IMDb Sues The State Of California Over New 'Ageism' Law
from the eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind dept
As was expected, IMDb is suing the state of California over its new "ageism" law. The law has its genesis in actress Junie Hoang's lawsuit against the website, in which she claimed that the site's publication of her actual age caused her to be passed over by producers looking for younger women.
The law, which becomes effective January 1, applies to database sites that allow paid subscribers to post resumes, headshots or other information for prospective employers. Only a paying subscriber can make a removal or non-publication request. Although the legislation may be most critical for actors, it applies to all entertainment job categories.
Although the law will (theoretically) apply to other database sites, it's really just a continuation of actress Junie Hoang's failed legal battle against IMDb. The narrowly-written law only applies to sites with paying subscribers, but it does allow those subscribers to alter facts or remove them completely.
As such, it's still a potential First Amendment issue. This is why IMDb is seeking to have the law ruled unconstitutional.
"IMDb shares the worthy goal of preventing age discrimination," writes attorney John C. Hueston in the complaint. "But AB 1687 is an unconstitutional law that does not advance, much less achieve, that goal. To the contrary, rather than passing laws designed to address the root problem of age discrimination, the State of California has chosen to chill free speech and undermine public access to factual information."
Even though the law supposedly affects other sites, it's pretty obvious the real target of the legislation is the website now suing the state. From the complaint [PDF]:
IMDb strongly opposes discrimination in all forms, including age discrimination in casting. But prejudice and bias, not truthful information, are the root causes of discrimination. This law unfairly targets IMDb.com (which appears to be the only public site impacted by the law) and forces IMDb to suppress factual information from public view. Moreover, the factual information being suppressed from IMDb is available from many other sources, not least including Wikipedia, Google, Microsoft (Bing), and Apple (Siri). As such, AB 1687 sets a dangerous and unconstitutional precedent for other general purpose websites and news sources, and should be deeply troubling to all who care about free speech.
It's California's "right to be forgotten as being as old as you actually are" statute. And it doesn't even address the actual problem. Making it illegal to post factual information is a terrible idea and one that will ultimately affect the ways facts are handled by data aggregators subject to this law.
But like Hoang's lawsuit, the law makes no attempt to target those actually engaging in the alleged ageism: movie and television studios. Instead, it targets those who gather information about actors and actresses, as if vanishing away simple facts will change the discriminatory hiring practices engaged in by some of California's largest companies.
Adding further problems is the law's attempt to regulate a website that isn't even located in the state.
Notably, AB 1687 contains no territorial limitations at all. It purports to impose financial penalties on IMDb, a Delaware corporation with its offices in Seattle, if it refuses to censor itself when, for example, a California actor requests the removal of his age from IMDb.com after it is added by an IMDb.com user in Germany.
Making things even more stupid is the Screen Actors Guild's heavy lobbying for the IMDb-targeting law. A union with the combined power of thousands of actors should be able to take on the studios directly, rather than cozying up to lawmakers to carve out First Amendment protections for their dates of birth. That suggests one of two things: the SAG finds legislators easier to push around, or the SAG doesn't want to bite the hand that feeds it roles. Either way, targeting IMDb does nothing to further the Guild's supposed battle against ageism.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ageism, ages, california, free speech
Companies: amazon, imdb
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hillary Clinton is on a wheelchair
Hillary 2020: 3rd time's the charm
Hillary 2024: This time for sure!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Truth is the Ultimate Defense Against Liable
So go ahead, let them publish an age, but impose severe mandatory penalties for getting it wrong. Let them avoid those penalties if they make it easy for the performer to exercise control - either no age at all or whatever age the performer wants published.
That should fix the problem - it won't be worth the price of pulling birth certificates for everybody in their database, so imdb will 'voluntarily' choose to give people the control they want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Truth is the Ultimate Defense Against Liable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Truth is the Ultimate Defense Against Liable
If nothing else, tortious interference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Truth is the Ultimate Defense Against Liable
Uh, no, as much as you might like to pretend otherwise, it isn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Truth is the Ultimate Defense Against Liable
2. thus, why actors need special dispensation over EVERYONE ELSE, is not clear...
3. aren't they all going to be CGI soon ? ? ?
i will say one thing about 'actors': i PREFER to -generally- see a movie that has 'unknown' (at least to me) actors, since their celebutard baggage doesn't get in the way of the role they are playing...
there are enough competent actors (a low bar at that), that i don't seek out a movie BECAUSE so-and-so is starring in it; i seek out movies because of the story, i generally don't give a shit about who the actors are...
(oh, except only negatively: IF there are actors -very few i can think of- who are so incompetent or typecast that i will NOT see a movie because they are in it... steven seagal (sp?) comes to mind...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Truth is the Ultimate Defense Against Liable
If true, then surely the issue is that casting agents are using IMDB rather than the applicant's own resume, SAG records or other method of obtaining a factual and verified account? The solution isn't to attack a 3rd party website for not also being a detective agency.
Also, it should be discussed that the biggest issue IMDB have been attacked for on this issue is getting the age *correct* - that is, actresses fearing they are being turned down for parts because the accuracy of information meant they couldn't pretend to be young enough for the casting agent to cast them in a younger role.
As usual, address the real target, don't place impossible demands on a convenient scapegoat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Truth is the Ultimate Defense Against Liable
Seriously, if it really is the problem that you think it is, go out there and talk to those people. Explain how wrong and hurtful it is and appeal to them to reconsider their position on age.
Anyone who wants to solve a problem needs to identify what it actually is. RE: ageism from employers of any kind, the problem is there, not on websites that publish your age.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Truth is the Ultimate Defense Against Liable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Truth is the Ultimate Defense Against Liable
That's a great idea. Fix a mistake with a legally enforced lie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clint Eastwood put it best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If it passes, and IMDb gets a complaint...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New DCMA variant focused on information, be very afraid!
If the actor fulfills their intent, then in reality her lawyers will have created a variant of DCMA take down directed at public information, not created content or derivative works.
This is frightening on so many levels...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They seriously said that with a straight face? IMDB opposes discrimination yet by posting the age of Junie Hoang, IMDB facilitated in discrimination against this actress for roles she was angling for.
WTF?
Does IMDB even read the bullshit that they are posting or arguing against a law they think is unconstitutional? IMDB is simply going to lose this fight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's IMdb's fault because they posted someone's age???
What utter bullshit.
I'm having a hard time you even WROTE this with a straight face. Did you even think about this bullshit that you wrote before posting it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
OP is saying that IMDB is being hypocritical. They want to have their cake and eat it too - by saying they oppose discrimination but are then happy to enable it because free speech they are demonstrating by their actions that they are really perfectly fine with discrimination.
If they want to say they are neutral and that shit happens, well that would be coherent. But once they claimed the moral high ground they opened themselves up to criticism for not acting in accordance with their own words. Its not about the law, its about their choices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not IMDb's fault if the studios discriminate against people past a certain age, so if you want to deal with that discrimination the correct group to go after is not the site, it's the studios.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What utter idiocy. IMDB could not "un-facilitate" ageism by falsifying ages, any more than not publishing the ages would "un-facilitate" ageism.
If they can't "un-facilitate" then they are not facilitating. Simple as that.
I really wish some people would stop wanting to convict everyone who can possibly be construed as involved...that is, everyone except the person who actually "aimed and pulled the trigger."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Genius move, there...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You might as well tell IMDB that it can't post pictures of actors because someone might know they are blacker than Morticia Addams and not get work due to a third party's racism.
Go after the perps, not public facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They're arguing that hiding the fact that someone is black is not the right way to prevent a klansman from being a rascist prick.
The right way is to deal with the rascist cocksplat himself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now to decide on a red state to get rid of...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"...applies to all entertainment job categories."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
califonria cant succeed from the usa
and a war would ensue and it would become a 3rd world country due to the drought which is worse in the south
its kinda like how we in canada know quebec wont leave cause if they do they 100% screw themselves and they all know it.
ONE way or other your all going to have to remove those illegal and if you think Trump was full of crap , look up the GANGLAND video on mexian maffia
and how many it has in southern california
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: califonria cant succeed from the usa
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trump voters bought a little security, and sold their soul.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trump and torts
While Trump may seek to spy on people, he's also a big fan of broad defamation law. I think Trump would support a law that prevents true information about an individual from being disseminated if the subject is against anyone knowing it. Of course, he's also for defaming people. So, who knows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Her age may not and should not be relevant to most cases, but it's a matter of public record - her shoe size isn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really? Even the multi-billion dollar *tech industry* has problems taking on the economically smaller movie industry. The influence of the MPAA far outstrips its size.
While I disagree with this new, poorly drafted bill, it is not credible to presume that the actor's union has the power to end ageism in hollywood by mere direct action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fraud
Yeah. Sounds about right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I thought it was Film Actors Guild (at least according to Team America).
;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]