Pittsburgh Arts, Regional Theatre, New Work, Producing, Copyright, Labor Unions,
New Products, Coping Skills, J-O-Bs...
Theatre industry news, University & School of Drama Announcements, plus occasional course support for
Carnegie Mellon School of Drama Faculty, Staff, Students, and Alumni.
CMU School of Drama
Wednesday, February 21, 2018
California's IMDb Age Censorship Law Declared Unconstitutional
Hollywood Reporter: A California law that allowed actors to forbid IMDb from posting their ages may have been well intentioned, but on Tuesday, a federal judge declared it not only to be unconstitutional, but also a bad solution to the wrong problem.
4 comments:
Anonymous
said...
I always understood that if I wanted to be an actor there would be a point in my life where my life would no longer be my own but that of my fan base. That is a hard pill to swallow for many people who want to act, or even perform. The ruling here hits it on the head. Age related information posted on a website is not a violation of a person’s privacy, given that person is a public figure. Actors are no different from politicians in regards to public vs private information. We are not talking NPPI or Non Public Private Info, such as an actor’s social security number. What is more interesting is that the judge’s opinion included a direct statement on sex discrimination in Hollywood. By addressing the issue of age discrimination, the judge turned the matter on its head and stated the real reason behind it all, mainly that women in hollywood are underpaid, missing from the directors chair, and are often replaced by their younger counterparts when they pass a certain age. Judge Chhabria does not hold back in his anger against what he sees as a veiled attempt at further discrimination. In his opinion, he states that if California wanted to prevent age discrimination, it should start with the way hollywood operates and not by going after a websites free speech. Honesty, if an actor doesn’t want their age known, they shouldn’t be on social media. Better yet, tell everyone your age and work to demand changes in the system that put more women in the director's chair and allow older women to fill those roles opposite an older leading man instead of going for the younger one. Makes sense to me.
This is a lot to unpack in such a brief article, and the author does an excellent job of quoting all relevant parts of the case that are necessary for quick and thorough explanation. I am surprised that the law was repealed on the basis that it was because it could easily be equated that gender and age are interdependent in the entertainment industry. The article doesn’t go too far into this matter, but it is brought up in the quotations of the case. Sure, the larger issue is definitely women being objectified as the case states, but if ages aren’t known, it doesn’t allow for the casting staff to pin both things against them. It is sort of a double standard as the article mentions this does not often happen to men in the same way, but men could also be affected by this ageism in different, less destructive, ways.
If you are an actor, particularly in the television and film industry, there are little parts of your life that are private to the public eye, however the age is one thing that is openly public. Public records are available to the public (hence the term “public records”) for legitimately every single person, regardless of their profession, and these records include their age. If the real reason for creating stringent rules on age was solely based on the desire to hide one age, that would be the valid argument, however its not that simple. I think this article does a great job of highlighting the intricateness of age and gender and how their is a lack of parity when the two work together. It is definitely an interesting point that I had not previously thought of as being so dependent on one another, but the acknowledgement of this comes at such a key point in change within the industry that it is definitely something to consider going forward.
I feel conflicted over the information this article provides. I personally like the IMDb website because it allows you to find information on movies and connect actors to different pieces. However, it also has a fair of information that I and many people in America would not normally give to the world. I understand both sides of the argument but what I do not like is declaring it as unconstitutional. I think the law is constitutional, but not for the reason they want the law to pass. The first thing that popped into my mind when they said it is unconstitutional based on the first amendment led me to think that they need to get rid of some laws then. The first amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” which means that on the bases of this case they can argue freedom of speech. However, the law: “P.L. 84-140” as is also unconstitutional and has been since it was signed it was signed into law on July 30, 1956 by president Eisenhower. This law allows religion to be placed on our currency and requires as such to be done; even when the law states that “Congress shall make no law respecting and establishment of religion” yet they establish religion on legal tender, effectively connecting it to our government. If this is to remain legal than they cannot argue in full confidence that this law about IMDb is unconstitutional on this basis. The First Amendment was also passed as part of the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791 which includes the Fourth Amendment containing, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” This amendment claims that every person has “The right of the people to be secure in their persons” which includes age as part of one’s person is the amount of time they have lived. So, not passing this law since it has officially been created is actually unconstitutional on the ground of the Fourth Amendment. Finally, the Constitution itself claims every person has the right to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” which means not passing this law is unconstitutional on the ground of the Constitution. Not passing this law effectively goes against the fourth amendment and the constitution as the right to privacy is being ignored and invaded while also detracting from allowing people to further pursue happiness as their right to privacy is being violated. If it is violated once, it will be violated again.
4 comments:
I always understood that if I wanted to be an actor there would be a point in my life where my life would no longer be my own but that of my fan base. That is a hard pill to swallow for many people who want to act, or even perform. The ruling here hits it on the head. Age related information posted on a website is not a violation of a person’s privacy, given that person is a public figure. Actors are no different from politicians in regards to public vs private information. We are not talking NPPI or Non Public Private Info, such as an actor’s social security number. What is more interesting is that the judge’s opinion included a direct statement on sex discrimination in Hollywood. By addressing the issue of age discrimination, the judge turned the matter on its head and stated the real reason behind it all, mainly that women in hollywood are underpaid, missing from the directors chair, and are often replaced by their younger counterparts when they pass a certain age. Judge Chhabria does not hold back in his anger against what he sees as a veiled attempt at further discrimination. In his opinion, he states that if California wanted to prevent age discrimination, it should start with the way hollywood operates and not by going after a websites free speech. Honesty, if an actor doesn’t want their age known, they shouldn’t be on social media. Better yet, tell everyone your age and work to demand changes in the system that put more women in the director's chair and allow older women to fill those roles opposite an older leading man instead of going for the younger one. Makes sense to me.
This is a lot to unpack in such a brief article, and the author does an excellent job of quoting all relevant parts of the case that are necessary for quick and thorough explanation. I am surprised that the law was repealed on the basis that it was because it could easily be equated that gender and age are interdependent in the entertainment industry. The article doesn’t go too far into this matter, but it is brought up in the quotations of the case. Sure, the larger issue is definitely women being objectified as the case states, but if ages aren’t known, it doesn’t allow for the casting staff to pin both things against them. It is sort of a double standard as the article mentions this does not often happen to men in the same way, but men could also be affected by this ageism in different, less destructive, ways.
If you are an actor, particularly in the television and film industry, there are little parts of your life that are private to the public eye, however the age is one thing that is openly public. Public records are available to the public (hence the term “public records”) for legitimately every single person, regardless of their profession, and these records include their age. If the real reason for creating stringent rules on age was solely based on the desire to hide one age, that would be the valid argument, however its not that simple. I think this article does a great job of highlighting the intricateness of age and gender and how their is a lack of parity when the two work together. It is definitely an interesting point that I had not previously thought of as being so dependent on one another, but the acknowledgement of this comes at such a key point in change within the industry that it is definitely something to consider going forward.
I feel conflicted over the information this article provides. I personally like the IMDb website because it allows you to find information on movies and connect actors to different pieces. However, it also has a fair of information that I and many people in America would not normally give to the world. I understand both sides of the argument but what I do not like is declaring it as unconstitutional. I think the law is constitutional, but not for the reason they want the law to pass.
The first thing that popped into my mind when they said it is unconstitutional based on the first amendment led me to think that they need to get rid of some laws then. The first amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” which means that on the bases of this case they can argue freedom of speech. However, the law: “P.L. 84-140” as is also unconstitutional and has been since it was signed it was signed into law on July 30, 1956 by president Eisenhower. This law allows religion to be placed on our currency and requires as such to be done; even when the law states that “Congress shall make no law respecting and establishment of religion” yet they establish religion on legal tender, effectively connecting it to our government. If this is to remain legal than they cannot argue in full confidence that this law about IMDb is unconstitutional on this basis.
The First Amendment was also passed as part of the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791 which includes the Fourth Amendment containing, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” This amendment claims that every person has “The right of the people to be secure in their persons” which includes age as part of one’s person is the amount of time they have lived. So, not passing this law since it has officially been created is actually unconstitutional on the ground of the Fourth Amendment.
Finally, the Constitution itself claims every person has the right to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” which means not passing this law is unconstitutional on the ground of the Constitution. Not passing this law effectively goes against the fourth amendment and the constitution as the right to privacy is being ignored and invaded while also detracting from allowing people to further pursue happiness as their right to privacy is being violated.
If it is violated once, it will be violated again.
Post a Comment