Under age dating california
(Full disclosure: The firm has represented .) “As a constitutional matter, the government could not forbid news organizations from publishing accurate information about the age of actors (or directors, or anyone else in the entertainment industry).” She continued, “The suggestion by the proponents that this law is constitutional because it targets ‘commercial’ enterprises with ‘subscribers’ doesn’t avoid that problem: It isn’t consistent with the definitions used in the law — and also doesn’t make sense, given that a business that depends on income from ‘subscribers’ is more likely to accede to the subscriber’s wishes concerning the information that will be posted about them anyway.” Said Harvey Silverglate of Boston’s Zalkind Duncan & Bernstein, who has practiced civil liberties and criminal defense law since the 1960s, “Limiting the power to censor only to paying members does not save the legislation.
From one perspective, it makes the situation worse by granting the right-to-censor only to those who can afford to ‘bribe’ their way out of having age disclosed.” Abrams agreed.
two days ago regarding the new legislation.) If IMDb were to violate the new statute, the consequences include damages, attorney’s fees and injunctions, as spelled out in an adjacent section of the state’s Civil Code.
Although the statute may be most critical for actors, it applies to all entertainment job categories.
“Creating liability for the truthful reporting of lawfully obtained information is deeply problematic under the First Amendment,” said UC Irvine dean and Constitutional scholar Erwin Chemerinsky.
“It is different to say ‘men only’ or ‘women only’ or ‘whites only’ in an ad. A birthday or an age is a fact, and I don’t think there can be liability under the First Amendment for publishing true facts.” Said Bruce Johnson, of Seattle’s Davis Wright Tremaine, “Obviously, to the extent that it requires the removal of truthful information from websites reporting on matters of public interest, the statute would appear to be an unconstitutional abridgement of First Amendment rights.” Not so fast, says SAG-AFTRA’s Crabtree-Ireland.
The same is true of speech-limiting laws that seem designed to protect only a favored class of people.” In contrast, Crabtree-Ireland insists that the law’s limited scope is a strength.
“AB 1687 is narrowly drafted to achieve one specific goal,” he said: “to deter age discrimination in casting by empowering performers to remove their age information from subscription based online services used for casting in the entertainment industry.” Citing a 1998 decision by the West Coast’s 9th Circuit that found a commercial database that sold arrest information to be “a pure economic transaction…comfortably within the ‘core notion’ of commercial speech," Crabtree-Ireland added, “Similar laws involving commercial speech have withstood First Amendment challenges when narrowly drafted and effectuating a substantial government interest.” Zev Eigen, a discrimination expert and former Fox lawyer and Northwestern professor now at Littler Mendelson in L.
But that may be assuming that a dispute over age information even sees the inside of a courthouse.
In any event, the substantial government interest in preventing age discrimination is more than sufficient to justify this narrowly tailored rule.” Similarly, bill sponsor Calderon said the limitation to subscribers will help insulate the new law, as reported Saturday.