discriminate based on age, then they can discriminate based on appearance. All castings should be done with the actors wearing a burkah, just to be on the safe side, and voice-disguisers should be used as well. This stuff is hilarious.
There is a simple work around. Publish the ages on the free version of the site and hide the ages if someone is on the subscription version of the site.
Yeah, this is what happens when you lose balance in the State Government. Eventually it will implode within its own echo chamber.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
They had 30-year-olds playing high school students on Beverly Hills, 90210, and cast Anne Heche as a love interest to Harrison Ford when she was 29 and he was 56. I don't think any of them have a clue about age.
Nope, no sig
"causing undue harm to a spec[i]fic segment of the population" is not one of the recognized exceptions to the free speech clause of the Constitution. Generally, reporting true facts is protected. The exceptions are few and far between, and heavily constrained. The most obvious one is the prohibition on the disclosure of classified national security information. But that prohibition applies to those who receive clearances and agree to the relevant restrictions. It does not apply to those who obtain and disclose the information without breaking their own agreements. This is why no reporters were prosecuted for publishing information from wikileaks or Snowden.
California has no business trying to regulate what sites on the Internet can/can't do. For that matter, neither do national governments.
Let's say I operate a site similar to IMDb, from here in Texas or some freewheeling island country somewhere. If California (or Germany, or Russia, or whereever) tries to regulate the content of that site, I will cheerily ignore them. They have no jurisdiction.
They're quite welcome to block my site, if they can get their ISPs to cooperate. But it's BS to specify what websites can/can't show.
Now, maybe IMDb operates out of California, so that's where "jurisdiction" comes in. If that's the case, IMDb needs to move the site (& dba location, but not necessarily office/staff location) out of state. Too bad, CA, you just regulated a business out of your state entirely!
Why are all actors "public figures who have chosen a public life"?
Because for whatever reason well known actors are considered celebrities in our culture worthy of adoration and fame. I don't pretend to understand why this should be the case but it is. It also is why they can in many cases get paid ludicrous sums of money - people are clearly willing to pay to see famous people do things. Well known actors get paid well because of their fame. Nobody cared about Tom Hanks before he became famous. Almost every actor is trying their hardest to gain notoriety and yet we're supposed to pretend that they aren't public figures? Spare me.
Are all civil servants "public figures"?
To a degree yes. If you want to work in the public space then we need to know who you are and a bit about your background. For transparency reasons if nothing else.
Certainly in Europe, everyone has a right to a private life.
No they don't. There are certain jobs that are inherently public in nature. Acting, politics, professional sports, and some others. The reason they get paid a lot of money is precisely because of their celebrity. You don't get elected if nobody knows who you are. You don't get big movie roles in most cases if you are a nobody. (and those that do don't remain nobodies) It's no different than anywhere else. Being a public figure is almost always a choice. They can chose a private life but that's probably not compatible with success in their chosen profession.
Oh, wow, yet another way for people to deny basic facts about themselves...
Should we not stop humoring such delusions? Whether the sufferers need active treatment may be subject to debate, but they certainly should not be further enabled...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
This law was obviously a personal favor for some rich influential actor or actress. Stupid yes, but pretty harmless. Now when this starts happening in the White House with the new batshit crazy people who will be hanging out there, I don't expect then to have any such compunctions about their laws being harmless.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
Thanks for your valued opinion.
Any reasons for that position?
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
From the sounds of it, this law isn't targeting specifically IMDB and to me the intent of the law makes sense - prevent employment discrimination based on age. In Canada for example its illegal for a potential employer to ask your age or marital status.
What about posting natural hair color?
or actual weight?
or bust size?
How about promoting a culture that doesn't care about age and instead one that cares about ability?
Keep up that line of questioning and x hamster is going to be taken down next.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
You're talking about showbiz, where people's appearances do determine their popularity.
Wiki is better - they provide whether they are married or not, w/ kids or not, so that one (almost) knows whether they are virgins
Yes we have freedom of speech in America, but this freedom (like all good freedoms) comes with an implicit set of responsibilities to ensure that the freedom is used correctly. Unregulated freedom of speech is too dangerous to grant to ever whistle blower and movie database. Power needs to be divided with checks and balances. For example: the massive power that a movie producer has by indulging his ageist biases during casting is perfectly checked by forcing that producer to perform a separate google search to find a website operating outside of California to learn an actor's age. He might think he already knows the actor's approximate age, and cast Demi Moore to play the hot high school student without bothering to check her age, since she can't be more than ...22?
Just call it "overcoming the law" and it's all good under Comrade Trump.
Laws are for little people.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
... how old is Barbara Streisand?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
If your children were smarter they'd rebut: I can't find anything in the constitution that grants you (Dad) lawmaking powers of any kind.
All powers not delegated by the Constitution are reserved by the states or to the people.