Discrimination

Should the California law cited in the OP be upheld?

  • Yes

  • No

  • Maybe. I'll explain in my post.


Results are only viewable after voting.

Foxfyre

Eternal optimist
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Messages
56,446
Reaction score
19,940
Points
2,290
Location
Desert Southwest USA
In an unusual and little publicized recent action, the California legislature recently passed a law making it illegal for a particular media oriented website to publicize an actor or actress's age if the subject requested their age not be published.

The measure addressed complaints that older actors and actresses are discriminated against and are no longer considered for the best roles. Women in particular are discriminated against while men generally are less punished for getting older..

The target of the law, IMDb, has sued challenging the law as a violation of free speech.

Normally I would note such a story as mildly interesting and move on, but my instincts tell me this one could go all the way to the Supreme Court of the U.S. if the judge rules in favor of the state. And, as these things go, such a precedent could spread into many other areas.

The way the world has gone for the last several decades, based on such a precedent, I can see equal protection laws extend far beyond the film industry to unflattering photos of anybody, comments on their weight or height or marital status, temperament, or anything that might impact them negatively. And while that would certainly result in a more pleasant environment on line for instance, it would also restrict free speech to ridiculous lengths.

What say you?


Revealing an actor's age is illegal? IMDb website sues California

By Alex Dobuzinskis
November 11, 2016

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Many actors think there ought to be a law against posting their ages online, and California this year obliged critics of ageism in Hollywood by passing a law targeting a leading movie and television information website.

The law has been challenged in a lawsuit by the company IMDb, which is owned by Amazon.com Inc and operates a repository of information on the film and television industry.

The lawsuit, filed on Thursday in federal court for the Northern District of California, alleges that the measure violates free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution.

Supporters described the law as an effort to prevent age discrimination. It requires officials at IMDb.com to remove from the website the ages of figures in the entertainment industry, including actors and directors, if those individuals request the deletion.

Actors in Hollywood have long complained they are passed over for roles as they get older.

Female performers in particular say a double standard gives women fewer opportunities as they age, while men can still land leading parts late in their careers.

"By the time you're 28 you're expired, you're playing mommy roles," actress Zoe Saldana, now 38 and female lead of the blockbuster film "Guardians of the Galaxy," told The Telegraph in 2014.

The lawsuit said the law, known as AB 1687, was unfair because it was carefully tailored to apply only to IMDb.com Inc, which is incorporated in Delaware and has offices in Seattle, and not other sources of information. . . .
Revealing an actor's age is illegal? IMDb website sues California
 

Norman

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
31,256
Reaction score
15,066
Points
1,590
Californians can't even have sex without a procreation form now-a-days. The far left rhetoric has gone too far.
 

boedicca

Uppity Water Nymph
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
56,207
Reaction score
18,670
Points
2,250
Location
The Land of Funk
It's rather hypocritical. Considering that CA is home to some of the biggest violators of individual privacy that have ever existed (Google, Facebook, Yahoo..for starters), the genie is already of of the bottle when it comes to public disclosure of a public personality's age.

SRSLY
 
OP
Foxfyre

Foxfyre

Eternal optimist
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Messages
56,446
Reaction score
19,940
Points
2,290
Location
Desert Southwest USA
It's rather hypocritical. Considering that CA is home to some of the biggest violators of individual privacy that have ever existed (Google, Facebook, Yahoo..for starters), the genie is already of of the bottle when it comes to public disclosure of a public personality's age.

SRSLY
I think a Californian's perspective on this should probably carry more clout than that of us on the outside who are just observing. And if what happens in California stays in California, so be it.

But in this case, if the judge rules for the state, I can see all sorts of momentum toward making it a national law that would bind everybody to this kind of censorship.

I wonder if I'm overreaching there.
 

boedicca

Uppity Water Nymph
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
56,207
Reaction score
18,670
Points
2,250
Location
The Land of Funk
It's rather hypocritical. Considering that CA is home to some of the biggest violators of individual privacy that have ever existed (Google, Facebook, Yahoo..for starters), the genie is already of of the bottle when it comes to public disclosure of a public personality's age.

SRSLY
I think a Californian's perspective on this should probably carry more clout than that of us on the outside who are just observing. And if what happens in California stays in California, so be it.

But in this case, if the judge rules for the state, I can see all sorts of momentum toward making it a national law that would bind everybody to this kind of censorship.

I wonder if I'm overreaching there.

I suspect that given the Hollywood Lobby, this is a CA specific bit of lunacy.
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
89,953
Reaction score
22,270
Points
2,180
Location
in between
Just a reminder folks - let's not derail the thread. The OP is rather specific, a law in California.
 

Iceweasel

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2013
Messages
43,343
Reaction score
6,431
Points
1,870
Location
Washington State
California "You can't film me without my authorization..."

Wow, dumb move then creates a situation and has no insurance and expired registration. It hurts to be stupid.

I don't think the privacy law will stand the test of time in court.

Sorry Coyote, I was watching the flick before you posted.
 
OP
Foxfyre

Foxfyre

Eternal optimist
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Messages
56,446
Reaction score
19,940
Points
2,290
Location
Desert Southwest USA
When you apply for any job, age can't be ask for...
That is true. Do you think that same concept is okay re the new California law then?
Yes, since actors use publicity to promotye their career..I have had age discrimination played on me and it is devastating to one's ego and mental health..
I have experienced age discrimination too. And before I lost weight, I have had weight discrimination pulled on me when I was applying for a job in which that should make no difference at all. Frustrating? Yes. Embarrassing? Yes. But devastating or damaging to my mental health? Hell no.

The fact is that birth records, census records, marriages, divorces, name changes, convictions, etc. are all a matter of public record. Anybody who seriously wants to know how old somebody is only has to look it up. It is not difficult to do. In the 1970's immigration laws were enforced and we employers were required to vierify citizenship of those we hired so we requested passports, dirver's licenses, birth certificates etc., all of which show a person's age. Even now an employer can ask to see a valid driver's license or passport if the job requires driving or travel outside the country. And it isn't as iff they can't guess pretty close just by looking.

I think it is a silly law. I can't remember ever considering how old an actor and actress is when I choose to watch a movie, and I'm pretty darn sure the producers and directors in the film industry know how old actors and actresses are. And I'm pretty sure they cast them on appearance more than age. The guys do have an advantage there, but that's the way it is.

It would be silly to cast somebody like me in the role of a teenager or young mother. And it would be silly to consider somebody like Richard Dryfuss, Danny Devito, Dustin Hoffman, all short actors, or somebody like me for a role as a player in the NBA. Yes it is discrimination but sometimes discrimination makes sense and just has to be.
 
OP
Foxfyre

Foxfyre

Eternal optimist
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Messages
56,446
Reaction score
19,940
Points
2,290
Location
Desert Southwest USA
It's rather hypocritical. Considering that CA is home to some of the biggest violators of individual privacy that have ever existed (Google, Facebook, Yahoo..for starters), the genie is already of of the bottle when it comes to public disclosure of a public personality's age.

SRSLY
I think a Californian's perspective on this should probably carry more clout than that of us on the outside who are just observing. And if what happens in California stays in California, so be it.

But in this case, if the judge rules for the state, I can see all sorts of momentum toward making it a national law that would bind everybody to this kind of censorship.

I wonder if I'm overreaching there.

I suspect that given the Hollywood Lobby, this is a CA specific bit of lunacy.
Oh no doubt given how silly the law actually is. And how ineffecive it is to accomplish what it is supposed to accomplish. I actually don't go to that particular website for information on actors or actresses. It is available many other places including Wikipedia where I suspect most go for that kind of information on celebrities..

My concern is that if the court should uphold the law in this case, it could start a chain reaction that involves much more of our liberties than involves a single website and Hollywood.

I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I do learn from watching how these things happen over the decades.
 

Grandma

Geezer Chick
Joined
Dec 30, 2011
Messages
9,069
Reaction score
2,829
Points
360
Location
Under The Sky
Age discrimination is very real and very serious in California's film industry. Most women find their careers over by age 25 -30. Men can hang on until around 40-45.

Lying about their age won't help the problem.

Strong anti-discrimination laws will.

The problem is that there's no way to enforce the laws, because films are considered art/entertainment, and as such the content is up to the artist/director.

In any other country you'll see leads played by people of all ages - and looks too. Only in America are the leads young and impossibly good-looking.

A law infringing upon freedom of the press is definitely not the way to go.

Maybe if we as consumers insisted on movies like The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel and tv shows like what the BBC sends to us via PBS, maybe then Hollyweird would hire more realistic casts.
 
OP
Foxfyre

Foxfyre

Eternal optimist
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Messages
56,446
Reaction score
19,940
Points
2,290
Location
Desert Southwest USA
Age discrimination is very real and very serious in California's film industry. Most women find their careers over by age 25 -30. Men can hang on until around 40-45.

Lying about their age won't help the problem.

Strong anti-discrimination laws will.

The problem is that there's no way to enforce the laws, because films are considered art/entertainment, and as such the content is up to the artist/director.

In any other country you'll see leads played by people of all ages - and looks too. Only in America are the leads young and impossibly good-looking.

A law infringing upon freedom of the press is definitely not the way to go.

Maybe if we as consumers insisted on movies like The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel and tv shows like what the BBC sends to us via PBS, maybe then Hollyweird would hire more realistic casts.
As a very young girl, I used to go to the Saturday matinee in our small town and there was always a double feature western. I was so thrilled when the star was Roy Rogers or Hopalong Cassidy or Audie Murphy or Lash Larue, all of whom I thought were dreamy. I was always disappointed when the star was Randolph Scott or Gene Autry or Johnny Mack Brown, all of whom were unappealing to me even as a prepubescent child. I was extremely discriminatory even at that very tender age.

When I buy a painting, I want one that thrills me, interests me, excites me, pleases me. And I don't buy the painting that doesn't despite whatever hardship that imposes on the artist whose paintings do no sell. If everybody had my tastes, there would probably be a lot more starving artists. But bad art is not something I think I should have to accept just because it discriminates against certain artists.

And now when I watch a movie, it is to escape.into an imaginary but believable exciting or mysterious or romantic world. And while I want the characters to be believable, I want them to be appealing to me. I don't want a ho hum, everyday romantic lead. I want to imagine what it would be to be that gorgeous woman and I want my heart to be able to go pitter pat because the male lead is so appealing. If they were not, they would not be so believable. And I would not likely be interested in buying a ticket to see the movie or buying the DVD or Bluray or even tuning in to that movie on demand on our cable TV. And every movie I don't see or buy or tune into costs somebody some royalities.

Movie producers don't make movies for the purpose of giving actors and actresses jobs. They make movies for the purpose of appealing enough to the public that the public will pay to see the movie and thereby those who risk major dollars to produce the movie can realize a profit. The fact that the movies provide employment for countless actors and actresses is just one of the side effects of movie making.

I'll probably go right on expecting and appreciating the right people to be cast in the roles in the movies I will love. If our culture should change to make ugly actors and actresses more appealing and we no longer require the characters in our movies to be believable and age appropriate, then there will be more roles for people no matter how they look or how old they are. Until then. . . . . .

.
 
Last edited:

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,298
Reaction score
3,300
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
In an unusual and little publicized recent action, the California legislature recently passed a law making it illegal for a particular media oriented website to publicize an actor or actress's age if the subject requested their age not be published.

The measure addressed complaints that older actors and actresses are discriminated against and are no longer considered for the best roles. Women in particular are discriminated against while men generally are less punished for getting older..

The target of the law, IMDb, has sued challenging the law as a violation of free speech.

Normally I would note such a story as mildly interesting and move on, but my instincts tell me this one could go all the way to the Supreme Court of the U.S. if the judge rules in favor of the state. And, as these things go, such a precedent could spread into many other areas.

The way the world has gone for the last several decades, based on such a precedent, I can see equal protection laws extend far beyond the film industry to unflattering photos of anybody, comments on their weight or height or marital status, temperament, or anything that might impact them negatively. And while that would certainly result in a more pleasant environment on line for instance, it would also restrict free speech to ridiculous lengths.

What say you?


Revealing an actor's age is illegal? IMDb website sues California

By Alex Dobuzinskis
November 11, 2016

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Many actors think there ought to be a law against posting their ages online, and California this year obliged critics of ageism in Hollywood by passing a law targeting a leading movie and television information website.

The law has been challenged in a lawsuit by the company IMDb, which is owned by Amazon.com Inc and operates a repository of information on the film and television industry.

The lawsuit, filed on Thursday in federal court for the Northern District of California, alleges that the measure violates free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution.

Supporters described the law as an effort to prevent age discrimination. It requires officials at IMDb.com to remove from the website the ages of figures in the entertainment industry, including actors and directors, if those individuals request the deletion.

Actors in Hollywood have long complained they are passed over for roles as they get older.

Female performers in particular say a double standard gives women fewer opportunities as they age, while men can still land leading parts late in their careers.

"By the time you're 28 you're expired, you're playing mommy roles," actress Zoe Saldana, now 38 and female lead of the blockbuster film "Guardians of the Galaxy," told The Telegraph in 2014.

The lawsuit said the law, known as AB 1687, was unfair because it was carefully tailored to apply only to IMDb.com Inc, which is incorporated in Delaware and has offices in Seattle, and not other sources of information. . . .
Revealing an actor's age is illegal? IMDb website sues California
Foxfyre
If people in a District or State pass a law for themselves to follow, that's fine, but I WOULD include the adherents agree NOT to work for or patronize companies that discriminate by age.

If you make your money off exploiting images of perfect youth and agelessness, then you are hypocrites and part of the problem.

Watch where you work and put your money.

Start there with changing policy.
And maybe we won't have this problem so much.

I wouldn't agree to passing laws restricting free speech of people outside that agreement who don't consent.

The whole industry needs to change, so I'd start there. Make your own companies and networks, support writers and producers who create roles and jobs for unique people and not stereotypes if you oppose those.

Don't make money off the hype then complain it's discriminatory.

Look at GeenaDavis setting up her own media Institute for addressing perceptions and stereotypes. Support jobs there, and get away from any practice you see as capitalizing and discriminating unfairly.

Democratize the media. DIY.
Then you have direct power over passing and enforcing policies that you follow control and believe in yourself!
 
Last edited:

Moonglow

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
157,529
Reaction score
21,785
Points
2,220
Location
sw mizzouri
In an unusual and little publicized recent action, the California legislature recently passed a law making it illegal for a particular media oriented website to publicize an actor or actress's age if the subject requested their age not be published.

The measure addressed complaints that older actors and actresses are discriminated against and are no longer considered for the best roles. Women in particular are discriminated against while men generally are less punished for getting older..

The target of the law, IMDb, has sued challenging the law as a violation of free speech.

Normally I would note such a story as mildly interesting and move on, but my instincts tell me this one could go all the way to the Supreme Court of the U.S. if the judge rules in favor of the state. And, as these things go, such a precedent could spread into many other areas.

The way the world has gone for the last several decades, based on such a precedent, I can see equal protection laws extend far beyond the film industry to unflattering photos of anybody, comments on their weight or height or marital status, temperament, or anything that might impact them negatively. And while that would certainly result in a more pleasant environment on line for instance, it would also restrict free speech to ridiculous lengths.

What say you?


Revealing an actor's age is illegal? IMDb website sues California

By Alex Dobuzinskis
November 11, 2016

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Many actors think there ought to be a law against posting their ages online, and California this year obliged critics of ageism in Hollywood by passing a law targeting a leading movie and television information website.

The law has been challenged in a lawsuit by the company IMDb, which is owned by Amazon.com Inc and operates a repository of information on the film and television industry.

The lawsuit, filed on Thursday in federal court for the Northern District of California, alleges that the measure violates free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution.

Supporters described the law as an effort to prevent age discrimination. It requires officials at IMDb.com to remove from the website the ages of figures in the entertainment industry, including actors and directors, if those individuals request the deletion.

Actors in Hollywood have long complained they are passed over for roles as they get older.

Female performers in particular say a double standard gives women fewer opportunities as they age, while men can still land leading parts late in their careers.

"By the time you're 28 you're expired, you're playing mommy roles," actress Zoe Saldana, now 38 and female lead of the blockbuster film "Guardians of the Galaxy," told The Telegraph in 2014.

The lawsuit said the law, known as AB 1687, was unfair because it was carefully tailored to apply only to IMDb.com Inc, which is incorporated in Delaware and has offices in Seattle, and not other sources of information. . . .
Revealing an actor's age is illegal? IMDb website sues California
Foxfyre
If people in a District or State pass a law for themselves to follow, that's fine, but I WOULD include the adherents agree NOT to work for or patronize companies that discriminate by age.

If you make your money off exploiting images of perfect youth and agelessness, then you are hypocrites and part of the problem.

Watch where you work and put your money.

Start there with changing policy.
And maybe we won't have this problem so much.

I wouldn't agree to passing laws restricting free speech of people outside that agreement who don't consent.

The whole industry needs to change, so I'd start there. Make your own companies and networks, support writers and producers who create roles and jobs for unique people and not stereotypes if you oppose those.

Don't make money off the hype then complain it's discriminatory.

Look at GeenaDavis setting up her own media Institute for addressing perceptions and stereotypes. Support jobs there, and get away from any practice you see as capitalizing and discriminating unfairly.

Democratize the media. DIY.
Then you have direct power over passing and enforcing policies that you follow control and believe in yourself!
Or..start yor own production company and make movies that way..Where you can make stories involving yourself in an age appropriate role...
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top