Discussion:
SAG: There's Nothing Unconstitutional About Gvmt Outlawing Publication of Facts
Add Reply
BTR1701
2017-09-11 19:29:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Because ageism is allegedly rampant in Hollywood, California legislators
have decided to address the problem 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 1st 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
1st 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 1st 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.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170907/06394738162/screen-actors-guild-tells-court-theres-nothing-unconstitutional-about-curbing-imdbs-publication-facts.shtml
m***@hotmail.com
2017-09-11 19:41:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Because ageism is allegedly rampant in Hollywood, California legislators
have decided to address the problem 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 1st 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
In its own motion, SAG-AFTRA complained
that IMDB "contends it has an absolute
1st 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 1st 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.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170907/06394738162/screen-actors-guild-tells-court-theres-nothing-unconstitutional-about-curbing-imdbs-publication-facts.shtml
How do we know that isn't just your website?
suzeeq
2017-09-11 19:46:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Post by BTR1701
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170907/06394738162/screen-actors-guild-tells-court-theres-nothing-unconstitutional-about-curbing-imdbs-publication-facts.shtml
How do we know that isn't just your website?
He doesn't have one.
anim8rfsk
2017-09-11 20:06:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Because ageism is allegedly rampant in Hollywood, California legislators
have decided to address the problem 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 1st 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
In its own motion, SAG-AFTRA complained
that IMDB "contends it has an absolute
1st 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 1st 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.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170907/06394738162/screen-actors-guild-tel
ls-court-theres-nothing-unconstitutional-about-curbing-imdbs-publication-facts
.shtml
You google this idiot?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoang_v._Amazon.com,_Inc.

Hoang v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al. (initially filed as Doe v. Amazon.com,
Inc. et al.) is a lawsuit brought by actress Junie Hoang in October 2011
against IMDb.com and its parent company Amazon.com for revealing her
true date of birth, which she said opened her up to age discrimination.
In March 2013, all of her claims against Amazon and all but one of her
claims against IMDb were dismissed, and in April 2013, a jury found that
IMDb was not liable for the remaining claim for breach of contract; the
verdict was upheld on appeal.

Here she is failing in a suit against IMDb in 2013

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2307453/Junie-Hoang-B-movie-actre
ss-41-FAILS-bid-sue-IMDb-revealing-real-age.html

Here she is trying desperately to look less than 46

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1002437.1326013531!/img/httpI
mage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_750/imdb8n-2-web.jpg
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Obveeus
2017-09-11 21:45:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by BTR1701
Because ageism is allegedly rampant in Hollywood, California legislators
have decided to address the problem 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 1st 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 is silly...and eventually will spread to other sites (Wiki, TMZ,
whatever) when they reveal someone's Hollywood age.
Post by anim8rfsk
You google this idiot?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoang_v._Amazon.com,_Inc.
Hoang v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al. (initially filed as Doe v. Amazon.com,
Inc. et al.) is a lawsuit brought by actress Junie Hoang in October 2011
against IMDb.com and its parent company Amazon.com for revealing her
true date of birth, which she said opened her up to age discrimination.
In March 2013, all of her claims against Amazon and all but one of her
claims against IMDb were dismissed, and in April 2013, a jury found that
IMDb was not liable for the remaining claim for breach of contract; the
verdict was upheld on appeal.
Here she is trying desperately to look less than 46
http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1002437.1326013531!/img/httpI
mage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_750/imdb8n-2-web.jpg
She could easily pass for mid 20s...so those high school roles should
still be available to her by Hollywood standards.
A Friend
2017-09-11 22:55:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by BTR1701
Because ageism is allegedly rampant in Hollywood, California legislators
have decided to address the problem 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 1st 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 is silly...and eventually will spread to other sites (Wiki, TMZ,
whatever) when they reveal someone's Hollywood age.
Post by anim8rfsk
You google this idiot?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoang_v._Amazon.com,_Inc.
Hoang v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al. (initially filed as Doe v. Amazon.com,
Inc. et al.) is a lawsuit brought by actress Junie Hoang in October 2011
against IMDb.com and its parent company Amazon.com for revealing her
true date of birth, which she said opened her up to age discrimination.
In March 2013, all of her claims against Amazon and all but one of her
claims against IMDb were dismissed, and in April 2013, a jury found that
IMDb was not liable for the remaining claim for breach of contract; the
verdict was upheld on appeal.
Here she is trying desperately to look less than 46
http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1002437.1326013531!/img/httpI
mage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_750/imdb8n-2-web.jpg
She could easily pass for mid 20s...so those high school roles should
still be available to her by Hollywood standards.
First of all, don't waste your time with a pic that leaves out her
legs. Here's the full pic:

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1314759.1365775239!/img/http
Image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_1200/imdbwire13f-1-web.jpg

http://tinyurl.com/y8su7jwj

Second, that pic appears in stories about her going back to 2011. I
have no idea how old it might actually be. This is Hoang in 2014:

http://celebritypictures.wiki/celebrity/387470/558965

That's a good-looking woman in her 40s. IMDb says she's been working
steady all along. The "legs" pic is of a woman I'd guess to be 29 or
30. Spot her several years for aging well, and I'd guess the pic is
ten or twelve years old.
Obveeus
2017-09-12 00:09:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A Friend
First of all, don't waste your time with a pic that leaves out her
http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1314759.1365775239!/img/http
Image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_1200/imdbwire13f-1-web.jpg
http://tinyurl.com/y8su7jwj
Second, that pic appears in stories about her going back to 2011. I
http://celebritypictures.wiki/celebrity/387470/558965
That's a good-looking woman in her 40s. IMDb says she's been working
steady all along.
I wonder if she ultimately had to drop her lawsuit because IMDB revealed
that she is still working steadily?

The "legs" pic is of a woman I'd guess to be 29 or
Post by A Friend
30. Spot her several years for aging well, and I'd guess the pic is
ten or twelve years old.
Here are her legs acting slutty:


...and here she is playing with her breasts on PENN & TELLER:

anim8rfsk
2017-09-12 00:49:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Obveeus
Post by A Friend
First of all, don't waste your time with a pic that leaves out her
http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1314759.1365775239!/img/http
Image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_1200/imdbwire13f-1-web.jpg
http://tinyurl.com/y8su7jwj
Second, that pic appears in stories about her going back to 2011. I
http://celebritypictures.wiki/celebrity/387470/558965
That's a good-looking woman in her 40s. IMDb says she's been working
steady all along.
I wonder if she ultimately had to drop her lawsuit because IMDB revealed
that she is still working steadily?
The "legs" pic is of a woman I'd guess to be 29 or
Post by A Friend
30. Spot her several years for aging well, and I'd guess the pic is
ten or twelve years old.
http://youtu.be/BXggxYEyHCY
You think she wrote and directed that herself?
Post by Obveeus
http://youtu.be/GKkB8AHEVWs
Everybody's sucking helium!
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Obveeus
2017-09-12 02:36:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by A Friend
First of all, don't waste your time with a pic that leaves out her
http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1314759.1365775239!/img/http
Image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_1200/imdbwire13f-1-web.jpg
http://tinyurl.com/y8su7jwj
Second, that pic appears in stories about her going back to 2011. I
http://celebritypictures.wiki/celebrity/387470/558965
That's a good-looking woman in her 40s. IMDb says she's been working
steady all along.
I wonder if she ultimately had to drop her lawsuit because IMDB revealed
that she is still working steadily?
The "legs" pic is of a woman I'd guess to be 29 or
Post by A Friend
30. Spot her several years for aging well, and I'd guess the pic is
ten or twelve years old.
http://youtu.be/BXggxYEyHCY
You think she wrote and directed that herself?
Seems like a possibility, though I wouldn't put it out of the realm of
possibility for FUNNY OR DIE or a bazillion other lame comedy sites.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
http://youtu.be/GKkB8AHEVWs
Everybody's sucking helium!
I think that is done to avoid auto-detection of the copyright violation.
anim8rfsk
2017-09-12 03:01:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by A Friend
First of all, don't waste your time with a pic that leaves out her
http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1314759.1365775239!/img/http
Image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_1200/imdbwire13f-1-web.jpg
http://tinyurl.com/y8su7jwj
Second, that pic appears in stories about her going back to 2011. I
http://celebritypictures.wiki/celebrity/387470/558965
That's a good-looking woman in her 40s. IMDb says she's been working
steady all along.
I wonder if she ultimately had to drop her lawsuit because IMDB revealed
that she is still working steadily?
The "legs" pic is of a woman I'd guess to be 29 or
Post by A Friend
30. Spot her several years for aging well, and I'd guess the pic is
ten or twelve years old.
http://youtu.be/BXggxYEyHCY
You think she wrote and directed that herself?
Seems like a possibility, though I wouldn't put it out of the realm of
possibility for FUNNY OR DIE or a bazillion other lame comedy sites.
If they showed that to the jury they'd have other ground to consider for
her lack of a career jump start beyond her hideous disfiguring age.
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
http://youtu.be/GKkB8AHEVWs
Everybody's sucking helium!
I think that is done to avoid auto-detection of the copyright violation.
Yeppers
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
The Horny Goat
2017-09-12 07:47:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A Friend
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Here she is trying desperately to look less than 46
http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1002437.1326013531!/img/httpI
mage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_750/imdb8n-2-web.jpg
She could easily pass for mid 20s...so those high school roles should
still be available to her by Hollywood standards.
First of all, don't waste your time with a pic that leaves out her
http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1314759.1365775239!/img/http
Image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_1200/imdbwire13f-1-web.jpg
http://tinyurl.com/y8su7jwj
Second, that pic appears in stories about her going back to 2011. I
http://celebritypictures.wiki/celebrity/387470/558965
That's a good-looking woman in her 40s. IMDb says she's been working
steady all along. The "legs" pic is of a woman I'd guess to be 29 or
30. Spot her several years for aging well, and I'd guess the pic is
ten or twelve years old.
If that woman is 46 years old and is only making $2k/year acting
perhaps the problem is not her looks.

Last I heard, talent DOES play a role in actors male and female
getting roles. Certainly a lot more than IMDB does!
anim8rfsk
2017-09-12 14:55:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by A Friend
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Here she is trying desperately to look less than 46
http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1002437.1326013531!/img/httpI
mage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_750/imdb8n-2-web.jpg
She could easily pass for mid 20s...so those high school roles should
still be available to her by Hollywood standards.
First of all, don't waste your time with a pic that leaves out her
http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1314759.1365775239!/img/http
Image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_1200/imdbwire13f-1-web.jpg
http://tinyurl.com/y8su7jwj
Second, that pic appears in stories about her going back to 2011. I
http://celebritypictures.wiki/celebrity/387470/558965
That's a good-looking woman in her 40s. IMDb says she's been working
steady all along. The "legs" pic is of a woman I'd guess to be 29 or
30. Spot her several years for aging well, and I'd guess the pic is
ten or twelve years old.
If that woman is 46 years old and is only making $2k/year acting
perhaps the problem is not her looks.
Last I heard, talent DOES play a role in actors male and female
getting roles.
You must be watching different shows than Ian does.
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Arc Michael
2017-09-12 01:02:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Because ageism is allegedly rampant in Hollywood, California legislators
have decided to address the problem 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 1st 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
In its own motion, SAG-AFTRA complained
that IMDB "contends it has an absolute
1st 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 1st 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.
In Memory of those that were sacrificed:

43 POTUS watched live the first explosion of 09 11 2,001 A.D. before he went to read my Pet Goat. #confirmed. So there is your secret of the 20 minute delay Michael Moore. Maybe you need to redux your documentary now Moore. #ArcMichael #09112017AD #bookoflife #revelations Ch. 12
Post by BTR1701
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.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170907/06394738162/screen-actors-guild-tells-court-theres-nothing-unconstitutional-about-curbing-imdbs-publication-facts.shtml
David Johnston
2017-09-12 15:28:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Because ageism is allegedly rampant in Hollywood, California legislators
have decided to address the problem not at all. Instead of enforcing
on-the-books laws against employment discrimination,
Is it the job of legislators to enforce the law? And does the law really mandate that there shall be no age discrimination when it comes to the job of portray a character of a specific age?
BTR1701
2017-09-12 19:35:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Post by BTR1701
Because ageism is allegedly rampant in Hollywood, California legislators
have decided to address the problem not at all. Instead of enforcing
on-the-books laws against employment discrimination,
Is it the job of legislators to enforce the law?
It's more properly their job than it is for a private internet company to
do it.
b***@gmail.com
2017-09-12 19:53:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by David Johnston
Post by BTR1701
Because ageism is allegedly rampant in Hollywood, California legislators
have decided to address the problem not at all. Instead of enforcing
on-the-books laws against employment discrimination,
Is it the job of legislators to enforce the law?
It's more properly their job than it is for a private internet
company to do it.
If the legislature agrees.
Charles H. Sampson
2017-09-14 02:33:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Remember, the first amendment only says that the government can't
prevent you in advance from saying anything. This law, if your summary
is correct, doesn't prevent anyone from saying anything. IMDb can still
"publish" anybody's age. The law says there will be consequences if they
do.

The law might be unenforcable on other grounds -- apparently some judge
thinks so -- but not because of the first amendment.

Charlie
--
Nobody in this country got rich on his own. You built a factory--good.
But you moved your goods on roads we all paid for. You hired workers we
all paid to educate. So keep a big hunk of the money from your factory.
But take a hunk and pay it forward. Elizabeth Warren (paraphrased)
BTR1701
2017-09-14 02:55:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Charles H. Sampson
Remember, the first amendment only says that the government can't
prevent you in advance from saying anything.
Umm... there's 200+ years of 1st Amendment Supreme Court jurisprudence that
holds prior restraint to be only *one* of the ways the government can
violate the 1st Amendment. Punishing speech after the fact is also a
firmly-established no-no.

The concept of 'free speech' wouldn't mean much if the government could
throw you in jail for saying anything it doesn't like, just so long as they
let you say it first.
Post by Charles H. Sampson
This law, if your summary
is correct, doesn't prevent anyone from saying anything. IMDb can still
"publish" anybody's age. The law says there will be consequences if they
do.
Which runs afoul of two centuries of 1st Amendment constitutional law.
Post by Charles H. Sampson
The law might be unenforcable on other grounds -- apparently some judge
thinks so -- but not because of the first amendment.
That's just so many levels of wrong, I don't know where to even start, but
Brandenburg vs Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), is as good a place as any.
Charles H. Sampson
2017-09-15 13:53:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by Charles H. Sampson
Remember, the first amendment only says that the government can't
prevent you in advance from saying anything.
Umm... there's 200+ years of 1st Amendment Supreme Court jurisprudence that
holds prior restraint to be only *one* of the ways the government can
violate the 1st Amendment. Punishing speech after the fact is also a
firmly-established no-no.
The concept of 'free speech' wouldn't mean much if the government could
throw you in jail for saying anything it doesn't like, just so long as they
let you say it first.
Post by Charles H. Sampson
This law, if your summary
is correct, doesn't prevent anyone from saying anything. IMDb can still
"publish" anybody's age. The law says there will be consequences if they
do.
Which runs afoul of two centuries of 1st Amendment constitutional law.
Post by Charles H. Sampson
The law might be unenforcable on other grounds -- apparently some judge
thinks so -- but not because of the first amendment.
That's just so many levels of wrong, I don't know where to even start, but
Brandenburg vs Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), is as good a place as any.
I suspect you're right about this. I've been zealous recently about
correcting people who say, "The Constitution says I have'freedom of
speech', so I can say whatever I want and there won't be any
repercussions." I'm afraid my zealotry led me astray this time.

It doesn't do me any good to own that big fat book on Con Law. I have to
actually open it up and read it. I bet Brandenburg vs Ohio is discussed.

Charlie
--
Nobody in this country got rich on his own. You built a factory--good.
But you moved your goods on roads we all paid for. You hired workers we
all paid to educate. So keep a big hunk of the money from your factory.
But take a hunk and pay it forward. Elizabeth Warren (paraphrased)
b***@gmail.com
2017-09-16 13:08:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by Charles H. Sampson
Remember, the first amendment only says that the government can't
prevent you in advance from saying anything.
Umm... there's 200+ years of 1st Amendment Supreme Court jurisprudence that
holds prior restraint to be only *one* of the ways the government can
violate the 1st Amendment. Punishing speech after the fact is also a
firmly-established no-no.
Wrong. Such as punishing yelling fire in a crowded theater.
BTR1701
2017-09-16 15:16:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by BTR1701
Post by Charles H. Sampson
Remember, the first amendment only says that the government can't
prevent you in advance from saying anything.
Umm... there's 200+ years of 1st Amendment Supreme Court jurisprudence
that holds prior restraint to be only *one* of the ways the government
can violate the 1st Amendment. Punishing speech after the fact is also a
firmly-established no-no.
Wrong. Such as punishing yelling fire in a crowded theater.
Wrong. Schenck v. United States (the fire/theater case for idiots who
don't know any better) was overturned by the Supreme Court in the 70s
and is no longer a part of American 1st Amendment jurisprudence. In
other words, only an ignorant dumbass quotes Schenck in a 1st Amendment
discussion.
m***@hotmail.com
2017-09-16 16:16:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by BTR1701
Post by Charles H. Sampson
Remember, the first amendment only says that the government can't
prevent you in advance from saying anything.
Umm... there's 200+ years of 1st Amendment Supreme Court jurisprudence
that holds prior restraint to be only *one* of the ways the government
can violate the 1st Amendment. Punishing speech after the fact is also a
firmly-established no-no.
Wrong. Such as punishing yelling fire in a crowded theater.
Wrong. Schenck v. United States (the fire/theater case for idiots who
don't know any better) was overturned by the Supreme Court in the 70s
and is no longer a part of American 1st Amendment jurisprudence. In
other words, only an ignorant dumbass quotes Schenck in a 1st Amendment
discussion.
Liar. The Supreme Court ruled in Schenck unanimously that the First Amendment, though it protects freedom of expression, does not protect dangerous speech and that ruling has NOT been overturned.
BTR1701
2017-09-16 16:36:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Post by BTR1701
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by BTR1701
Post by Charles H. Sampson
Remember, the first amendment only says that the government can't
prevent you in advance from saying anything.
Umm... there's 200+ years of 1st Amendment Supreme Court jurisprudence
that holds prior restraint to be only *one* of the ways the government
can violate the 1st Amendment. Punishing speech after the fact is also a
firmly-established no-no.
Wrong. Such as punishing yelling fire in a crowded theater.
Wrong. Schenck v. United States (the fire/theater case for idiots who
don't know any better) was overturned by the Supreme Court in the 70s
and is no longer a part of American 1st Amendment jurisprudence. In
other words, only an ignorant dumbass quotes Schenck in a 1st Amendment
discussion.
Liar. The Supreme Court ruled in Schenck unanimously that the First
Amendment, though it protects freedom of expression, does not protect
dangerous speech and that ruling has NOT been overturned.
Yeah, it has, you leaking boil. The current test for punishing speech
after the fact is not "Was the speech dangerous?"
m***@hotmail.com
2017-09-16 16:25:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by BTR1701
Post by Charles H. Sampson
Remember, the first amendment only says that the government can't
prevent you in advance from saying anything.
Umm... there's 200+ years of 1st Amendment Supreme Court jurisprudence
that holds prior restraint to be only *one* of the ways the government
can violate the 1st Amendment. Punishing speech after the fact is also a
firmly-established no-no.
Wrong. Such as punishing yelling fire in a crowded theater.
Wrong. Schenck v. United States (the fire/theater case for idiots who
don't know any better) was overturned by the Supreme Court in the 70s
and is no longer a part of American 1st Amendment jurisprudence. In
other words, only an ignorant dumbass quotes Schenck in a 1st Amendment
discussion.
The Schenck ruling result only overturned illegality of "Dangerous Speech". The Supreme Court still outlawed speech leading to "imminent lawless action."
BTR1701
2017-09-16 16:35:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Post by BTR1701
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by BTR1701
Post by Charles H. Sampson
Remember, the first amendment only says that the government can't
prevent you in advance from saying anything.
Umm... there's 200+ years of 1st Amendment Supreme Court jurisprudence
that holds prior restraint to be only *one* of the ways the government
can violate the 1st Amendment. Punishing speech after the fact is also a
firmly-established no-no.
Wrong. Such as punishing yelling fire in a crowded theater.
Wrong. Schenck v. United States (the fire/theater case for idiots who
don't know any better) was overturned by the Supreme Court in the 70s
and is no longer a part of American 1st Amendment jurisprudence. In
other words, only an ignorant dumbass quotes Schenck in a 1st Amendment
discussion.
The Schenck ruling result only overturned illegality of "Dangerous Speech".
The Supreme Court still outlawed speech leading to "imminent lawless
action."
Which overturned and replaced the "clear and present danger", which is
what morons who mindlessly burp up "fire in a crowded theater" are
talking about, albeit unknowingly.
Adam H. Kerman
2017-09-17 17:03:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by BTR1701
Post by Charles H. Sampson
Remember, the first amendment only says that the government can't
prevent you in advance from saying anything.
Umm... there's 200+ years of 1st Amendment Supreme Court jurisprudence
that holds prior restraint to be only *one* of the ways the government
can violate the 1st Amendment. Punishing speech after the fact is also a
firmly-established no-no.
Wrong. Such as punishing yelling fire in a crowded theater.
Wrong. Schenck v. United States (the fire/theater case for idiots who
don't know any better) was overturned by the Supreme Court in the 70s
and is no longer a part of American 1st Amendment jurisprudence. In
other words, only an ignorant dumbass quotes Schenck in a 1st Amendment
discussion.
seamus stupidly got the quote wrong anyway. As I've pointed out hundreds
of times on Usenet, the quote is

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect
a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a
panic. . . . The question in every case is whether the words
used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as
to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about
the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It
is a question of proximity and degree.

Holmes in Schenck v. United States

There were myriad problems with Holmes' opinion. "Falsely shouting fire"
is made analogous to the "clear and present danger" standard, but it's
utterly irrelevant. Schenck was arrested for leafletting. No one accused
him of making untruthful statements in his leaflet and the prosecution
may have stipulated that everything he said was true.

Basically, Holmes came up with, It's war! so ANY speech the government
doesn't like lacks First Amendment protection if the government believes
it's contrary to the prosecution of war.

The Schenck opinion made it unconstitutional to criticize the entire
war effort or question the entire moral basis for war, if the government
chose to make an example of a troublemaking leafletter.

Dimensional Traveler
2017-09-14 03:19:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Charles H. Sampson
Remember, the first amendment only says that the government can't
prevent you in advance from saying anything. This law, if your summary
is correct, doesn't prevent anyone from saying anything. IMDb can still
"publish" anybody's age. The law says there will be consequences if they
do.
The law might be unenforcable on other grounds -- apparently some judge
thinks so -- but not because of the first amendment.
How is a law suppressing some speech, passed and enforced BY THE
GOVERNMENT, _not_ the government suppressing speech?
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
The Horny Goat
2017-09-16 03:18:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Charles H. Sampson
Nobody in this country got rich on his own. You built a factory--good.
But you moved your goods on roads we all paid for. You hired workers we
all paid to educate. So keep a big hunk of the money from your factory.
But take a hunk and pay it forward. Elizabeth Warren (paraphrased)
"Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as
possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay
the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's
taxes."
Judge Learned Hand in Helvering v. Gregory, 69 F.2d 809, 810-11 (2d
Cir. 1934)
Loading...