Appeals Court Says California's IMDb-Targeting 'Ageism' Law Is Unconstitutional (techdirt.com) 140
The state of California has lost again in its attempt to punish IMDb for ageism perpetrated by movie studios who seem to refuse to cast actresses above a certain age in choice roles. Techdirt reports: The law passed by the California legislature does one thing: prevents IMDb (and other sites, theoretically) from publishing facts about actors: namely, their ages. This stupid law was ushered into existence by none other than the Screen Actors Guild, capitalizing on a (failed) lawsuit brought against the website by an actress who claimed the publication of her real age cost her millions in Hollywood paychecks. These beneficiaries of the First Amendment decided there was just too much First Amendment in California. To protect actors from studio execs, SAG decided to go after a third-party site respected for its collection of factual information about movies, actors, and everything else film-related.
The federal court handling IMDb's lawsuit against the state made quick work of the state's arguments in favor of very selective censorship. In only six pages, the court destroyed the rationale offered by the government's finest legal minds. [...] Even if the law had somehow survived a First Amendment challenge, it still wouldn't have prevented studios from engaging in discriminatory hiring practices. If this was really the state's concerns, it would have stepped up its regulation of the entertainment industry, rather than a single site that was unsuccessfully sued by an actress, who speculated IMDb's publication of her age was the reason she wasn't landing the roles she wanted.
The federal court handling IMDb's lawsuit against the state made quick work of the state's arguments in favor of very selective censorship. In only six pages, the court destroyed the rationale offered by the government's finest legal minds. [...] Even if the law had somehow survived a First Amendment challenge, it still wouldn't have prevented studios from engaging in discriminatory hiring practices. If this was really the state's concerns, it would have stepped up its regulation of the entertainment industry, rather than a single site that was unsuccessfully sued by an actress, who speculated IMDb's publication of her age was the reason she wasn't landing the roles she wanted.
Strange (Score:2)
Federal judges must hate having to roll back California crazy laws. /s
I'm guessing most studios can practice ageism quite easily without having to check birth dates on IMDb.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah. For starters, you can just hit wikipedia for ages
Isn't "truth" a defence? (Score:5, Insightful)
So now if you publish a proven fact, you can get sued? I had thought that the USA was better than that... but I guess that proves me wrong. :-/
Re: (Score:3)
You can be sued for practically anything. Winning is a different story. Yes, she could (and did) sue IMDB. And she lost. Even your subject line hints at the fact you know this. If truth is a 'defense', what is it a defense against? LOSING a lawsuit.
California (Score:5, Interesting)
I knew a lawyer who like to tell a story about how, in law school, they did a mock trial where the lawyer cited a ruling in California regarding some obscure regulation. At the end of the trial, the professor said he did a good job with the cite, but never to cite any precedent or case law from California again, as it is so fundamentally different from the rest of the country, most judges wouldn't find it persuasive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:California (Score:4)
Citations (Score:2)
In a general sense you wouldn't want to cite case law from a different jurisdiction if there's anything relevant in the matter within the jurisdiction.
Right, from what I understand it was a case involving a purposefully obscure regulation that there isn't a lot of case law on. A kind of curveball in the practice trial. In that case, you can sometimes look out of jurisdiction to see other court's interpretation. It's not precedent, but you can use other cases as examples of particular legal reasoning, if it's relevant enough.
The issue the professor brought up, was that the "reasoning" part is particularly screwy in California. I'm guessing the professor us
Re: That is a really dumb and ignorant thing to sa (Score:2)
Please, oh great jurist give me five examples of how California is "screwy"
almost all the judges there are appointed by the governor.
Kinda answered yourself there, didn't ya.
Re: (Score:2)
This has always been the case, try publishing medical records, state secrets, etc. Ask Edward Snowden about how that worked out?
Now those are on a different level (though arguably the medical files does come closer) but the point is that there has always been "proven facts" that if published will get you into hot water.
Re: (Score:2)
But those are facts that have been given a protected status for the greater good. Can't publish your neighbor's medical history, can't publish the nuclear launch codes etc.
But age? That is a basic piece of information about a person on level with gender and hair color, and is usually discernible with your own eyes within a bracket (in her 30s, in her 40s etc.)
Re:Isn't "truth" a defence? (Score:5, Funny)
Truth is a defense against libel/slander, not against the California legal system.
Re: (Score:3)
This has always been the case, try publishing medical records, state secrets, etc.
There is not, in general, a law against people publishing either of those things. You are absolutely free, legally speaking, to publish any medical records, state secrets, or classified information you come across (you may still get into trouble of course, because the US government doesn't always care about legality, but that's a different story).
The reason a doctor or Snowden would get in trouble for publishing those things is because those individuals specifically are covered by law or contract as a cond
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with "proven facts" is not that they are demonstrable, but that they can be used to enable discriminatory decision making, and in cases like this, are rarely there to help you. Ageism in hiring is not just an issue for actresses, it's also a problem for engineers in tech companies. Still a developer in your mid-40s? Good luck: https://bdtechtalks.com/2019/0... [bdtechtalks.com]
If your country was better than it was, this would be less of an issue, but it isn't. There are, therefore, two ways around this: (1) pass
Re: (Score:2)
Nearly everyone's home address is listed on a local government website (eg, the county assessor's office or equivalent).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So isn't everyone doxxed by default then? How do people escape from bad situations by changing their address when the perpetrator can just look up their new one?
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of time doxxing is just finding out someone's true identity. Once that's known the websites I mentioned are what are used to find their addresses.
There's still some work in finding the proper locality to be searching in, but overall it's not that hard.
And if you don't own property it's harder, but in general the info is out there. Heck the old phone books used to list not only everyone's phone # but also an address next to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It must be very difficult for people trying to get out of bad relationships or away from harassment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Isn't "truth" a defence? (Score:4, Funny)
I knew I shouldn't have got that vanity phone number.
Re: (Score:2)
Finland lets you look up all of your neighbours tax returns, works fine.
Re: (Score:2)
But that's different from say if you are trying to get away from an abusive partner by moving to another town and they can just look up your new address online.
Punishing (Score:5, Insightful)
lost again in its attempt to punish IMDb for ageism perpetrated by movie studio
And there is one of the underlying problems. The issue isn't with IMDB, the issue is with the movie studios. Punish the movie studios. But, I'd imagine, they have quite a bit of pull with the California legislature.
Re:Punishing (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem is proving that the movie exec decided that an actress was too old. They can just use any number of other excuses, wasn't right for the part, and there is little anyone can do.
This is a common problem and laws usually seek to prevent the information reaching the decision maker in the first place, e.g. in the UK credit reference agencies can't report bankruptcies over 7 years ago. You could argue that the bank manager should just ignore that information but in practice they won't and blocking it is the best solution.
Re: (Score:3)
The democrats and hollywood will split if the democrats try to force the deep pocket movie investors to use old women instead of gorgeous starlets in their movies.
And that will never happen anymore than they will let actor and athlete giant salaries be taxed more heavily because they are 1000x the salary of the company's janitor.
Re: (Score:3)
And that will never happen anymore than they will let actor and athlete giant salaries be taxed more heavily because they are 1000x the salary of the company's janitor.
Uh, those millionaire actors and athletes are taxed more heavily, because it's salary. It's the billionaires who are able to get out of taxes, because they get capital gains (or no taxes at all).
Of course, you can put all your income under capital gains too, but good luck making anywhere close to your normal salary that way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Salary vs. capital gains (Score:2)
Re:Punishing (Score:4, Informative)
The issue isn't that you can't prove the ageism. In a civil trial, the standard is "preponderance of evidence," which is to say, which side is more likely right. If a studio doesn't hire one actress over a certain age for starring roles, that's that actress, but if they don't hire any actresses over that age for any starring roles, it wouldn't be hard to convince a jury.
No, the problem is, if you sue the studio, you go from not getting any starring roles to not getting any roles at all.
The only unforgivable sin in Hollywood is losing money, and lawsuits always cost.
Re: (Score:2)
If a studio doesn't hire one actress over a certain age for starring roles, that's that actress
That was my point. There is no way to know what someone is thinking if they just say they didn't feel the actor was right for the role, so the best thing to do is just not tell them their age so that it can't possible be a factor.
Of course in practical terms they are likely to have some idea who the actor is and how long they have been acting, but even so not having a number written down on the CV in front of them has been shown to reduce bias. This is well established psychology.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't ageism anyway, it's lookism. These actresses were hired for their appearance.
And more importantly they are allowed to discriminate based on appearance as it is relevant to job.
Re: (Score:2)
Performance arts like that are one of those fields where there are real, compelling reasons for what is effectively discrimination by age, race and gender. Few people could realistically argue that a movie role that calls for a 6 year old girl should be played by a 50 year-old, 6' 3" male actor, for example. That said, it is fairly common for such a role to be played by a female actress several years older. Consider that, once upon a time, female parts were all played by men and women were forbidden to act
Re: (Score:2)
In cases like this you could argue that the gender or race of the character don't matter. I can't remember if race was ever mentioned in the books but it certainly wasn't an issue, and making the character female does little to alter their role in the story.
So sure, sometimes gender or race are an important factor but making Hermione black (as they did in a stage version) doesn't change anything.
Re: (Score:2)
I am reminded of a minor arc back in Desperate Housewives when Gabrielle wanted to revive her modeling career. She had a lot of trouble wrapping her head around the fact that she had gotten ~20 years older and was no longer the Perky Rebellious Teenager, but the Worried Parent in the background of the pictures.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think anyone should be punished for practising preference and freedom of association.
Ignoring that though, actresses are hired to please audience preference and audiences are all kinds of *ist. So *ism against protected classes in casting are because of occupational requirement and don't contravene the Civil Rights Act.
It's not their fault, it's ours.
Hollywood casting (maybe?) (Score:3)
If there wasn't ageism in Hollywood, we could see gems like Betty White (from "Golden Girls") take the lead role in "Legally Blonde" (a slightly clueless sorority girl goes to law school). That would be hilarious.
Re: Hollywood casting (maybe?) (Score:2)
I'd love to see a whole lot of grandma's cast as teenage girls and young woman. Not only would it be really progressive, imagine how their experience and talent would bring depth to the roles. I think the time they would have had to reflect on what it means to be a young woman would be really beneficial to the production value. Why has no one ever thought of this before!
Step 1 cast older ladies
Step 2 ???
Step 3 Profit!!!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Most discrimination laws do allow for things like casting needs, but when it comes to age it's all down to looks rather than actual age.
It's not uncommon for women to play characters much younger than they are in fact, especially when the character is a teenager. Alyson Hannigan was I think 24 when she started playing Willow on Buffy, who was about 16 in the first season. The gap just kept getting wider as she took on roles in movies like American Pie.
Older men don't seem to have trouble getting action role
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If thing you're missing the point - they publish the birthdates because they won the original appeal. If this law was still in effect they would no longer be able to publish that information.
Similarly, if the law were still in effect, Wikipedia would have the same legal issue as IMDB.
Re: (Score:2)
Similarly, if the law were still in effect, Wikipedia would have the same legal issue as IMDB.
Would it? Perhaps it would have to filter it out in some places, but there doesn't seem to be a reason for that in sane parts of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
If it were some island in the middle of nowhere that passed it, then sure they would, but generally when any sufficiently large region passes a law about Internet content the easiest path for most companies is just to comply regardless of locale. That's why even in the US we don't like the EU passing certain internet content laws.
If Wyoming had passed this law they probably wouldn't have worried that much, but California? We'd likely all see the complaint version.
It's the same reason products all over the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Plus, producers and casting directors don't check Wikipedia for a potential actor's credits.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Long story short, the government tried to skate by on the sophistry it was "business" communication, and therefore controllable, which was properly rejected because it had nothing to do with things like safety or fraud.
They didn't even bother getting to the more basic question of the government outlawing truthful speech.
This reminds me of the contentious Citizens Untited decision, where, ultimately there was a moment where a justice asked, "So, if it's a month before an election, and a company publishes a b
Lawsuit Actress (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
She played a named character in Watchmen. She was Miss Headmistress, first name: Vietnamese.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Not sure why we're beating around the bush on this one. It's Junie Hoang:
https://www.imdb.com/news/ni51... [imdb.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are a lot of movies made in which the specific age of the main characters isn't all that relevant. It just doesn't matter if the hero(ine) is 20 or 40 or 60. Some of those are big budget blockbusters.
It doesn't have to affect all productions to be illegal discrimination.
Re: (Score:2)
Who are you to decide what the story being told is? Because that's what you're trying to dictate, here. You may not care if the hero(ine) is ten, twenty, fifty, or a hundred--but the writer and director sure might care.
It's pretty easy to argue that "it doesn't matter if your sysadmin in 45 years old or 25 years old, male or female, as that doesn't affect the work." It's quite another thing entirely to say you have to cast Judy Dench for a role that should be an 18 year old stripper, and if that's a prob
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think anyone wants to dictate the story, the wish is just that the casting reflected the story requirements. Everyone understands you can't have a 50 year old play a teenage stripper, of a teenager play the Vice President.
There's no way it's a coincidence or strict story requirement that the female co-stars are 10-20 years younger than the male lead like Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford, or Denzel Washington [slate.com]. The reason is that the film makers think, not entirely incorrectly, that people prefer to look at
Re: (Score:2)
It's quite another thing entirely to say you have to cast Judy Dench for a role that should be an 18 year old stripper, and if that's a problem, you should just change your movie.
Well, if anyone says that then we can cut and paste your comment to where it is relevant instead of here, where it isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
It's quite another thing entirely to say you have to cast Judy Dench for a role that should be an 18 year old stripper, and if that's a problem, you should just change your movie.
Well, if anyone says that then we can cut and paste your comment to where it is relevant instead of here, where it isn't.
Here's what the GP said:
There are a lot of movies made in which the specific age of the main characters isn't all that relevant. It just doesn't matter if the hero(ine) is 20 or 40 or 60
GP has substituted his opinion of "doesn't matter" for that of the authors of the works. As such, I'd suggest my comment is not irrelevant, but YMMV.
You don't have any rights... (Score:3)
George Carlin said it best... you only have privileges.
The government can remove your rights at any moment. Your fellow citizens don't care.... well... unless it serves their politics.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't follow from this article, I have first amendment right to speak of a person's age if I know their birthday...see how that works?
Re: (Score:2)
I think the problem is "you" do not understand how it works.
You can still go and rob banks, murder people, and blow things up... but being able to do it all without the government trying to stop you or coming to arrest you for those crimes is the key detail here. Yes, you can still say someones age, but if you do it say when the laws says you can't or say... against a Judge's Gag order about a case you might be arrested and go to jail... so maybe you should be asking the "see how that works?" question to t
Re: (Score:2)
I bet you think America is a Democracy don't you (Pst... its a Constitutional Republic).
That's about as relevant as discussing kitchenware and saying "I bet you think that's a skillet (Pst... it's a climbing gear for an arctic expedition).
Saying American is not a Democracy (system whereby those in power are elected democratically) is just ignorance of the highest order, especially considering that a Constitutional Republic (State with an elected executive and representatives bound by a constitution) is by fucking definition a democracy.
Oh and taking a skillet with you on an arctic expedition i
Re: (Score:2)
I bet you think America is a Democracy don't you (Pst... its a Constitutional Republic).
A constitutional republic is a form of democracy, you braindead nut.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, but you can keep believing that if you like...
You can bring a horse to water...
Re: You don't have any rights... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can still go and rob banks, murder people, and blow things up.
Those are illegal activities and are not covered by the Bill of Rights. You are trying to compare a legal act covered by the Bill of Rights to a series of illegal acts not covered by the Bill of Rights as if they are the same thing and that is both stupid and dishonest.
Re: You don't have any rights... (Score:2)
Many things can be decreed legal or illegal acts.
Re: (Score:2)
I will take things that went over peoples heads for 500, Alex
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't follow from this article, I have first amendment right to speak of a person's age if I know their birthday...see how that works?
I don't think you understood the parent, or George Carlin.
You have things called "rights", but they are only privileges granted at the pleasure of the state because the state can easily change the law to remove those "rights"
Re: (Score:2)
in the USA the government has had its actions overturned, prevented and rebuked because of "rights" so I disagree that what we have is like that. Most places in the world have those "at the please of state" type of "rights", but it is different here however imperfect the implementation.
Absolute statements are almost always wrong (Score:2)
Things like "Too much First/Second/Fifth/... Amendment" is nonsensical. It's possible to have too much of *anything*.
Moreover, do you guys remember that these are *amendments*? You know, changes to the constitution, because they didn't get it right the first time? It's not a holy book. It's a work in progress.
Free speech isn't an absolute good (the fire in a theater example is the trivial proof of this). Limits on it, and on all freedoms, are sensible in a free society.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the REAL PROBLEM is that there is no enough of any of those things that we call Constitutional Amendments. Remember... they are designed to ahem "limit" and no one in power wants those so those in power are constantly working to destroy them.
And don't you worry your head about the "work in progress" it's practically destroyed already. Name a single right that the government in some way does not regularly abuse on a daily basis? Even during the Floyd riots both sides have been killing and disrespe
Re: (Score:2)
You are perhaps unaware that the Supremes ruled that FALSE statements aren't necessarily protected by the First, but that TRUE statements were.
In other words, publishing whatsername's birth date is protected speech.
And you're probably unaware that the "falsely yelling fire in a theatre" was partially overturned (the final resolution was that fre
Re: (Score:2)
"SCOTUS" = Nine old judges that rule on the constitutionality of shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, sort of.
The Bill of Rights (first ten amendments) are special.
The original constitution spelled out the powers of the government. The Bill of Rights were passed 3 years after the original constitution and were specifically there to spell out things that the government COULD NOT do. It was there to protect the rights of the citizens.
And truthfully the process to add an amendment is such a high bar that I don't think it'd be possible at all in today's political climate. We're far to polarized at the
Re: (Score:2)
But others wanted to double down and make sure that some of the most basic and important ones were enshrined in constitutional text so that there would be no uncertainty.....
Thank goodness they did....!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Thank goodness they did....!!!
That's debatable.
One of the arguments against the bill of rights is that it would come to be seen as an exhaustive list of rights, rather than a list of examples. See amendments nine and ten as an attempt to assuage those concerns.
Of course, amendments nine and ten, like most of the others, are ignored on a regular basis by both the federal government and the courts, and we end up in a situation where we have arguments about how "congress shall make no law," or "shall not be infringed," or "twice put in je
Re: (Score:2)
Some of the founders argued that the BOR wasn't needed, that the Constitution basically says ALL rights are inherent to being human....
The problem being that some of them had a different definition of "human".
Re: (Score:2)
Things like "Too much First/Second/Fifth/... Amendment" is nonsensical.
It was also sarcasm.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
'Fire in a theater example' is trivial proof that people don't understand free speech. Free speech does NOT mean that you are protected from the consequences of your speech, it means that the speech itself is not banned. There is no law against saying 'fire' in a theater. If you say 'fire' in a theater, and everyone ignores you, or everyone calmly heads for the exits, there is no problem. If you say 'fire' and there is a stampede for the exits and people get hurt, there is a problem. The problem is not
Re: Absolute statements are almost always wrong (Score:2)
Free speech does NOT mean that you are protected from the consequences of your speech
Yes it does. That's the very definition of free speech. If a government-sanctioned thug can smash you in the face with a baton because he doesn't like what you're saying, you do not have free speech. The fact that fools keep suggesting otherwise is truly horrifying.
Re: (Score:2)
What does the 'fire' example have to do with getting smashed in the face with a baton? You aren't 'smashed in the face' because someone 'didnt like what you said', you are smashed in the face because your actions caused harm to other people. You have a right to free speech. You have no right to cause harm to others, even if that harm is caused by your speech. It is not that difficult of a concept.
Re: Absolute statements are almost always wrong (Score:2)
What does the 'fire' example have to do with getting smashed in the face with a baton?
Nothing, it's a stupid example which should probably be avoided in discussions of free speech. The legal protection for that specific action in the US is significantly different than in the rest of the world, and most people aren't aware that it is actually protected speech in the US.
You have no right to cause harm to others, even if that harm is caused by your speech.
You absolutely do. If you know that Bob is a liar and a fraud, and you go around informing everyone of this fact, Bob may be financially harmed by your words. That doesn't mean you don't have a right to say it.
It is not that difficult of a concept.
Really? Then
Re: (Score:2)
Your 'Bob' example is false. Just because Bob considers it harm doesn't make it harm. The actual harm was caused by Bob himself being a liar and fraud. If, on the other hand, Bob was not a liar and fraud but you told everyone he was, that is harm (slander).
Why do so many people keep getting it wrong? Because they don't THINK, they just parrot something someone else said.
Re: Absolute statements are almost always wrong (Score:2)
Your 'Bob' example is false. Just because Bob considers it harm doesn't make it harm.
If you can't even agree to a common definition of harm, then I don't see how you can possibly try to legislate speech based on it. This is some 1984 shit right here.
Why do so many people keep getting it wrong? Because they don't THINK, they just parrot something someone else said.
And yet here you are trying to think, and still getting it all completely wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Free speech does NOT mean that you are protected from the consequences of your speech
Yes it does. That's the very definition of free speech. If a government-sanctioned thug can smash you in the face with a baton because he doesn't like what you're saying, you do not have free speech. The fact that fools keep suggesting otherwise is truly horrifying.
Okay let's get more specific then you are only protected from the governments reactions to your speech. Freedom of speech stops the government from sanctioning the thug, and if working correctly will result in the thug being prosecuted for assault. The fire example is completely different as people are getting hurt as a result of a reasonably foreseeable and lawful reaction to you yelling fire. Hence you are responsible for the people getting hurt.
Re: What thugs? (Score:2)
People can still hate you â" although the government is still obligated to protect you from the haters' criminal acts.
I never suggested otherwise.
A rather dubious example... What "government-sanctioned thug"? The only thing I can think of, that remotely qualifies, are the college-administrators, who could expel a student â" or even a professor â" over their speech.
To some extent HR departments, firing people for speech to avoid lawsuits for "creating hostile environment" may qualify too, but "thug" is a bit harsh a term for them.
Is that, what you meant?
If you can't think of better examples, you're severely lacking in the imagination department. Those clearly aren't even remotely close to what I said. They certainly do have a chilling effect on free speech, though, and are good examples of how speech can suppressed outside of government action.
Re: (Score:2)
>Moreover, do you guys remember that these are *amendments*? You know,
>changes to the constitution, because they didn't get it right the first time?
Uh, no. Just, no.
The debate was about whether or not there *should* be a Bill of Rights in this manner, not over whether they existed already, but out of concern that enumerating them would suggest that they were the *only* rights that mattered.
Ultimately, a Bill of Rights was promised to get some states to ratify and reach the needed nine states.
The firs
It's not the age, it's the look (Score:2)
So the studios are essentially saying if an actress is 60 but looks 40, they won't get the job, but if they're 40 and look 60 they will?
Yeah, right.
Re: (Score:2)
Union, not studios. D'oh!
I'm not a lawyer.... (Score:2)
I'm not a lawyer and I knew it was blatantly unconstitutional. Really, this isn't hard.
Plans (Score:2)
Now I know who to look up on Pornhub over lunch today.
IMDB should not have been the target (Score:3)
If she lost Millions of Dollars in HOLLYWOOD paychecks, I think HOLLYWOOD should be the target of a lawsuit...
Privacy rights (Score:2)
I don't think this is a freedom of expression issue. It's a privacy issue. Publishing personal information about someone should not be protected by the First Amendment. On the other hand, I live in Canada where we do actually have privacy rights, so what do I know?
Re: Why? (Score:2)
Tell that to the cake shop people. Private company etc. Yet they got screwed.