• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

AlbqOwl

AlbqOwl

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
23,580
Reaction score
12,388
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Normally I would scan an article like this, think it mildly interesting, and move on. But my instincts tell me that if the judge finds for the state, this one could go all the way to the Supreme Court of the U.S. and a precedent set there would likely be expanded to include uncomplimentary photographs or comment on any personal aspect of anybody that could impact that person negatively: height, weight, gender, sexual orientation, religion, marital status, etc. etc. all in the name of equal protection laws. And while that would make us a very unoffensive society, that would be a severe impingement of the First Amendment.

What say you?

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. . . .​


[/INDENT]
https://www.yahoo.com/news/revealin...bsite-sues-california-195131697--finance.html
 
More childishness from the left. Ages are public record. These people need to grow the hell up.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Normally I would scan an article like this, think it mildly interesting, and move on. But my instincts tell me that if the judge finds for the state, this one could go all the way to the Supreme Court of the U.S. and a precedent set there would likely be expanded to include uncomplimentary photographs or comment on any personal aspect of anybody that could impact that person negatively: height, weight, gender, sexual orientation, religion, marital status, etc. etc. all in the name of equal protection laws. And while that would make us a very unoffensive society, that would be a severe impingement of the First Amendment.

What say you?

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. . . .​


[/INDENT]
https://www.yahoo.com/news/revealin...bsite-sues-california-195131697--finance.html
Click to expand...

What kind of nonsense is this? That is unbelievably stupid.
 
I don't really care. I don't see what business I have knowing somebody's age, or why it matters, unless they are running for president. Ageism is a problem in many industries, not just in Hollywood.
 
TheGoverness said:
What kind of nonsense is this? That is unbelievably stupid.
Click to expand...

Well I hope you are referring to the thread topic and not the thread itself. :)

But seriously, I think California should be able to do whatever they wish in such matters so long as it doesn't affect the rest of us. Though restricting that particular website would deprive me of finding out some information on my favorite stars but oh well. I have no constitutional right to such information. In other words, what happens in California and stays in California is their business and not mine.

But. . .I do see this as a dangerous precedent that others might use to make such as this a national law and expand it to anything negative about anybody. And that would be a restriction on my First Amendment rights.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Normally I would scan an article like this, think it mildly interesting, and move on. But my instincts tell me that if the judge finds for the state, this one could go all the way to the Supreme Court of the U.S. and a precedent set there would likely be expanded to include uncomplimentary photographs or comment on any personal aspect of anybody that could impact that person negatively: height, weight, gender, sexual orientation, religion, marital status, etc. etc. all in the name of equal protection laws. And while that would make us a very unoffensive society, that would be a severe impingement of the First Amendment.

What say you?

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. . . .​


[/INDENT]
https://www.yahoo.com/news/revealin...bsite-sues-california-195131697--finance.html
Click to expand...

It would seem they are claiming age discrimination in hiring for acting roles. I can actually understand that, frankly. I cannot put my age on a resume. Employers can't ask. That information is available if one searches for it. But it's NOT easily obtainable. Why is it then okay for a professional website for actors to post ages? I think it's a legitimate beef.
 
Cephus said:
More childishness from the left. Ages are public record. These people need to grow the hell up.
Click to expand...

This is a good point. Birth records, that show the date of birth, are a matter of public record. As are census records. As are name changes. So it is rather silly to punish a single website or any other entity for citing somebody's age or anything else that is a matter of public record.
 
IMO this is all about digital privacy, and has less to do with being an "unoffensive" culture. In fact, that's a narrative that hurts your freedoms ultimately...sadly.

Keep in mind, if it was you the media was hounding for some misunderstanding, and you saw your life's work crumble around you...you might wonder how they are able to do so much damage to you without you having any recourse whatsoever. You could make a living ****ting on people, but you know, some things are OK to legislate against. Why don't conservatives want brothels in every strip mall? They would be...but conservatives like everyone else, draw the line in a zig-zag way.

If IMDB wants to gain money (however they gain money), by including my personal data, they can go **** themselves. I have not given facebook a damn thing, or twitter, etc.
IMO it is a shame conservatives are so pro freedom, and so oblivious to the staggering loss of freedom due to the internet, that the U.S. citizens have just rolled over for. Other countries have a wide variety of privacy laws that ensure neither government NOR corporations, can jack your ****.

You as a private citizen, should be able to license your information, in whatever granularity you want, to any of these theiving companies that profit quite literally off your data, and your behaviors...rather than you directly. You do get a ****ty website to talk to friends on though, by is it worth it!
 
AlbqOwl said:
Normally I would scan an article like this, think it mildly interesting, and move on. But my instincts tell me that if the judge finds for the state, this one could go all the way to the Supreme Court of the U.S. and a precedent set there would likely be expanded to include uncomplimentary photographs or comment on any personal aspect of anybody that could impact that person negatively: height, weight, gender, sexual orientation, religion, marital status, etc. etc. all in the name of equal protection laws. And while that would make us a very unoffensive society, that would be a severe impingement of the First Amendment.

What say you?

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. . . .​


[/INDENT]
https://www.yahoo.com/news/revealin...bsite-sues-california-195131697--finance.html
Click to expand...
I think this may depend upon age being a public record.

If age data is available from the public records (I believe it is), then there's certainly no case here.
 
AlbqOwl said:
This is a good point. Birth records, that show the date of birth, are a matter of public record. As are census records. As are name changes. So it is rather silly to punish a single website or any other entity for citing somebody's age or anything else that is a matter of public record.
Click to expand...

It's not silly. There is a difference between public record that is accessed from a public non-profit location, and certainly not a high traffic website, vs a public, very high traffic site, that profits FROM that information, and is often used as a tool to sift through for casting employment, etc.
 
California is the homeland of busy work laws. Seriously, you have an entire group of people that believe the government has to constantly be doing something. At some point to keep busy they're going to pass dumb laws.
 
AlbqOwl said:
This is a good point. Birth records, that show the date of birth, are a matter of public record. As are census records. As are name changes. So it is rather silly to punish a single website or any other entity for citing somebody's age or anything else that is a matter of public record.
Click to expand...

Especially when California has absolutely zero control over said website, which isn't even based in California! And the article is idiotic too. Zoe Saldana, who says she only qualifies for "mom roles", earned $1.2 million for Guardians of the Galaxy and will earn more for the second one. Sure, great "mom role" there. :roll:
 
MaggieD said:
It would seem they are claiming age discrimination in hiring for acting roles. I can actually understand that, frankly. I cannot put my age on a resume. Employers can't ask. That information is available if one searches for it. But it's NOT easily obtainable. Why is it then okay for a professional website for actors to post ages? I think it's a legitimate beef.
Click to expand...

I think for the same reason that news organizations can post the ages of those running for public office. The information IS available to the general public in the form of birth records, marriages, census records, name changes, etc. It is silly for a 40 year old woman to expect to be cast in the role of a much younger woman, etc. just as it is silly for Dustin Hoffman or Danny deVito or Richard Dreyfuss or me to be considered for the NBA. It is all discrimination but some discrimination is simply common sense.

It isn't as if those casting people in movie roles don't know how old they are.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Well I hope you are referring to the thread topic and not the thread itself. :)

But seriously, I think California should be able to do whatever they wish in such matters so long as it doesn't affect the rest of us. Though restricting that particular website would deprive me of finding out some information on my favorite stars but oh well. I have no constitutional right to such information. In other words, what happens in California and stays in California is their business and not mine.

But. . .I do see this as a dangerous precedent that others might use to make such as this a national law and expand it to anything negative about anybody. And that would be a restriction on my First Amendment rights.
Click to expand...

You bet. And I am pretty much in agreement with the rest of your post.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I think for the same reason that news organizations can post the ages of those running for public office. The information IS available to the general public in the form of birth records, marriages, census records, name changes, etc. It is silly for a 40 year old woman to expect to be cast in the role of a much younger woman, etc. just as it is silly for Dustin Hoffman or Danny deVito or Richard Dreyfuss or me to be considered for the NBA. It is all discrimination but some discrimination is simply common sense.

It isn't as if those casting people in movie roles don't know how old they are.
Click to expand...

And really, some roles are age related. Would you want someone grandma to be a twenty year old woman? It just makes no sense. Life is discriminatory, which is frankly something the left has to come to grips with.
 
I always lie about my personal data when browsing.

Why? Because I can and it's nobody's damn business.
 
Mach said:
IMO this is all about digital privacy, and has less to do with being an "unoffensive" culture. In fact, that's a narrative that hurts your freedoms ultimately...sadly.

Keep in mind, if it was you the media was hounding for some misunderstanding, and you saw your life's work crumble around you...you might wonder how they are able to do so much damage to you without you having any recourse whatsoever. You could make a living ****ting on people, but you know, some things are OK to legislate against. Why don't conservatives want brothels in every strip mall? They would be...but conservatives like everyone else, draw the line in a zig-zag way.

If IMDB wants to gain money (however they gain money), by including my personal data, they can go **** themselves. I have not given facebook a damn thing, or twitter, etc.
IMO it is a shame conservatives are so pro freedom, and so oblivious to the staggering loss of freedom due to the internet, that the U.S. citizens have just rolled over for. Other countries have a wide variety of privacy laws that ensure neither government NOR corporations, can jack your ****.

You as a private citizen, should be able to license your information, in whatever granularity you want, to any of these theiving companies that profit quite literally off your data, and your behaviors...rather than you directly. You do get a ****ty website to talk to friends on though, by is it worth it!
Click to expand...
I'm not going to dissect your post past that I bolded, but you may be correct in that.

Apparently, Europe has pretty strong privacy laws. I had a very unique experience with an individual I met through friends, recently. The guy was an expat Yank, who was returning to the States to live after nearly 4 decades abroad. In his youth he went to law school, got an offer right out of school to practice in Brussels, and became expat there until last year - only returning for visits but never residing back in the States. But when he took his retirement, he decided to come back.

He didn't know what a credit report was! Seriously. He claims it was a new term for him when he applied for a credit card after returning here. Apparently there's no such thing as public credit reports in Europe. He also claims most personal information used in Europe must be destroyed after a short period (6 mos). He was aghast at the lack of privacy and personal protection he returned to, and was not happy at all.

So as to your bolded, I believe there's truth in that.
 
nota bene said:
Here's a 2011 article: In Hollywood, Actors Still Lie About Their Age - ABC News

Here's a partial list of current stars busted for fibbing (but it doesn't include Margot Robbie):

Celebs caught lying about their age
Click to expand...

Well I have been guilty of the same in the past on the theory that in interacting with some, I would be seen and treated differently if they knew my real age. I'm not particularly proud of that, but it made sense to me at the time. But anybody who knows my full name can easily find the birth or census records, on line, to know how old I am. Not to mention that the information is included on our passport and driver's license that an employer can legitimately request to see if our job requires driving or out of country travel. As recently as 40 years ago employers were required to verify citizenship of the people they hired and that usually included request for a new hire's birth certificate. That could be the case again if laws against hiring illegals are again enforced.

In any case I suspect that it is not age but appearance that determines what roles actors and actresses are considered for. And it is true that men have an advantage there as the aging male actor is not seen to lose his sex appeal as quickly as the women do.
 
My opinion these actors need to grow up.

It's not even age discrimination its appearance discrimination. If you look the way the people casting for a part that is what matters. It's why some actors can play collage or high school parts into their late 20s and others can't. Just more silliness from spoiled put of touch with reality Hollywood
 
AlbqOwl said:
Normally I would scan an article like this, think it mildly interesting, and move on. But my instincts tell me that if the judge finds for the state, this one could go all the way to the Supreme Court of the U.S. and a precedent set there would likely be expanded to include uncomplimentary photographs or comment on any personal aspect of anybody that could impact that person negatively: height, weight, gender, sexual orientation, religion, marital status, etc. etc. all in the name of equal protection laws. And while that would make us a very unoffensive society, that would be a severe impingement of the First Amendment.

What say you?

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. . . .​


[/INDENT]
https://www.yahoo.com/news/revealin...bsite-sues-california-195131697--finance.html
Click to expand...

This could be awesome!!!!!!

Imagine being 25 again and then getting to stay that way for life just because the court said you can!!

:lamo
 
legalimmigrant said:
I always lie about my personal data when browsing.

Why? Because I can and it's nobody's damn business.
Click to expand...

Meh, on those age check things I always just tell the truth. Not because I care to be honest, but because I can't be arsed to lie. lol.
 
Mach said:
It's not silly. There is a difference between public record that is accessed from a public non-profit location, and certainly not a high traffic website, vs a public, very high traffic site, that profits FROM that information, and is often used as a tool to sift through for casting employment, etc.
Click to expand...

But where are you going to draw the line? At what point does a website become high traffic? And who has the legitimate authority to punish success in a society that prides itself on liberty?
 
Henrin said:
And really, some roles are age related. Would you want someone grandma to be a twenty year old woman? It just makes no sense. Life is discriminatory, which is frankly something the left has to come to grips with.
Click to expand...

Not just some on the left. Some on the right are just as adament in these cases. I don't see this particular issue as a left/right thing but is more of a common sense issue as well as First Amendment issue.
 
Lutherf said:
This could be awesome!!!!!!

Imagine being 25 again and then getting to stay that way for life just because the court said you can!!

:lamo
Click to expand...

Hmm.
I hadn't considered it from that point of view. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom