Screen Actors Guild Tells Court There's Nothing Unconstitutional About Curbing IMDB's Publication Of Facts

from the beneficiaries-of-free-speech-protections-ask-for-less-free-speech dept

Because ageism is allegedly rampant in Hollywood, California legislators have decided to address the problem head on not at all. Instead of enforcing on-the-books laws against employment discrimination, the legislature -- backed by the Screen Actors Guild -- has decided some of the First Amendment has to go. It has crafted a new law to fight ageism in Hollywood studios… by targeting a popular movie database. In California, A + B = WTF.

The law -- currently blocked by an injunction -- forbids third-party sites with paid subscribers from publishing certain facts about actors and actresses. The only fact at issue is their age. And, despite lawmakers pretending the stupid, unconstitutional law targets a variety of websites, it's really only having an effect on one: IMDb.

This failure of a law stems from a failure of a lawsuit brought by actress Junie Hoang, who blamed her lack of starring roles on IMDb publishing her real age. She wanted $1 million in damages, apparently expecting IMDb to subsidize her next 500 years of denied acting opportunities. (Discovery during the suit revealed Hoang made less than $2000/year from acting.)

The Fail Train rolls on with the Screen Actors Guild offering its full-throated approval of First Amendment limitations, as Elizabeth Nolan Brown reports.

In its own motion, SAG-AFTRA complained that IMDB "contends it has an absolute First Amendment right to disseminate the ages of everyone in Hollywood, consequences be damned, and no matter how much or little value such expression has in the marketplace of ideas." But "so long as the communication of the age of persons in the entertainment industry writ large facilitates illegal age discrimination, such expression may be regulated consistent with the First Amendment even though specific communications might not be discriminatory."

Note that the Actors Guild doesn't claim that IMDb publishes age information that's false, nor that it publishes true information obtained in an illegal manner. Rather SAG-AFTRA asserts that IMDb somehow has a legal responsibility to help actors obtain work by concealing their ages; that the state has the ability to judge what kinds of content have "value" in the "marketplace of ideas"; and that information of "little value" can be banned.

The motion is filled with terrible arguments. But considering its conceit, where else could it go? When you start with the premise the best fix for ageism at movie studios is targeting a third-party website, there's really no room for logic or coherent arguments. Add to that the fact that actors are actively calling for free speech restrictions, and you've got an elliptical mess on your hands -- one that makes the argument the state can be trusted to determine what speech has "value."

SAG's opening salvo names and shames the real parties responsible for ageism…

Plaintiff's website publishes everyone's age regardless of whether it is relevant to any public issue at all, and does so without any comment or context. This is not an invitation to public debate. Rather, it is an open invitation for casting directors to engage in illegally discriminatory conduct

...before moving on to spend the rest of the brief arguing that its IMDb's fault casting directors engage in illegal discriminatory conduct.

As set forth in the Declaration of Marilyn Szatmary filed concurrently herewith, there is massive age discrimination in the entertainment industry and IMDb.com facilitates that discrimination as the go-to website for casting decisions.

Publishing ages doesn't "facilitate discrimination." Nothing forces studios to participate in discriminatory hiring practices… at least nothing outside the studios themselves. Other sites without paid subscribers are still free to publish actors' ages. At least with IMDb, paid subscribers can ask to have this information removed. Other sites not targeted by this legislation (which, in reality, is every other site but IMDb) have no obligation to remove factual information from their sites.

The brief does nothing to convince anyone the law is Constitutional. All it does is make it clear SAG would rather bite the hand that feeds info to studios than the hand that feeds its members acting jobs. It's bad legislation lawmakers allowed themselves to be talked into and it should be struck down permanently by the time this is all said and done. SAG's support for the blocked bill is intellectually dishonest. The problem lies in the studios, not outside websites, no matter how much studios may rely on IMDb to do its hiring homework for them.

Hide this

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: age discrimination, ages, california, facts, first amendment, free speech, hollywood, imdb, junie hoang
Companies: amazon, screen actors guild


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 8 Sep 2017 @ 10:55am

    Age is as age relates

    Leave it to Hollywood and actors to conflate reality with the fictions they produce.

    If a part calls for a teenager, why would any casting director want to entertain the idea of a 40 year old for the part? Could a 40 year old look the part, or be made to look the part?

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 8 Sep 2017 @ 11:10am

      Re: Age is as age relates

      also there are characters that are 40+ in movies so there are parts that are best played by older actors & actresses

      link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Sep 2017 @ 11:29am

        Re: Re: Age is as age relates

        Well, those movies are SOL. I just looked on IMDB and there isn't a single person over the age of 25 in Hollywood.

        link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 8 Sep 2017 @ 6:23pm

      Re: Age is as age relates

      Well given the longstanding tradition of Hamlet being older than his mother....

      link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 9 Sep 2017 @ 9:18pm

      Re: Age is as age relates

      Luke Perry in Beverly Hills 902010...that is why the freaking guy could never smile and used such stupid haircut...the wrinkles in his face and the lack of hear in the forehead would give out his age (lol)

      link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Sep 2017 @ 11:02am

    Explanation for illogical arguments

    "I'm not a competent legal scholar, but I play one on TV."

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Sep 2017 @ 11:09am

    AAC, when the latest Spider Man was cast, they said they wanted a 16 year old. They cast someone who was much older.

    That being said, what would you think if on a job application, it asked your race (outside of EEOE) or your age? How about your religion?

    Would you be OK with Monster, LinkedIn or any other job board listing your age?

    That being said, Hollywood per se doesn't have a problem with older women, at least any more than any other guy out there. The age doesn't matter, the hotness does. If a woman is 60 but still looks hot, she gets work. If she doesn't, well then not so much.

    Kind of like a bar, the older women who are not hot end up buying their own drinks.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 8 Sep 2017 @ 11:26am

      Re:

      What other job requires the image to be portrayed to be at least somewhat accurate. None of the jobs I have had, or looked at had a legitimate 'image' requirement. It may have been part of the decision making process, and I have been placed in 'public' positions often, even though I don't consider myself to be any better looking than others. Maybe it was my demeanor, I don't know and am past the point where it matters to me anymore. Though, one boss asked me to shave off my beard once, I did, but it is back now.

      I don't disagree with your hotness point, but there are parts for older people, that may or may not require hotness. Another problem comes up in a casting directors perception of a particular actors acting ability and that actors perception of their own acting ability, and this is wholly subjective. The actor thinks "I'm a great actor" and the casting director thinks "You suck as an actor". What is provable?

      When ones self image differs from others perception of that image, they cast about for other reasons for non-selection, in this case, actual age vs perceived age vs the proposed age the part is supposed to portray.

      I haven't seen the latest Spider Man, so I cannot comment on whether the choice of actor made any difference to the story line.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 8 Sep 2017 @ 11:56am

      Re:

      Acting is not like most other jobs where age is almost if not completely irrelevant to performance of job duties. In acting, many/most roles dictate the appearance of the person filling that role. If a role requires someone who could pass as a high school student then a 60 year old actor sure as hell won't be well suited to the role. Of course the entertainment industry is ageist. It goes with the territory.

      Acting and ageism are as inseparable as California and retarded government.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Sep 2017 @ 4:23pm

        Re: Re:

        The problem of banning ageism on grounds as thin as SAG-AFTRAs is the related issues: What about sex? Historically men had the role of women in theaters. What would cause laws on typecasting against that? What about race? Will it be illegal to typecast against specific skincolour? What about sexuality, looks, speach-impairment, other handicaps?

        As soon as a non-issue like biological age gets to be an issue, the much more important characteristics mentioned above, would be even more relevant to legislate against, to the detriment of the admittedly ingrown industry.

        link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 9 Sep 2017 @ 12:48pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Driving miss Daisy remake.

          In which the part of Miss Daisy (originally played by Jessica Tandy) now goes to a 12yr old mexican boy.

          The driver is now a sassy african-american woman called Latoya-Latysha. Oh no they din't!!!!!......

          also to be fair, in the remake of Schindlers list, the jewish prisoners will be played by rhinestone-covered jumpsuited chinese elvis impersonators, the german guards will be played by semi-naked austrialian surfer dudes and Oskar Schindler himself will be player by Dwayne Johnson in a skirt.

          link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      JoeCool (profile), 8 Sep 2017 @ 2:03pm

      Re:

      AAC, when the latest Spider Man was cast, they said they wanted a 16 year old. They cast someone who was much older.

      Which isn't surprising at all. Hollywood wouldn't know a 16 year-old if they punched them in the face. The Dawson Effect is alive and well in Hollywood (and TV). That's made it where the general public also has trouble telling the age of kids.

      While Hollywood has a problem with ageism, it really only kicks in when they get REALLY old. It's worse for women in general, but not nearly as bad as some actors would like you to think.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Bergman (profile), 8 Sep 2017 @ 3:28pm

      Re: Spiderman's age

      Given how many movies cast people older than teens as teens, I'm wondering if people in Hollywood even know what a teenager looks like.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      madasahatter (profile), 8 Sep 2017 @ 3:59pm

      Re:

      The point of anti-discrimination employment laws is to keep non-relevant factors out of hiring, promotion, and retention policies. If a factor, such as race or age, is applicable then it is not discrimination to exclude based on that factor. However, the only industry where this is often true is the movie industry where characters have defined age, race, etc. In other industries, race, age, etc. almost never are valid reasons to eliminate someone.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      firebird2110 (profile), 9 Sep 2017 @ 1:34am

      Teenagers

      The problem with a 16 year old actor is they're 16, with the incomplete brain development, hormonal upheaval, insecurity and general teenagerness that goes with it. Finding an actual 16 year old with the acting chops and mental stability required to carry a multi-million $ movie isn't going to be easy. There might be a few around, child actors who have managed not to have a meltdown at puberty, but not that many. The are a lot more early 20s just out of college who can, at a push, pass for 16.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        JEDIDIAH, 9 Sep 2017 @ 9:58am

        Re: Teenagers

        No. The problem with a teenage actor is child labor laws.

        Film and TV production are very demanding and somewhat incompatible with labor laws in general.

        link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    profssrfink (profile), 8 Sep 2017 @ 11:12am

    FALSE

    IMDb does publish false information about age. It says Keanu Reeves was born in 1964 but we all know he's immortal.

    http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000206/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    David, 8 Sep 2017 @ 11:15am

    500 years of denied acting opportunities

    Well, she might have the perfect skeleton underneath her $2000/year meat hull. And since we all know that according to the people rewriting copyright laws artists mainly do their work for the sake of their unfit-for-work offspring 20 generations down, it's only natural that she is worrying.

    And if movie makers find out, once she is outwardly eligible, that her remains are less than 2000 years old, she might be discounted from starring in "Mummy's Curse XLVIII -- The Boning".

    Or maybe she was counting on getting bitten by Robert Pattinson and was planning on acting in Twilight sequels for a few centuries to come.

    Or she was just hoping for a windfall by the U.S. legal lottery that makes and breaks livelihoods without a reason accessible to common sense.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Sep 2017 @ 11:19am

    Next logical leap:

    Wait until they start suing religions for their interpretations of God for creating an age where actresses can be discriminated against.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 8 Sep 2017 @ 11:29am

    Its IMDB who is the bad guy!!!!!!!!!
    All the big studios rely only on the information on IMDB!!!!

    If you want to fight agesism why attack a website & not the actual studios who get to make the decisions with or without the input of IMDB?

    Oh because then it would be an attack on artist expression?

    This is bullshit feel good crap wasting public time & money to make actors feel special. If your industry is rife with ageism, sexism, etcism, blame a website... do not look at the industry. Demand a 3rd unrelated party fix it.

    SAG - attacking a website because they fear being blacklisted by the studios who are actually responsible.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ryunosuke (profile), 8 Sep 2017 @ 11:49am

    Russle Crowe, Hugh Jackman, Mark Wahlburg, Jason Stratham, George Clooney. Robert Downey Jr, Johnny Depp, Brad Pitt, Jackie Chan

    Helen Mirren, Camaron Diaz, Cat Blancett, Cathrine Zeta Jones, Gwyneth Paltrow, Halle Berry, Jennifer Aniston, Julia Roberts, Marisa Tomei, Naomi Watts, Nicole Kidman, Salma Hayek, Sandra Bullock, Tina Fey, Ulma Thurman


    I don't see what the problem really is, there are a LOT of talented (defined by taste), actors and actresses over the age of 40.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      David, 8 Sep 2017 @ 12:47pm

      Re:

      But we weren't talking about the job opportunities of talented actresses here.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Sep 2017 @ 11:50am

    Could it be that there are fewer parts for women over 40 because the general public really doesn't want to look at women over 40 all that much?

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      TKnarr (profile), 8 Sep 2017 @ 12:11pm

      Re:

      You mean guys don't like to look at Ming-Na Wen? Or Halle Berry? Or Salma Hayek? Or Charlize Theron? Or a host of others? If you believe that, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in...

      link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Sep 2017 @ 4:39pm

        Re: Re:

        There are a few attractive older women, but it seems that they are all in the movies.

        Your local bar? Not so much.

        link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Uriel-238 (profile), 8 Sep 2017 @ 5:10pm

          Attractive older women at the local bar

          Perhaps you go to the wrong bars?

          link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Aaron Walkhouse (profile), 9 Sep 2017 @ 5:39am

            Perhaps they don't, preferring to keep their health… ‌ ;]

            link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            JoeCool (profile), 9 Sep 2017 @ 9:38am

            Re: Attractive older women at the local bar

            No, he's just not drinking enough. A few more beers and the bar will be BURSTING with super-models! ;)

            link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            JEDIDIAH, 9 Sep 2017 @ 10:00am

            Re: Attractive older women at the local bar

            That's your problem right there. You're hanging out in bars. Perhaps you should start going to the gym more.

            link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 8 Sep 2017 @ 2:49pm

      Re:

      Gee, it is almost as if the media crafts an image of youth as beauty and therefore makes anyone over a certain age seem “ugly”.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Bill Silverstein (profile), 8 Sep 2017 @ 11:54am

    Lets eliminate photos from Facebook, LinkedIn, Snapchat, and Google.

    Employers may use photos to discriminate based on national origin, sex, or race. If an employer sees a picture of a person, it would allow them to discriminate.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Rekrul, 8 Sep 2017 @ 12:50pm

    I've noticed that a lot of newer actor/actress listings on the IMDb don't list their ages. It's not just older people either, they're not even listing the birthdates for child actors now.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 8 Sep 2017 @ 4:03pm

    Really it's only a matter of time

    ...before Humphrey Bogart, perfectly rendered via off-the-shelf CGI packages in perfectly rendered fictitious locations, and all the screen actors are out of work, replaced by digital puppets who are cheaper, and can be aged or regressed at will.

    Then the ageist casting staff won't have to be ageist at all.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 8 Sep 2017 @ 5:06pm

      Re: Really it's only a matter of time

      Yes, because that idea worked out well for Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within and the studio that made it.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        JoeCool (profile), 9 Sep 2017 @ 9:36am

        Re: Re: Really it's only a matter of time

        Beowulf would have been a better example, and actually was quite successful. It's also been a full decade since Beowulf, and the tech has advanced well beyond that stage.

        link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Wendy Cockcroft, 11 Sep 2017 @ 5:50am

          Re: Re: Re: Really it's only a matter of time

          CGI motion capture tech has advanced to such a degree that even if you look like Zelda from Terrahawks it shouldn't matter; all they need is your voice and expressiveness.

          You can stop with the Botox now, actors. It looks creepy.

          link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 8 Sep 2017 @ 4:15pm

    "It's not my fault for treating them bad for being X, it's their fault for telling me!"

    Other sites without paid subscribers are still free to publish actors' ages.

    Other sites not targeted by this legislation (which, in reality, is every other site but IMDb) have no obligation to remove factual information from their sites.

    Currently this is true, but if they can force IMDb to remove factual, true information, then I have no doubt at all that they'll use that to pressure/force those other sites to do the same, to better bury the problem of age discrimination.

    That they are going after the site that they claim 'enables' the problem rather than the source of the problem indicates that they have no interest in addressing the problem, they're only interested in hiding it, brushing it under the rug and pretending it doesn't exist. Can't upset the bosses after all by trying to punish them for their actions.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    ConstitutionDoesntApplyHere, 8 Sep 2017 @ 4:48pm

    It's Free Market at Work

    IMDB is run by a company, that company isn't the government or the library of congress, it's not the public square.

    The lawsuit is just free market doing it's thing.

    It's not about the constitution, it's not about free speech.

    It's liability on the part of the company putting up information about people whom cannot edit their own information and don't want that information out there in detail they feel harms them.

    Good luck to lady going up against a huge corporation that owns IMDB.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 8 Sep 2017 @ 5:03pm

      Re: It's Free Market at Work

      By involving the judiciary, a civil lawsuit involves the government by default; a plaintiff trying to silence the protected right of publishing truthful information must first prove why the law should prevent someone from publishing it. In this case, they have not convinced the courts why governmental authority should prevent any website—and IMDB in particular—from publishing that actor’s age.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 8 Sep 2017 @ 6:10pm

      Must have missed that part...

      Wasn't aware 'Take down that factual information and/or I sue you' was part of the 'free market'.

      As for 'this isn't about the constitution or free speech, take it away Ken.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 8 Sep 2017 @ 6:30pm

      Re: It's Free Market at Work

      That logic sounds suspiciously similar to an argument used by corrupt authoritarians in countries with overly permissive libel laws to silence criticism. They aren't silencing free speech, they are holding journalists accountable in the free market.

      Of course the logic in both cases is wrong both factually and morally.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        JEDIDIAH, 9 Sep 2017 @ 10:03am

        Re: Re: It's Free Market at Work

        The truth should always be an affirmative defense to libel.

        So journalists should only ever be afraid if they're lying.

        Printing inconvenient truths is what press protections are for.

        link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 9 Sep 2017 @ 12:29pm

          Re: Re: Re: It's Free Market at Work

          So journalists should only ever be afraid if they're lying.

          Or if they publish what they believe is truthful information that later turns out to be false.

          link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 9 Sep 2017 @ 7:30pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: It's Free Market at Work

            Their liability is much, much less then, and with public figures essentially zero.

            link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Sep 2017 @ 4:22am

    "This is censorship. Plain and simple." - Chris Dodd

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Mike W., 9 Sep 2017 @ 6:53am

    censorship on age

    The ideal response would be to replace pages on the actors with one that says "This person would rather not have free uncensored publicity" and nothing else about the actor/actress.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Stephen, 9 Sep 2017 @ 8:07am

    Pointless Lawsuit

    Most people put their date of birth on their resumé/CV; and even when they don't, it can generally be estimated from such information as school and other details.

    Leaving those off would be rather a give-away that the CV was not kosher.

    Unless, of course, the CV owner supplied FALSE information.

    In that context, I note that in other professions applying for a job generally means supplying a certified copy of birth certificate to your employer. Does this not apply in Hollywood? Or do actors get to supply fake birth certificates?

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      JEDIDIAH, 9 Sep 2017 @ 10:05am

      Re: Pointless Lawsuit

      Birth certificate? WTF? In what country or field is this even kosher? I can only think of one rather marginal industry where this would ever be an issue.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 9 Sep 2017 @ 12:30pm

        Re: Re: Pointless Lawsuit

        Birth certificate? WTF? In what country or field is this even kosher?

        Ask Barack Obama.

        link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Stephen, 9 Sep 2017 @ 3:34pm

        Re: Re: Pointless Lawsuit

        It's done to prove that the person submitting it is a (natural-born) citizen, and therefore has a legal right to work.

        link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Sharur, 12 Sep 2017 @ 8:43am

        Re: Re: Pointless Lawsuit

        I work in IT, and I had to bring in ID. I used my passport, but, I also had the option of using my driver's license and either a SS card or Birth certificate. Note that all four of those documents have my date of birth on them.

        link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Uriel-238 (profile), 9 Sep 2017 @ 12:36pm

      Re: Pointless Lawsuit

      My experience of show biz, even off Broadway or Hollywood is that actors created a character square one: everything, from the resume to the gait used when dropping it off was a performance, a character that might hopefully be relatable to whoever did casting.

      So everything on your resume could be bullshit, and it's expected. They're not hiring an actor, they're hiring a character, and everyone presumes this is the case.

      I've heard that the casting couches are used less since the nineties, though I suspect they've just been moved to later rooms and interviews. Actors these days want to make sure they're fucking the money before they unhook their bras.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Sep 2017 @ 12:42pm

    There's a very simple answer to this:

    "Your honor, the Screen Actors Guild contends that by producing actors/actresses actual age and showing it via paid subscription we're somehow evil"

    "So we decided to add this info to the non-signed in non-paid subscription bit of the website to keep them happy

    Judge: Fine! case dismissed!

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 9 Sep 2017 @ 8:37pm

    Even Their Acronym Is Ageist

    “Screen Actors Guild” ... “SAG”.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Chuck, 9 Sep 2017 @ 9:27pm

    Ask Abby

    Character in a TV show who's supposed to be in her late 20's: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abby_Sciuto

    Actual actress in her late 40's: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauley_Perrette

    I recognize that exceptions are just that, but given the median age of the 9th graders from the latest Power Rangers reboot is around 26, I'd dare to say that Ms. Perrette is no exception. Hollywood CONSTANTLY casts older people in younger roles.

    Ageism in Hollywood, unlike everywhere else on earth, is a myth. It's literally the one place where this is NOT a problem. That we could sacrifice even a single ounce of free speech to solve this non-problem is insanity.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Cowardly Lion, 10 Sep 2017 @ 7:38pm

    Ages

    So the argument is that without IMDB, it would just be too difficult for casting directors to figure out someone's age? Really?

    [Link](http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+old+is+Junie+Hoang)

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Cowardly Lion with bad fingers, 10 Sep 2017 @ 7:40pm

    Ages

    So the argument is that without IMDB, it would just be too difficult for casting directors to figure out someone's age? Really?

    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+old+is+Junie+Hoang

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Cowardly Lion, 11 Sep 2017 @ 9:55am

    Something doesn't seem right...

    "Discovery during the suit revealed Hoang made less than $2000/year from acting"

    And yet on her IMDB page... http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0387470/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1 ...she's doing a ton of work. Although she had a break in 2000, she has nearly 140 credits to her name. If the above statement is correct, then damn; she's getting paid less than an extra.

    link to this | view in chronology ]


Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.