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.
I've flown into there. The runway markings are horrible. This is an airport administration problem, not a harrison ford problem.
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.
It used to be the case until the 14th amendment extended constitutional protection to all levels of government.
"Incorporation, in U.S. law, is the process by which American courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights to the states. Prior to 1925, the Bill of Rights was held only to apply to the federal government. Under the incorporation doctrine, most provisions of the Bill of Rights now also apply to the state and local governments."
Wikipedia
Also, The California Constitution also guarantees freedom of expression
"(a) Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or
her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of
this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or
press."
Source
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
Come on, Harrison - we know that's you.
#DeleteChrome
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.
It used to be the case until the 14th amendment extended constitutional protection to all levels of government.
Note that this was not an immediate effect of the 14th amendment. Passed in 1868, but not covering the First Amendment until ruled to do so in 1925.
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?
He doesn't even seem to be able to be consistent in long sentences.
What are you talking about? Look, having nuclear - my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart - you know, if you're a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world - it's true! - but when you're a conservative Republican they try - oh, do they do a number - that's why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune - you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we're a little disadvantaged - but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me - it would have been so easy, and it's not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right - who would have thought?), but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners - now it used to be three, now it's four - but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven't figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it's gonna take them about another 150 years - but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.
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.