Moonglow
Diamond Member
I was a bartender at 18, but the law has changed since then.Bartender?When you apply for any job, age can't be ask for...
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I was a bartender at 18, but the law has changed since then.Bartender?When you apply for any job, age can't be ask for...
Did they ask your age to make sure you were 18? Im guessing you were required to provide an ID. Seems reasonable, right?I was a bartender at 18, but the law has changed since then.Bartender?When you apply for any job, age can't be ask for...
Not at the first place I worked...Which was a front operation for a prostitution operation....But the state did make you get a liquor handling license...Did they ask your age to make sure you were 18? Im guessing you were required to provide an ID. Seems reasonable, right?I was a bartender at 18, but the law has changed since then.Bartender?When you apply for any job, age can't be ask for...
Wanna bet? I think the porn biz would disagree...When you apply for any job, age can't be ask for...
I had to provide ID to prove i was old enough to work when i was 15.Wanna bet? I think the porn biz would disagree...When you apply for any job, age can't be ask for...
FoxfyreIn an unusual and little publicized recent action, the California legislature recently passed a law making it illegal for a particular media oriented website to publicize an actor or actress's age if the subject requested their age not be published.
The measure addressed complaints that older actors and actresses are discriminated against and are no longer considered for the best roles. Women in particular are discriminated against while men generally are less punished for getting older..
The target of the law, IMDb, has sued challenging the law as a violation of free speech.
Normally I would note such a story as mildly interesting and move on, but my instincts tell me this one could go all the way to the Supreme Court of the U.S. if the judge rules in favor of the state. And, as these things go, such a precedent could spread into many other areas.
The way the world has gone for the last several decades, based on such a precedent, I can see equal protection laws extend far beyond the film industry to unflattering photos of anybody, comments on their weight or height or marital status, temperament, or anything that might impact them negatively. And while that would certainly result in a more pleasant environment on line for instance, it would also restrict free speech to ridiculous lengths.
What say you?
Revealing an actor's age is illegal? IMDb website sues California
By Alex Dobuzinskis
November 11, 2016
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Many actors think there ought to be a law against posting their ages online, and California this year obliged critics of ageism in Hollywood by passing a law targeting a leading movie and television information website.
The law has been challenged in a lawsuit by the company IMDb, which is owned by Amazon.com Inc and operates a repository of information on the film and television industry.
The lawsuit, filed on Thursday in federal court for the Northern District of California, alleges that the measure violates free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution.
Supporters described the law as an effort to prevent age discrimination. It requires officials at IMDb.com to remove from the website the ages of figures in the entertainment industry, including actors and directors, if those individuals request the deletion.
Actors in Hollywood have long complained they are passed over for roles as they get older.
Female performers in particular say a double standard gives women fewer opportunities as they age, while men can still land leading parts late in their careers.
"By the time you're 28 you're expired, you're playing mommy roles," actress Zoe Saldana, now 38 and female lead of the blockbuster film "Guardians of the Galaxy," told The Telegraph in 2014.
The lawsuit said the law, known as AB 1687, was unfair because it was carefully tailored to apply only to IMDb.com Inc, which is incorporated in Delaware and has offices in Seattle, and not other sources of information. . . .
Revealing an actor's age is illegal? IMDb website sues California
If people in a District or State pass a law for themselves to follow, that's fine, but I WOULD include the adherents agree NOT to work for or patronize companies that discriminate by age.
If you make your money off exploiting images of perfect youth and agelessness, then you are hypocrites and part of the problem.
Watch where you work and put your money.
Start there with changing policy.
And maybe we won't have this problem so much.
I wouldn't agree to passing laws restricting free speech of people outside that agreement who don't consent.
The whole industry needs to change, so I'd start there. Make your own companies and networks, support writers and producers who create roles and jobs for unique people and not stereotypes if you oppose those.
Don't make money off the hype then complain it's discriminatory.
Look at GeenaDavis setting up her own media Institute for addressing perceptions and stereotypes. Support jobs there, and get away from any practice you see as capitalizing and discriminating unfairly.
Democratize the media. DIY.
Then you have direct power over passing and enforcing policies that you follow control and believe in yourself!
FoxfyreIn an unusual and little publicized recent action, the California legislature recently passed a law making it illegal for a particular media oriented website to publicize an actor or actress's age if the subject requested their age not be published.
The measure addressed complaints that older actors and actresses are discriminated against and are no longer considered for the best roles. Women in particular are discriminated against while men generally are less punished for getting older..
The target of the law, IMDb, has sued challenging the law as a violation of free speech.
Normally I would note such a story as mildly interesting and move on, but my instincts tell me this one could go all the way to the Supreme Court of the U.S. if the judge rules in favor of the state. And, as these things go, such a precedent could spread into many other areas.
The way the world has gone for the last several decades, based on such a precedent, I can see equal protection laws extend far beyond the film industry to unflattering photos of anybody, comments on their weight or height or marital status, temperament, or anything that might impact them negatively. And while that would certainly result in a more pleasant environment on line for instance, it would also restrict free speech to ridiculous lengths.
What say you?
Revealing an actor's age is illegal? IMDb website sues California
By Alex Dobuzinskis
November 11, 2016
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Many actors think there ought to be a law against posting their ages online, and California this year obliged critics of ageism in Hollywood by passing a law targeting a leading movie and television information website.
The law has been challenged in a lawsuit by the company IMDb, which is owned by Amazon.com Inc and operates a repository of information on the film and television industry.
The lawsuit, filed on Thursday in federal court for the Northern District of California, alleges that the measure violates free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution.
Supporters described the law as an effort to prevent age discrimination. It requires officials at IMDb.com to remove from the website the ages of figures in the entertainment industry, including actors and directors, if those individuals request the deletion.
Actors in Hollywood have long complained they are passed over for roles as they get older.
Female performers in particular say a double standard gives women fewer opportunities as they age, while men can still land leading parts late in their careers.
"By the time you're 28 you're expired, you're playing mommy roles," actress Zoe Saldana, now 38 and female lead of the blockbuster film "Guardians of the Galaxy," told The Telegraph in 2014.
The lawsuit said the law, known as AB 1687, was unfair because it was carefully tailored to apply only to IMDb.com Inc, which is incorporated in Delaware and has offices in Seattle, and not other sources of information. . . .
Revealing an actor's age is illegal? IMDb website sues California
If people in a District or State pass a law for themselves to follow, that's fine, but I WOULD include the adherents agree NOT to work for or patronize companies that discriminate by age.
If you make your money off exploiting images of perfect youth and agelessness, then you are hypocrites and part of the problem.
Watch where you work and put your money.
Start there with changing policy.
And maybe we won't have this problem so much.
I wouldn't agree to passing laws restricting free speech of people outside that agreement who don't consent.
The whole industry needs to change, so I'd start there. Make your own companies and networks, support writers and producers who create roles and jobs for unique people and not stereotypes if you oppose those.
Don't make money off the hype then complain it's discriminatory.
Look at GeenaDavis setting up her own media Institute for addressing perceptions and stereotypes. Support jobs there, and get away from any practice you see as capitalizing and discriminating unfairly.
Democratize the media. DIY.
Then you have direct power over passing and enforcing policies that you follow control and believe in yourself!
In government it is important to include everybody as much as it is reasonable and practical to do.
But in private industry, if I had say $5 million dollars to invest in a film, I want to make a profit on that film. Sure I can demand that the producers and directors are non discriminatory in any way in who they employ as actors and for all the other hundreds of people who ultimately work together to create that film. But I cannot demand that the audience be non discriminatory in what movie they wish to see. And if they didn't like my very principled and ethically produce movie, I lose some or all of my $5 million dollars.
My goal would be to create a film that would attract a very large audience. If that means I am very discriminatroy in who I choose to produce it, direct it, act in it, and provide all the support services that ultimately make the film appealing or not, then so be it. I want the right to discriminate.
FoxfyreIn an unusual and little publicized recent action, the California legislature recently passed a law making it illegal for a particular media oriented website to publicize an actor or actress's age if the subject requested their age not be published.
The measure addressed complaints that older actors and actresses are discriminated against and are no longer considered for the best roles. Women in particular are discriminated against while men generally are less punished for getting older..
The target of the law, IMDb, has sued challenging the law as a violation of free speech.
Normally I would note such a story as mildly interesting and move on, but my instincts tell me this one could go all the way to the Supreme Court of the U.S. if the judge rules in favor of the state. And, as these things go, such a precedent could spread into many other areas.
The way the world has gone for the last several decades, based on such a precedent, I can see equal protection laws extend far beyond the film industry to unflattering photos of anybody, comments on their weight or height or marital status, temperament, or anything that might impact them negatively. And while that would certainly result in a more pleasant environment on line for instance, it would also restrict free speech to ridiculous lengths.
What say you?
Revealing an actor's age is illegal? IMDb website sues California
By Alex Dobuzinskis
November 11, 2016
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Many actors think there ought to be a law against posting their ages online, and California this year obliged critics of ageism in Hollywood by passing a law targeting a leading movie and television information website.
The law has been challenged in a lawsuit by the company IMDb, which is owned by Amazon.com Inc and operates a repository of information on the film and television industry.
The lawsuit, filed on Thursday in federal court for the Northern District of California, alleges that the measure violates free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution.
Supporters described the law as an effort to prevent age discrimination. It requires officials at IMDb.com to remove from the website the ages of figures in the entertainment industry, including actors and directors, if those individuals request the deletion.
Actors in Hollywood have long complained they are passed over for roles as they get older.
Female performers in particular say a double standard gives women fewer opportunities as they age, while men can still land leading parts late in their careers.
"By the time you're 28 you're expired, you're playing mommy roles," actress Zoe Saldana, now 38 and female lead of the blockbuster film "Guardians of the Galaxy," told The Telegraph in 2014.
The lawsuit said the law, known as AB 1687, was unfair because it was carefully tailored to apply only to IMDb.com Inc, which is incorporated in Delaware and has offices in Seattle, and not other sources of information. . . .
Revealing an actor's age is illegal? IMDb website sues California
If people in a District or State pass a law for themselves to follow, that's fine, but I WOULD include the adherents agree NOT to work for or patronize companies that discriminate by age.
If you make your money off exploiting images of perfect youth and agelessness, then you are hypocrites and part of the problem.
Watch where you work and put your money.
Start there with changing policy.
And maybe we won't have this problem so much.
I wouldn't agree to passing laws restricting free speech of people outside that agreement who don't consent.
The whole industry needs to change, so I'd start there. Make your own companies and networks, support writers and producers who create roles and jobs for unique people and not stereotypes if you oppose those.
Don't make money off the hype then complain it's discriminatory.
Look at GeenaDavis setting up her own media Institute for addressing perceptions and stereotypes. Support jobs there, and get away from any practice you see as capitalizing and discriminating unfairly.
Democratize the media. DIY.
Then you have direct power over passing and enforcing policies that you follow control and believe in yourself!
In government it is important to include everybody as much as it is reasonable and practical to do.
But in private industry, if I had say $5 million dollars to invest in a film, I want to make a profit on that film. Sure I can demand that the producers and directors are non discriminatory in any way in who they employ as actors and for all the other hundreds of people who ultimately work together to create that film. But I cannot demand that the audience be non discriminatory in what movie they wish to see. And if they didn't like my very principled and ethically produce movie, I lose some or all of my $5 million dollars.
My goal would be to create a film that would attract a very large audience. If that means I am very discriminatroy in who I choose to produce it, direct it, act in it, and provide all the support services that ultimately make the film appealing or not, then so be it. I want the right to discriminate.
Okay Foxfyre so people need to AGREE as you do,
that if discriminating is necessary to hype films for marketing,
then the actors need to AGREE to work on that basis.
One actor sued for being turned down for Superman because
of homosexual orientation, but that is not only hard to prove it was the only reason
and also isn't it the right of producers to select actors based on how they are hyped or presented in the media?
If Tom Huddleston loses contracts because of association with Taylor Swift,
isn't that the marketing decision of the companies selecting a spokes model?
I agree that people have the right to choose and cast models and actors/performers
as they see fit.
So as long as it isn't illegal slander or libel, defamation of character,
or posting private sex photos or information on children that invade privacy or security,
I would think they can agree on a policy that's fair.
And not start adding conditions not all people agree to.
If you lie about your age or other past to your employers,
you better be so good at what you do they don't care.