I would like to ask for the '100 ugliest actors' list to be taken down because A, I think its rude and I for sure would not want my name to be on there. And B, I don't think that some people would agree with the list as each and every one of us have different opinions on how one looks, and whether they are ugly or not.
Posted 1 year ago
Hi, Cindy Freestone. What is the URL to this IMDb name list? I agree that using the word "ugly" is rude. A more appropriate word would be "unattractive". The subject heading should be changed, if possible, rather than the list forced into being private.
yes, I 100% agree! The URL to this IMDb is https://www.imdb.com/list/ls054789830/
Many of the people on the list are slightly "nerdy" looking, like in want of Golden ratio proportions. Hardly any these men would be expected to be rated a "ten". So, I can see where the list creator is coming from, but "ugly" is seems like such a rude description.
I agree. I looked at the list and was amused at "Who" was on the list. A couple of actors on the list would actually be cool with being included as it is their brand and it is what gets them work. So I can see that ugly was not used actually in a derogatory manner. It was used in a complimentary way in most instances. Yeah they could have used a PC word. But a Sanitation Engineer is still in the waste/garbage business.
(Edited)
It is a list by a user.
It is not a list created by IMDb.
You have a right to voice an opinion
The list maker has a right to voice an opinion.
You however do not have a right to force you will against another that is against the law.
You probably a product of our ever decreasing in quality educational system.
You probably never had a civics class.
Heaven forbid that academia teach you the constitution and the bill of rights.
First Amendment
The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
(Edited)
Ed, what is this all for? Who needs this one-side approach?
You are free to tell this, but what for? Is it to entrust me and other users that we or someone may be rude to others? Or what? If I call the above written statement of yours as "nuts", would it be OK for this forum? If "nuts" is not OK when speaking to each other here, why "ugly" should be OK for millions to see in relation to some famous people?
You are free to tell this, but what for? Is it to entrust me and other users that we or someone may be rude to others? Or what? If I call the above written statement of yours as "nuts", would it be OK for this forum? If "nuts" is not OK when speaking to each other here, why "ugly" should be OK for millions to see in relation to some famous people?
I'm not telling you.
I'm stating the laws that apply.
You can't ban things because you don't like what they say.
That's all
No more.
No less.
The database can't remove or make the list private.
It's not my opinion.
It's U.S. Law.
I might not like what someone else says, but I will defend their right to say it.
I'm stating the laws that apply.
You can't ban things because you don't like what they say.
That's all
No more.
No less.
The database can't remove or make the list private.
It's not my opinion.
It's U.S. Law.
I might not like what someone else says, but I will defend their right to say it.
You still telling me and others on this public forum your one-sided view of laws.
Nobody here expressed the idea to forbid someone to like or to dislike any chosen celebrities. But the likes and dislikes may be expressed in tolerant form, aren't they?
According to your vision, we all are free to go on street and shout "F**K O**" to everyone we meet, and this would be good for constitutional rights. For all rights, or only for rude ones?
Nobody here expressed the idea to forbid someone to like or to dislike any chosen celebrities. But the likes and dislikes may be expressed in tolerant form, aren't they?
According to your vision, we all are free to go on street and shout "F**K O**" to everyone we meet, and this would be good for constitutional rights. For all rights, or only for rude ones?
It is not a one sided view.
It is a shared view.
Excessive Incivility or disturbing the peace is against the law.
I have told you nothing.
I have not forced my will on you.
People have those rights of free speech.
It is not my view or will.
Its the law.
That's all.
Don't like rude people. Walk away.
Rude Movie? Dont watch.
If a persons rudeness is disturbing the peace, they get arrested for disturbing the peace. Not for being rude.
And lastly it is not my vision. It was The Founding Fathers Vision.
You ban words. Then Books and media is next. Slippery slope.
MAthePA..............my friend, calm down.
Cheers.
It is a shared view.
Excessive Incivility or disturbing the peace is against the law.
I have told you nothing.
I have not forced my will on you.
People have those rights of free speech.
It is not my view or will.
Its the law.
That's all.
Don't like rude people. Walk away.
Rude Movie? Dont watch.
If a persons rudeness is disturbing the peace, they get arrested for disturbing the peace. Not for being rude.
And lastly it is not my vision. It was The Founding Fathers Vision.
You ban words. Then Books and media is next. Slippery slope.
MAthePA..............my friend, calm down.
Cheers.
(Edited)
IMDb is not beholden to the Bill of Rights. In fact, only civil authorities and government entities within the United States are, which makes it hard for them to sentence people to prison for publishing things. IMDb can remove anything from its property that violates IMDb policy. IMDb can establish policies for its property that are not necessarily liked by patrons or observers.
Jeorj, lest you forget I'm here because of whats above.
gromit82, Champion
Ed: I don't think that the First Amendment has anything to do with this discussion.
The OP is saying that IMDb should take the "100 ugliest actors" list off its own website. IMDb.com is not the government. It's a private company (in the broad sense of "private", meaning non-governmental). IMDb has control over its own web site and they have the right to remove content if they choose to do so. In fact, a couple of years ago, IMDb deleted all of their thousands and thousands of message boards, removing everything in them, whether good or bad. I disagreed with that decision, but I admit that IMDb had the right to make that decision.
Only if someone demanded that the government (and specifically a government in the U.S.) remove content from IMDb would there be a First Amendment problem.
The OP is saying that IMDb should take the "100 ugliest actors" list off its own website. IMDb.com is not the government. It's a private company (in the broad sense of "private", meaning non-governmental). IMDb has control over its own web site and they have the right to remove content if they choose to do so. In fact, a couple of years ago, IMDb deleted all of their thousands and thousands of message boards, removing everything in them, whether good or bad. I disagreed with that decision, but I admit that IMDb had the right to make that decision.
Only if someone demanded that the government (and specifically a government in the U.S.) remove content from IMDb would there be a First Amendment problem.
Thanks Gromit82.
I have finished making my point. But two last things.
What policy does it violate?
If the IMDb removed it when it violated no stated policy, It would be a First Amendment Problem. This is the very same issue that twitter, Facebook, and Google have been going through with censoring content.
Cheers to all.
Not commenting further.
Everybody hates me.
I have finished making my point. But two last things.
What policy does it violate?
If the IMDb removed it when it violated no stated policy, It would be a First Amendment Problem. This is the very same issue that twitter, Facebook, and Google have been going through with censoring content.
Cheers to all.
Not commenting further.
Everybody hates me.
Hi, Lucy! How you doing?
Are we cool?
'I love you' are banned words.
Huh, that's why he wrote "everybody hates"...
Yes, and I wrote "I love you" and it was removed by the aliens.
You got some splainnin to do.
Just one thing before I go Ed, will you please learn about Copyright as opposed to Copy-Write. Then you will be the perfect all round individual. A voice-over Extraordinaire.
(Edited)
Darn Spell Check!
I'll get it write next tyme.
I'll get it write next tyme.
Michelle, Official Rep
Oswald