Federal Judge Halts IMDb Age Bias Legislation

Federal Judge Halts IMDb Age Bias Legislation

California's AB 1687: A First Amendment Controversy in the Entertainment Industry

California's AB 1687, a law enacted in 2016 to prevent age discrimination in the entertainment industry, has been deemed unconstitutional due to First Amendment violations. The law, which prohibits websites like IMDb from listing an actor's age if the actor objects, has been met with opposition in the courts.

The law aimed to address ageism in the youth-obsessed entertainment industry. However, in 2017, a U.S. District Judge issued a stay and later ruled the law unconstitutional. The judge stated that the law restricts the publication of truthful, factual information, making it difficult to imagine how it could not violate the First Amendment.

The court also found that the state failed to demonstrate that removing this particular source of age information would significantly reduce age discrimination in the industry. This ruling was upheld on appeal by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2020, reinforcing that AB 1687 infringes on free speech rights protected by the First Amendment [2][3].

Industry groups like SAG-AFTRA supported the law, arguing it would mitigate ageism. However, the federal courts prioritized free expression of truthful information over the policy goals of the statute [3].

Meanwhile, a separate controversy unfolded in Salem, Massachusetts, known as America's witch town. A Twitter user posted a call to burn down the Satanic Temple's international headquarters, located in an old funeral parlor in Salem. The co-founder of the Satanic Temple was the target of the tweet. The incident serves as a stark reminder of the importance of free speech and the potential consequences of its restriction.

In a different context, the courts have also highlighted the importance of free speech in employment. Questions about race, age, national origin, and similar protected categories are illegal to ask during employment interviews. Subtle questions can also provide a basis for discrimination claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

In 2011, Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill of the United States District Court in Fresno blocked the enforcement of California's low-carbon fuel rule. The halted rule was a major part of California's effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The court suggested that there are likely more direct, more effective, and less speech-restrictive ways of achieving the same end.

These events underscore the delicate balance between protecting free speech and addressing societal issues. As the debate over AB 1687 continues, it serves as a reminder that any law restricting the publication of truthful, factual information must demonstrate its necessity and serve a compelling government interest.

[1] California's AB 1687: A Look at the Controversial Law Restricting Age Information on Entertainment Websites. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/news/ni63868900

[2] Ninth Circuit Upholds Ruling That California's AB 1687 Violates the First Amendment. (2020). Retrieved from https://www.courthousenews.com/ninth-circuit-upholds-ruling-that-californias-ab-1687-violates-the-first-amendment/

[3] California's Age-Blind Law for Actors Struck Down as Unconstitutional. (2017). Retrieved from https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/california-age-blind-law-actors-struck-unconstitutional-992253

1. In the debate over California's AB 1687, it is crucial to consider the potential First Amendment violations in policy-and-legislation targeted at the entertainment industry, as the removal of truthful, factual information can hinder free expression and be subject to challenge in politics and general-news forums.
2. The ruling against California's AB 1687 has highlighted the significance of free speech rights protected by the First Amendment, demonstrating that any legislation restricting the publication of truthful, factual information must fulfill a compelling government interest and not interfere with the dissemination of general-news and political discourse.

Read also: