Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

New California Law Requires IMDb to Remove Actor Ages on Request

New California Law Requires IMDb to Remove Actor Ages on Request

Another day in California, another inane state law on the books!

https://www.facebook.com/jerrybrown/photos/pb.48001409120.-2207520000.1444524094./10152163487064121/?type=3&theater

I recently noted that Governor Jerry Brown recently signed rules governing cow flatulence into law.

Another day in California, another inane state law on the books! This particular statute deals with an area critical to citizen security and the state’s economy: The Internet Movie Data Base!

California Gov. Jerry Brown on Saturday signed legislation that requires certain entertainment sites, such as IMDb, to remove – or not post in the first place – an actor’s age or birthday upon request.

The law, which becomes effective January 1, applies to entertainment database sites that allow paid subscribers to post resumes, headshots or other information for prospective employers. Only a paying subscriber can make a removal or non-publication request. Although the legislation may be most critical for actors, it applies to all entertainment job categories.

“Even though it is against both federal and state law, age discrimination persists in the entertainment industry,” Majority Leader Ian Calderon, D-Whittier, said in a statement. “AB 1687 provides the necessary tools to remove age information from online profiles on employment referral websites to help prevent this type of discrimination.”

Anyone still up for CalExit?

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

How is this constitutional?

    Milhouse in reply to EBL. | September 26, 2016 at 4:15 pm

    It’s certainly constitutional. There is no constitutional right to disclose information when you have a contractual relationship with and a duty to the person who is instructing you not to. Under this CA law, if I pay for a listing on one of these sites, I have the right to insist that they not include information that I would rather be hidden. Sites that I am not paying and with which I have no contractual relationship remain free to disclose whatever information they like about me, so long as it’s true. Why do you see a problem with this?

Thinking of Gov. Jerry Brown, I might just engage in some cow flatulence!

Does that old car he drives meet pollution standards?

Another idiocy from idiots who refuse to even try to understand how things work.
I wonder how are they planning to enforce California laws upon people who don’t live in California nor have business in California.

The Internet does not “live” in California.

    Milhouse in reply to Exiliado. | September 26, 2016 at 4:20 pm

    What on earth makes you think they have any intention of enforcing a California law on people who don’t live there? Where did you get such a bizarre idea? Are you under the impression that this is the first law that applies to web sites?! There are hundreds of laws that apply to web sites, and the jurisdiction rules are either well established, or are determined by the usual rules. How is this one any different?

    Please explain what is your objection to a law that requires people who are working for a client, and are paid by that client to list certain information and not others, to obey the client’s instructions and not publish information that the client supplied in confidence, or didn’t supply at all and wants kept secret.

      Exiliado in reply to Milhouse. | September 26, 2016 at 8:20 pm

      What on Earth?
      The fact that they passed the law. Period.


      It’s a stupid law, unenforceable for any and all website owners outside of California jurisdiction, which would be anyone with enough common sense to realize that California is not a good place to run business.
      It is also your typical liberal-mindset government meddling against private business.

      Let’s say that I am a citizen of Timbuktu, and I host a website in a server in Russia. In this website I allow people to post their resume, provided that they pay a small fee, in order to be discovered by potential employers.
      I also provide a service to employers who will also pay a small fee for the chance to meet potential employees. Like a dating service.
      As part of my services, I will also provide both employers and employees with whatever background information I can find about the other party.
      That would be a business. I would provide services to both kind of clients, who would be free to use my services, or not.

      But come Kuhlifornia and their supporter Mr. Wikipedia Warrior, and they decide that they have the right to tell me that I cannot publish the age of my clients. Guess what? I wouldn’t give a damn. It’s not my problem if California residents decide to use my website. I am not subject to California law. Period.

        Milhouse in reply to Exiliado. | September 26, 2016 at 11:42 pm

        You are an idiot. Califiornia, like every state in the world, makes laws that apply to people in its jurisdiction, and not to people outside its jurisdiction. CA has thousands of laws on its books, and it has never tried to enforce them in Timbuktu or in Russia. What is different about this law that led you to the insane conclusion that CA intends to enforce it outside its jurisdiction?

        If you take someone’s money to promote them to potential employers, you have a contractual duty to them, and have no right to publish derogatory information about them that they instructed you not to. And it is absolutely the business of whichever state has jurisdiction to set the parameters and default terms for such contracts. That’s what states do. That’s what commercial law is. If you want to negotiate a different deal with your client, that’s between you and him, and obviously if he gives you permission to publish this information then you can publish. But if he doesn’t, then you can’t.

        And what’s with your obsession with Wikipedia? How is it relevant to anything?

          Exiliado in reply to Milhouse. | September 27, 2016 at 8:56 am

          You are calling me offensive names again, and that’s the end of my interaction with you.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | September 29, 2016 at 8:40 pm

          “Offensive names”! That’s rich, coming from you. Why don’t you stop interacting with the blog altogether? It’d be a better place for it. But so long as you inflict your ignorance on us, I will continue to correct you.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend