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.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. 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?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2. 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."

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3. 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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4. 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

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5. 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

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6. 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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7. 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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8. 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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9. 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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10. 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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Sep 2017 @ 11:32am

    Re: FALSE

    Immortal doesn't mean unborn.
    Stop spreading lies about our One lord and saviour! I swear, you Unbornites are a heretic cult!

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12. icon
    profssrfink (profile), 8 Sep 2017 @ 11:39am

    Re: Re: FALSE

    I would never blaspheme the one true God. I was merely implying He was born many many moons ago, before there even was a moon.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Sep 2017 @ 11:40am

    Re: Re: FALSE

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14. 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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15. 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?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16. 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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17. 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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18. 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...

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19. identicon
    David, 8 Sep 2017 @ 12:47pm

    Re:

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

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20. 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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21. 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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Sep 2017 @ 2:35pm

    Re: FALSE

    Sean Connery is the one true Immortal.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 8 Sep 2017 @ 2:47pm

    Re: Re: FALSE

    Yeah, and next you’re gonna tell me that there was more than one Highlander film; more than two Halloween films; more than two Terminator films; at least one sequel to Aliens and at least one prequel to Alien; at least one sequel to The Matrix; and an entire prequel trilogy to Star Wars: Episode IV.

    What do I look like, a fool?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24. 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”.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25. 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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26. 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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27. 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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28. 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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29. 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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30. 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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31. 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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32. 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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33. 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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

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

    Attractive older women at the local bar

    Perhaps you go to the wrong bars?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35. 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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36. 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....

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37. 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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38. 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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

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

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

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

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

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

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41. 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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42. 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?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43. 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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44. 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! ;)

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45. 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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46. 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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47. 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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48. 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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49. 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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50. 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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51. 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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52. 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!

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53. 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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54. 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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55. 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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Sep 2017 @ 7:32pm

    Re: Re: Pointless Lawsuit

    Nuts, I don't even own a bra.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

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

    Even Their Acronym Is Ageist

    “Screen Actors Guild” ... “SAG”.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58. 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)

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59. 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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60. 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)

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61. 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

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62. 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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63. identicon
    Wendy Cockcroft, 11 Sep 2017 @ 5:52am

    Re:

    You got me to agree with Chris Dodd?

    I take my hat off to you, AC. That's usually very hard to do.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64. 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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65. 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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: I Invented Email
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

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