Slashdot Mirror
Judge Blocks California Law Limiting Publication of Actor's Ages (politico.com)
mi writes: IMDb has a reason to rejoice. Politico reports: "A federal judge has barred the State of California from enforcing a new law limiting online publication of actors' ages. Acting in a case brought by online movie information website IMDb, U.S. District Court Judge Vince Chhabria ruled Wednesday that the California law likely violates the First Amendment and appears poorly tailored to proponents' stated goal of preventing age discrimination in Hollywood. The judge expressed deep skepticism that the law, which he said appeared to apply only to IMDb, would have any effect on discrimination. The judge rejected the state's arguments that the law was a regulation of commercial speech, finding that IMDb was acting as a publisher in posting the birthday and age information online." "It's not clear how preventing one mere website from publishing age information could meaningfully combat discrimination at all. And even if restricting publication on this one website could confer some marginal anti-discrimination benefit, there are likely more direct, more effective, and less speech-restrictive ways of achieving the same end," Chhabria wrote in a three-page order.
FTWabria
Just keep being good looking, that's all anyone cares about.
How can the State of California breach the 1st Ammendment. I was under the belief that the US Constitution said what the Federal government could do, and had no effect on the States themselves, which would each have their own constitution.
Harrison ford landed on a taxi way and nearly hit a plane... I know we should treat our elders with respect... but maybe realize their passing years and take their pilots license away?
We have the oldest President ever, and he's so sure of everything, fact checking doesn't really get a look-in. He doesn't even seem to be able to be consistent in long sentences. A lot of it's just old-man vanity, and brain capacity loss, but really shouldn't we set an age limit on high office?
Not only is it a Klingon slur word, it is a large banner ad that sticks around on Slashdot longer than the other ads that also outlast their welcome. This one does not get out of the way until you refresh the page.
How can the State of California breach the 1st Ammendment. I was under the belief that the US Constitution said what the Federal government could do, and had no effect on the States themselves, which would each have their own constitution.
Saying that the federal government is empowered in these areas, and that in all other areas the states are empowered, does not exempt the states from complying with federal law in those "federal" areas. The states must also honor the rights enumerated in the Constitution. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution says that all federal law made under the authority of the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that state courts must abide by it.
I've been searching for things that people who search for curry also search for.
The 14th amendment applies the first to the states. Two different clauses of the 14th are important.
The 14th amendment includes the following words:
--
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
__
(Privileges or Immunities Clause)
The guy who wrote those words, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Bingham, said his words mean the first eight amendments apply to the states as well. The 14th says that states are not allowed to violate the first through eigth amendments, according to the guy who wrote the 14th.
Shortly afterward, in the Slaughterhouse cases, SCOTUS "interpreted" Bingham's words to mean virtually nothing at all, and ruled that they did not mean what Bingham said they mean. (A really stupid ruling, given that Bingham was right there telling them what he meant when he wrote it.)
Later, SCOTUS realized they did need to apply some of the amendments to the states, but they had already vanished the wording in 14th that did so, by "interpreting" those words in a ridiculous way. SCOTUS doesn't like to reverse itself, so they decided to take a different part of the 14th, the "due process clause", and pretend THAT clause applies the 1st to the states. The plain language doesn't support that interpretation at all, but that's what SCOTUS had to do to avoid reversing their earlier slaughterhouse decision.
So what we're left with now is the words of the 14th apply the 1st to the states, by the privileges and immunities clause. But because SCOTUS doesn't like to reverse decisions, they pretend the 14th does so via the due process clause. We end up in the right place, via stupid logic.
I'm a pretty liberal dude - but this age-information-protection thing is the wrong role for any governance to be playing.
It's an objective, publicly available piece of information. Birth records aren't secret, or in any way protected from public view. Trying to punish websites for listing that among other pertinent details on public figures like actors is just crazy.
That's not to say age discrimination is an unrealistic thing to fear - but this is exactly the wrong way to combat it, akin to punishing kids spreading rumors of an upcoming fight, rather than any of the participants. It's just bad tactics too - objecting to information only spreads that information further (justly called the Streisand effect).
I'm struggling just to wrap my head around how stupid an idea this law was, or who would propose it as a valid way to use law.
Was this some kind of a protest law, or a game of legislative chicken gone wrong?
Ryan Fenton
I stand corrected. Somehow the Supremacy Clause was not applied to the Bill of Rights. Matter of fact that 14th amendment (1868) didn't initially apply to the Bill of Rights much either. It was not until 1925 that the courts ruled that the states were bound by the First Amendment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The summary doesn't make this clear but this is not a final ruling in this case. The judge merely granted the plaintiff (IMDb) a preliminary injunction enjoining the government from enforcing this statute until the case is decided. However, since a preliminary injunction is granted only if there's a good chance the party filing the motion will succeed at trial, it does bode well. The state has an uphill battle at this point.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
Any law that is this blatantly unconstitutional should have to be defended on the Politicians' dime, not the taxpayers'.
so-called judges
There, fixed that for you.
you said 'rape' twice.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Cant wait to discuss more looks (less|older) than $age topics here on Slashdot now that IMDB boards are closed!
Here's hoping "looks like" topics are prevalent, too!
Hillary, isn't it past your bedtime?
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Betty White is cosmonaut your bootyhole is STELLAR!
Here is why the Supremacy Clause doesn't apply the 1st to states. Note the first word of the first amendment:
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.
Under the Supremacy Clause, states can't overrule that - they can't allow CONGRESS to make a law ...
On the other hand, the author of the Privileges and Immunities Clause 14th amendment, John Bingham, said that the Privileges and Immunities Clause extended the 1st to the states. That was in the late 1850s. Two or three years later, SCOTUS ruled that Bingham was incorrect, his words didn't mean what he said they meant. And so it wasn't until 63 years later, in 1925, that SCOTUS acknowledged what the author of the 14th had told them.
HILLARY is busy mocking cowardly Congress members too craven to face their constituents.
Who are obviously out of control, wanting answers as to what the GOP is going to do besides repeal their health insurance, how they're going to get Mexico to pay for the wall, and whether or not Dale Jr will win the championship he so richly deserved.
Oh, and they want to know why it is so important to disband the Department of Education, the EPA, and why calling the White House gets somebody answering in Russian.
The thing that bothers me most about this is that it was a proposition that was voted on and that it passed. It seemed like an obvious violation of free speech to me.
From the article and summary it sounds like this is preliminary. I hope the courts continue to block it...
I'm a pretty liberal dude -
Considering you don't agree with a liberal law, no you're not. You are actually a centrist. If you believe in private ownership of property, you are center right.
It's apparently all-or-nothing with liberals.
When asked, I immediately had one good thing to say about Hillary Clinton, and had a dozen more after a few moment's thought.
The left can't find one good thing to say about Trump, and it's all-or-nothing. Attack in every possible way: his family, his business, even attack his 10 year old son.
Sad.
They're *all* 18! Always exactly forever 18!
Even the granny vids!
Welcome to the darkness you've embraced. It will have consequences.
I'm actually an independent, not a conservative.
There's planks in the conservative platform that I don't agree with; for example, I think women should be able to choose abortion and we're probably wrecking the climate. A couple of other positions as well.
The problem is, coming out in favor of either of these puts me in the company of Liberals: People who leak classified information for political assassination, people who call for a military coup, people who riot to suppress free speech... I don't want to be associated with any of that.
I used to be a global warming believer, but I'm now having second thoughts. That "97 percent of scientists" figure people keep throwing around? It's fake. This whole thing about the left has caused me to reexamine my beliefs about global warming, and how I came by them. 'Turns out most of it was passively accepted without a critical thought, because I kept seeing it in the news.
This is troubling, and not in the false sense of the word that Liberals use. Global warming is conceivably the most important decision we'll face, and we need to get it right the first time.
And yet, debate on the issue is stifled by insult and threats. Scientists fear losing their livelihood if they question the dogma. Policies are "our way and nothing else", and always require reducing our standard of living while increasing economic disparity.
No where do I see proposals that would actually help the problem, such as calls to modernize our electrical grid, calls to change tax code to encourage telecommuting (section 1706), tax rebates for rooftop solar, or increased funding in helpful technology.
I'm having a tough time keeping my position about global warming, simply because it's the clarion call of the left.
There's an old saying among geeks: it's not enough to be right, you also have to be effective.
The left is so ineffective that it's tough to agree with them.
Even when they're right.
How many ages does the average actor have?
Really? We need special laws to protect a very very small class of people from age discrimination which is _already_ illegal? The CA government apparently cares about its citizens. Well a small group of them anyway.
Your Trump candidate is back out on the campaign trail trying to win an election (and failing badly), and you're still fighting an election candidate whose not there.
The only thing Trump is fighting at this moment is his own staggering incompetence. He had a Republican Congress, Senate, a legal department, a research department, all he had to do was write a convincing speech for Congress, and they'd draft a change of the "Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965". The law that stops him selectively blocking immigrations.
Instead what is he doing? Attacking the judges, attacking the press, attacking disloyal Republicans, attacking allies for expressing dissenting views.... goes out on a campaign trail to demand the people demand the press give him his law. (WTF? Does he think CNN can grant him his law? If only he can get enough angry mobs to attack them??)
Gee what next? Try to send every immigrant back to Mexico, regardless of where they came from? No that would be ridiculous even for Trump. He's have to be a fucking moron to think he can do that. Oh wait.... that's exactly what he just tried to do.
He's a sad old man, a wanna be dictator whose just toooo old to pull it off.
I voted a straight Republican ticket, including Hillary. Didn't like Trump's attacks on the free market, and his attacks on US businesses. I didn't like that he had no religious faith and his constant defence of America's enemies, including Putin and Russia.
His wall was tax pork, only idiots believe Mexico would pay for it.
Time has proved me right. Take your Liberal President back to that Florida retirement home where he can spend his last remaining days.
is to come out with a warning label stating that “Publishing actors' ages is known to the State of California to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity.” The 'cancer card' ought to trump, (Trump?), a federal court judge's ruling.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
"Attack in every possible way: his family, his business, even attack his 10 year old son."
Oh please, he can dish it out, but the little baby can't take it. It's not everyone elses fault he couldn't get a law passed, despite having a Republican controlled house and senate. The press rightly point out the hypocrisy and inconsistency and he can't take it.
He just held a rally where he hired a Pastor to claim, Jesus supported Trump, and then Trump spewed vitriole in the name of Christ upsetting a real pastor in the audience.
There is no difference between commercial speech and personal speech. Corporate personhood means that a corporation has the same rights as a living person.
The only reason to visit IMDB was the forums and that's gone, so sayonara, IMDB!
I've been searching for things that people who search for curry also search for.
Fish and chips? Boiled vegetables? A way out of the EU with all its pesky socialism?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
you said 'rape' twice.
I like rape.
> Obviously they wouldn't want to publish those details, customers would abandon them pretty quickly, what I'm asking is if there is any legal protection.
There *are* some privacy laws. It's generally illegal to pull someone's credit report without permission and a reason to do so. Notably the balance on an existing *loan* account is relevant to a lender when you ask for another loan, so the balances on existing loans does appear on the credit report, which has some legal protections. Some one say there's no privacy issue there since it's released only with your permission - you're allowed to tell me your bank balance, either directly or through the credit bureau.
I'm sure you can Google more details about privacy laws - the more interesting question you brought up is how the first amendment relates to them. Under the first amendment, the bank employees can say whatever they want, right? SCOTUS has found the 1st, 4th, and 9th amendments together suggest a right to privacy. Therefore there is a balance between the bank officer's right to talk and the customer's right to privacy. A person's Constitutional right to privacy provides Congress and the states a legitimate reason to pass privacy laws.
It has been recognized that a) the citizenry has a valid interest in knowing some things about the actions of public figures and b) by choosing to pursue celebrity, a person may voluntary give up some of their privacy. Therefore for public figures there is a different balance between piracy and the first amendment than there is for typical private people, people who aren't a) important to the public and b) trying to be on display to the public.
Is this the same IMDB that recently removed all its discussion boards?
Hillary, isn't it past your bedtime?
It's almost like you didn't win.
Reality is a slackware box running on a 386 tucked away in god's sock drawer.
Trolling? You've got your history backward. The federation (federal) didn't create it's members. The states created the federation as the states ratified the Constitution. Hell even just the *name* of the country tells you that, or look up the definition of "state" - it means basically "country". United States - countries that came together.
In the plain wording of Constitution, the states delegated certain listed powers to the federal (federation) government and *reserved* all other powers to themselves.
It's an objective, publicly available piece of information. Birth records aren't secret, or in any way protected from public view.
I'm not sure that if you knew my name and the approximate year I was born that you could find my birth record. Probably depends on whether there was a birth announcement in the local paper when I was born and it is currently searchable on the internet. I can tell you that I can probably count on one or two hands the number of people who know me who know the city and state I was born in. I have very good friends who know my birthday but have no idea where I was born. I took a look and my state of birth would not allow you to get a copy of my birth certificate, so if you knew the place but not the date, you'd be out of luck there too. So birth records aren't really as open as you might think. Try looking up your own via an internet search. You might find it's harder to find than you think. This is a good thing as one of the ways identity theft gets done is via knowing a person's birth date and year, but that's in part a factor of greed in businesses being willing to give credit cards, loans, etc. on insufficient proof that you really are who you claim to be.
Yeahh, the lyric is not cosmonaut... Nice try tho
I didn't win the election. I didn't vote for Trump. It was simply a joke.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.