Discrimination

[Moonglow]

When you apply for any job, age can't be ask for...

Bartender?

I was a bartender at 18, but the law has changed since then.

 

[Godboy]

When you apply for any job, age can't be ask for...

Bartender?

I was a bartender at 18, but the law has changed since then.

Did they ask your age to make sure you were 18? Im guessing you were required to provide an ID. Seems reasonable, right?

 

[Moonglow]

When you apply for any job, age can't be ask for...

Bartender?

I was a bartender at 18, but the law has changed since then.

Did they ask your age to make sure you were 18? Im guessing you were required to provide an ID. Seems reasonable, right?

Not at the first place I worked...Which was a front operation for a prostitution operation....But the state did make you get a liquor handling license...

 

[Vastator]

When you apply for any job, age can't be ask for...

Wanna bet? I think the porn biz would disagree...

 

[Godboy]

When you apply for any job, age can't be ask for...

Wanna bet? I think the porn biz would disagree...

I had to provide ID to prove i was old enough to work when i was 15.

 

[Foxfyre]

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for a particular media oriented website to publicize an actor or actress's age if the subject requested their age not be published.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!

In government it is important to include everybody as much as it is reasonable and practical to do.

But in private industry, if I had say $5 million dollars to invest in a film, I want to make a profit on that film. Sure I can demand that the producers and directors are non discriminatory in any way in who they employ as actors and for all the other hundreds of people who ultimately work together to create that film. But I cannot demand that the audience be non discriminatory in what movie they wish to see. And if they didn't like my very principled and ethically produced movie, I lose some or all of my $5 million dollars.

My goal would be to create a film that would attract a very large audience. If that means I am very discriminatroy in who I choose to produce it, direct it, act in it, and provide all the support services that ultimately make the film appealing or not, then so be it. I want the right to discriminate.

I am as gung go as it gets to give EVERYBODY opportunity wherever it makes sense to do so. But I won't risk all I have on what would very likely be a money losing proposition just to accomplish that. And I am pretty darn discriminatory in what movies I choose to spend my money on to watch too.

 

[emilynghiem]

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!

In government it is important to include everybody as much as it is reasonable and practical to do.

But in private industry, if I had say $5 million dollars to invest in a film, I want to make a profit on that film. Sure I can demand that the producers and directors are non discriminatory in any way in who they employ as actors and for all the other hundreds of people who ultimately work together to create that film. But I cannot demand that the audience be non discriminatory in what movie they wish to see. And if they didn't like my very principled and ethically produce movie, I lose some or all of my $5 million dollars.

My goal would be to create a film that would attract a very large audience. If that means I am very discriminatroy in who I choose to produce it, direct it, act in it, and provide all the support services that ultimately make the film appealing or not, then so be it. I want the right to discriminate.

Okay Foxfyre so people need to AGREE as you do,
that if discriminating is necessary to hype films for marketing,
then the actors need to AGREE to work on that basis.

One actor sued for being turned down for Superman because
of homosexual orientation, but that is not only hard to prove it was the only reason
and also isn't it the right of producers to select actors based on how they are hyped or presented in the media?

If Tom Huddleston loses contracts because of association with Taylor Swift,
isn't that the marketing decision of the companies selecting a spokes model?

I agree that people have the right to choose and cast models and actors/performers
as they see fit.

So as long as it isn't illegal slander or libel, defamation of character,
or posting private sex photos or information on children that invade privacy or security,
I would think they can agree on a policy that's fair.

And not start adding conditions not all people agree to.
If you lie about your age or other past to your employers,
you better be so good at what you do they don't care.

 

[Foxfyre]

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!

In government it is important to include everybody as much as it is reasonable and practical to do.

But in private industry, if I had say $5 million dollars to invest in a film, I want to make a profit on that film. Sure I can demand that the producers and directors are non discriminatory in any way in who they employ as actors and for all the other hundreds of people who ultimately work together to create that film. But I cannot demand that the audience be non discriminatory in what movie they wish to see. And if they didn't like my very principled and ethically produce movie, I lose some or all of my $5 million dollars.

My goal would be to create a film that would attract a very large audience. If that means I am very discriminatroy in who I choose to produce it, direct it, act in it, and provide all the support services that ultimately make the film appealing or not, then so be it. I want the right to discriminate.

Okay Foxfyre so people need to AGREE as you do,
that if discriminating is necessary to hype films for marketing,
then the actors need to AGREE to work on that basis.

One actor sued for being turned down for Superman because
of homosexual orientation, but that is not only hard to prove it was the only reason
and also isn't it the right of producers to select actors based on how they are hyped or presented in the media?

If Tom Huddleston loses contracts because of association with Taylor Swift,
isn't that the marketing decision of the companies selecting a spokes model?

I agree that people have the right to choose and cast models and actors/performers
as they see fit.

So as long as it isn't illegal slander or libel, defamation of character,
or posting private sex photos or information on children that invade privacy or security,
I would think they can agree on a policy that's fair.

And not start adding conditions not all people agree to.
If you lie about your age or other past to your employers,
you better be so good at what you do they don't care.

That's pretty much it. I can appreciate the frustration of the 30 year old who is turned down for a role for a much younger person. Kate Winslett was 19 when she got the role of 17-year-old Rose in "Titanic" and DiCaprio was in his early 20s when he was cast as Jack. They were quite believable in those roles. Would Susan Sarandon and Harrison Ford have been believable in those roles? I think not but both have been entirely believable in romantic roles for older actors.

The bottom line is that producers and directors are going try to cast believable, appealing, and salable actors in roles because a box office flop is not what they are shooting for. Those people who are now older than teenagers and young adults might fret that they are passed over for those roles, but what they need to be doing is finding people who will write compelling scripts for actors and actresses closer to their ages.

Meryl Streep and Robert Redford were no spring chickens when they were cast as Karen and Denys in "Out of Africa" but they were perfect for the romantic roles they played in that incredibly wonderful movie.

Those who demand to be qualified for what they are ill suited to do should not get what they want via the law or any other means.