Okay, I screwed up completely in my analysis of California's new "IMDB can't list actors' ages" law. I was sloppy. Bad Ken! /1
-
-
Replying to @Popehat
From credulous reading of press and an unforgivably sloppy reading of the bill (http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1687 …) I thought it was much broader /2
1 reply 1 retweet 8 likes -
Replying to @Popehat
Specifically I thought it meant that sites would have to take down the age of any actor who asks. That would be plainly unconstitutional. /3
1 reply 1 retweet 11 likes -
Replying to @Popehat
In fact, it only applies when the actor is a subscriber to the site -- if the actor hires the site to post stuff about the actor. /4
2 replies 3 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @Popehat
/5 Under those circumstances, law says the site has to take down a subscriber's data upon demand. But a non-subscriber's age can be posted.
6 replies 2 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @Popehat
/6 So: it's more likely to be interpreted as a regulation of the consumer rights of the actor based on the contractual relationship.
3 replies 2 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @Popehat
/7 It's not so different than a law saying I can't spill client secrets; that limits my speech, but it's seen as a commercial regulation.
2 replies 2 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @Popehat
/8 In short, I was lazy and sloppy and wrong. Don't read laws tired and lazy.
11 replies 1 retweet 33 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.