Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

IMDb Ignores New Law Banning It From Publishing Actors' Ages Online, Cites Free Speech Violations (betanews.com)

Posted by msmash on from the free-speech dept.

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.

33 of 218 comments (clear)

  1. Only remove it for California by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Only remove it for California by mitgib · · Score: 4, Informative

      No need, 1st Amendment overrules California's silly law. The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2)

      --
      Being a spelling & grammar Nazi is a sign you do not poses the intelligence to contribute to the conversation
    2. Re:Only remove it for California by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Maybe not. Anti-discrimination laws are allowed by the constitution. Those laws can prohibit certain speech. That's well established and tested in court.

      So the issue here is if publishing actor's ages against their wishes is possibly discriminatory. Some actors argue that knowing their age leads to discrimination when being cast. There is certainly a lot of evidence that this is true. If you accept that, you then have to ask if IMDB is involved in employment. I don't know enough about the industry to answer that.

      The other angle here is transchronoism. I expect I'll be modded as a troll for even mentioning it, but the law appears to have been lobbied for by transchrono groups. Basically they want to decouple a person's physical age from how they live, somewhat like how transgender people differentiate between the physical state of their bodies and the gender they live as. This mostly involves rejecting stereotypes and social norms associated with age, and not assuming that because someone is 20 they are inexperienced or that because they are 70 they are conservative and want you to get off their lawn.

      Considering how bad age discrimination is in the tech sector, it would make sense for people in that sector to support transchronoism. Just because you are 55 doesn't mean you can't write a mobile app in Go.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Only remove it for California by donaggie03 · · Score: 2

      Just because two parties have a dispute does not automatically mean they are both acting like babies. I think IMDB's non-action on this issue is justifiable because they are in the right both legally and morally.

      --
      Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
    4. Re:Only remove it for California by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
    5. Re:Only remove it for California by ichthus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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
    6. Re:Only remove it for California by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.
    7. Re:Only remove it for California by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Racism and sexism are also a problem, which can be fought with a law forcing actors' pictures to be removed, and also their names.

    8. Re:Only remove it for California by gfxguy · · Score: 2

      Not only that, but Hollywood doesn't even discriminate based on age, they discriminate based on how old someone appears to be, so knowing or publishing the dates has zero effect.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    9. Re:Only remove it for California by memojuez · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Do the California Legislatures realize that his information is also on Wikipedia?

      Born Mark Richard Hamill
      September 25, 1951 (age 65)
      Oakland, California, United States

      --
      Signature applied for, Patent Pending
    10. Re:Only remove it for California by kelemvor4 · · Score: 2

      Do the California Legislatures realize that his information is also on Wikipedia?

      Born Mark Richard Hamill September 25, 1951 (age 65) Oakland, California, United States

      Probably. The law doesn't single out imdb. Wikipedia is in violation if imdb is. Hopefully a federal court will put an end to this nonsense.

    11. Re:Only remove it for California by kelemvor4 · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

      Well Hollywood better put a goddamn end to the practice. I, for one, am sick and tired of Hollywood using actual children to portray children in movies and television. They should be using only actors above the age of 18.

    12. Re:Only remove it for California by SumDog · · Score: 2

      > Maybe not. Anti-discrimination laws are allowed by the constitution.

      Do you have examples? I don't feel like this is true. In Germany this happens quite often. The Jewish Anti-Defamation League often goes after people in America, but those are mostly civil suits. In Europe, even suggesting Israel is an apartheid state can land you in jail, but in America (and Australia) that's protected.

    13. Re:Only remove it for California by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

      Anti-discrimination laws are allowed by the constitution. Those laws can prohibit certain speech.

      Can you give me a viable example of speech prohibited by anti-discrimination laws?

      I can say all day long and even print is...that "I hate old, fat, disabled, lesbian n-i-g-gers". I could even print I really don't want to hire them.

      HOWEVER..if I actually DO discriminate based on gender, race, etc....then sure I can be slapped by a lawsuit.

      But I do not believe that expression your beliefs, no matter how callous or unpopular they are are in fact, actually prohibited in any way. The constitution protects that speech.

      About the only type speech that can be prohibited in the US, is that which actually incites violence against a real group of folks or individuals. Or incites other dangerous behavior (yelling fire in a movie theater)....

      But I really do need specific citation of speech that is actually prohibited under penalty of the law by anti-discrimination legislation currently out there on the books.

      PS..what's the deal with this new slashdot lameness filter that makes you put symbols in there for certain words (see above).

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    14. Re: Only remove it for California by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 4, Informative

      Wikipedia wouldn't be in violation if TFS is correct. Namely, Wikipedia doesn't have a paid subscription and doesn't allow users to post their resume.

    15. Re: Only remove it for California by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    16. Re:Only remove it for California by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      That may not be entirely true, if those responsible for casting want to find someone they might immediately reject people of a certain age for certain parts without looking to see what age "they appear to be".

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    17. Re:Only remove it for California by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      That doesn't usually matter. For example employment agencies are often banned from supplying information on race because it is used to discriminate. Often the discrimination is subconscious and unintentional, so the best way to eliminate it is to strip the name, age, gender and other identifying information from the CV when first presented.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    18. Re:Only remove it for California by DRJlaw · · Score: 5, Informative

      Maybe not. Anti-discrimination laws are allowed by the constitution. Those laws can prohibit certain speech. That's well established and tested in court.

      You are absolutely correct that the law can prohibit certain speech. Yet there are only three categories of speech that can be prohibited. 1. Obscenity 2. Fighting words and 3. Threats or incitement to violence. Let's see if this fits within any of them:

      1. Reporting age is not obscene. Miller v. California (1973) requires that:
      *The average person, applying "contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
      *The work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, "sexual conduct or excretory functions" specifically defined by applicable state law; and
      *Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

      The average person does not believe that discussions of age are prurient. Nor does reporting age involve sexual conduct or an excretory function. Finally, reporting age is of serious "scientific" value -- we do everything from condition certain privileges and benefits based upon age to discuss accomplishment with respect to age. Even if you dispute the latter point, it's an "and" test, so you would have to satisfy the other factors as well.

      2. Reporting age is not fighting words. Cohen v. California (1971) and Snyder v. Phelps (2011) limit that doctrine.

      *Cohen held that wearing a jacket that said "fuck the draft" was outside the doctrine because it was not a "personally abusive epithet";
      *Snyder held that the Westboro Babptist Church's funeral protests were outside the doctrine because the speech was was not personal but instead public; and
      *Most courts also require physical proximity between the speaker and the target -- and there's no such proximity here.

      You're not going to get a jury to unanimously hold that reporting someone's numerical age is a personally abusive epithet. Reporting an age is also speech that is public rather than personal -- it is not made at or to the person, but the public at large. Finally, there's no proximity between IMDB and the person that could permit an immediate breach of the peace, i.e., a physical altercation.

      3. Finally, reporting on age does not constitute a threat, whether personal or general. Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) requires that:
      * the speaker intend to incite a violation of the law; and
      * that the violation is both imminent and likely.

      You're not going to get a jury to unanimously hold that reporting someone's numerical age is intended to create age discrimination. Also, there's no imminent, i.e., immediate, connection between reporting the age and any individual incident of age discrimination, nor is any such discrimination likely as opposed to merely being "possible."

      So the issue here is if publishing actor's ages against their wishes is possibly discriminatory.

      No it's not. The issue here is whether the reporting fits within any exception to the first amendment. It does not.

      You could have figured this out without much familiarity with the law. Publishing information itself is not "possibly discriminatory" -- it neither conditions nor denies a privilege or benefit based upon the person's age. You're arguing that someone else might use that information to discriminate -- but that's an entirely different and separate kettle of fish.

    19. Re:Only remove it for California by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      So when a dude stands on a car and shouts "Burn this bitch down" and it gets burned down by rioters, is he arrested?

      And just for your reference, I am fairly militant about my freedom to express myself (and you express yourself). And the 1st Amendment is fairly clear until the damn lawyers get in the way ...

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

      IF you are unable, because there are laws that prevent it, of expressing yourself, you're already captive of someone else. The collective doesn't have the right to diminish the thoughts and expressions of its members.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    20. Re:Only remove it for California by xgerrit · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      The problem that many people outside the industry are not aware of, is that IMDB doesn't post facts: they post anything that people submit. So actors routinely submit fake (older) ages for the competition, and IMDB's policy is to leave the "fact" up until it's proven false. This requires the victim to send IMDB a copy of their driver's license or other proof, at which point IMDB updates their page to their actual age. So basically actors are being forced into revealing personal information they don't want to reveal, and IMDB is playing a fairly large part. This is what I believe the original lawsuit that was the inspiration for this law was about.

    21. Re:Only remove it for California by maglor_83 · · Score: 2

      Mrs Doubtfire

    22. Re:Only remove it for California by DRJlaw · · Score: 2

      First off, "fighting words" is a bullshit argument and nobody in their right mind will argue based on it.

      Well, them, it's a good thing that I said that it didn't apply.

      Second, you missed "discriminatory".

      You're going to have to explain that point in a bit more detail.

      Go read Popehat.

      I do. Likely more than you, since a regular reader would recognize that I comment there as well. You may want to read the quote from United States v. Stevens discussed here. I apologize for leaving out defamation and fraud, which don't quite fit in the topic at hand (each require falsity). But I don't see the "discrimination" among "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem" listed at your preferred resource either.

  2. Quite Right by segedunum · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Fuck off. California is batshit crazy.

  3. Stupid laws by sjbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  4. Totalitarian progressivism by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Totalitarian progressivism by tsqr · · Score: 2

      Isn't it illegal for states to pass laws that violate the US Constitution?

  5. Re:I disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    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.

  6. Only in California by mi · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Basically they want to decouple a person's physical age from how they live, somewhat like how transgender people differentiate between the physical state of their bodies and the gender they live as.

    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.
    1. Re:Only in California by mi · · Score: 2

      So if accuracy isn't the issue, why not set IMDB ages to 0 on request? Make everyone who asks born on 1/1/2000.

      Because that will make accuracy an issue, will it not?

      Why go out of your way to dig up details on people who have told you they don't want the information published?

      How about, because information wants to be free?

      The particular data is not secret, it is public knowledge — IMDB didn't obtain it by "stealing" it from anywhere it should not have had access to. Maybe, it is impolite of IMDB to publish it, but any laws prohibiting such publishing ought to be resisted as a matter of principle.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    2. Re:Only in California by mi · · Score: 2

      Yes, when arguing with folks promoting the concepts like "transgender", one has to be extremely careful defining the terms. Otherwise they'll have you suckered from the get go by, for example, implying that "sex" means something different from "gender". And so on...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  7. Re:Not sure it matters by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

    Men, by and large, fantasize about younger women. Women prefer men their age and over. It's naturally if Hollywood is going to try and appeal to people they will pick stars the public will croon over.

    There is a good reason why Hollywood often shows mature men partnered with pretty 20-somethings. If you look at the most famous actors and actresses themselves, you see a lot of older men really married to younger women, and vice-versa. They're at the top of the desirability factor for many partners and so get what they want in a partner. That is: Older men and younger women.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  8. I was just thinking ... by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

    ... how old is Barbara Streisand?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."