This may seem like a naive question but doesn't children acting in a TV show, movie or commercial constitute child labor? Those children have to take time off from their education and their whole life may be negatively impacted by the part they play on the big screen.

Does a child have the capacity to consent to be on TV? If they do, what about babies on TV shows and commercials?

They can only be on set for a certain amount of time. It may seem like the kids are always on the show while you're watching it, but they aren't. Most of them are probably home-schooled.

Sometimes, show business can ruin a kid, but not always. Certainly, Drew Barrymore had her issues, but she recovered and she's still an amazing actress.

(May 27, 2018 at 4:30 pm)Kit Wrote: They can only be on set for a certain amount of time. It may seem like the kids are always on the show while you're watching it, but they aren't. Most of them are probably home-schooled.

Sometimes, show business can ruin a kid, but not always. Certainly, Drew Barrymore had her issues, but she recovered and she's still an amazing actress.

I've done a lot of reading about this area, and it appears that the required levels of education they miss has to be made up for on set, usually by tutors because most schools won't accept a student who has to keep missing days to shoot their film/TV show.

You can rise above it all (like Jodie Foster, Shirley Temple, Billy Mumy, Dean Stockwell, Christian Bale, Natalie Wood, Neil Patrick Harris, the three kids from Harry Potter, Ron Howard, Kirsten Dunst, Jennifer Connelly, Freddie Highmore, Elijah Wood, Seth Green, and many others who ended up a bit less together), or you can drown in your own shit (like so many others)

(May 27, 2018 at 5:08 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: I've done a lot of reading about this area, and it appears that the required levels of education they miss has to be made up for on set, usually by tutors because most schools won't accept a student who has to keep missing days to shoot their film/TV show.

I figure on-set is the same as home-schooled.

Glad I'm not alone, I've wondered this too. They receive their earnings from a trust fund when they turn 18, that their parents or whoever, is holding for them, I think?

(May 27, 2018 at 4:26 pm)Alexmahone Wrote: This may seem like a naive question but doesn't children acting in a TV show, movie or commercial constitute child labor? Those children have to take time off from their education and their whole life may be negatively impacted by the part they play on the big screen.

Does a child have the capacity to consent to be on TV? If they do, what about babies on TV shows and commercials?

It may indeed constitute child labour.  So what?  Getting paid scads of money for being pampered on the set of a TV programme or a film is hardly the same as a six year old forced to mine coal.  If it violated child labour laws, there would be any children in film at all.

I don't think the education of children in entertainment suffers all that much. As just one example, I recently heard an interview with Mayim Bialik in which she referenced the on-set  tutors she had while filming 'Blossom', one of whom inspired her to become a scientist.

Kids' entire lives can be impacted by - literally - any experience they have.  I don't see that working in film is any more or less likely to have a negative effect than is anything else.

Boru

(May 27, 2018 at 5:14 pm)*Deidre* Wrote: Glad I'm not alone, I've wondered this too. They receive their earnings from a trust fund when they turn 18, that their parents or whoever, is holding for them, I think?

IF those same parents managed to save those earnings, and that's a big IF. Jackie Coogan, star of Chaplin's The Kid, hangman, and future Fester Addams took his parents to court after he discovered his parents squandered all the money he earned as a child actor. As a result, a law was set up (in California) to keep 15% of the child actor's money into a trust. Naturally, this means the parents can do whatever the fuck they want with the other 85%. Some take care of it (Billy Mumy's parents certainly did) and some don't.

---

(May 27, 2018 at 5:20 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: It may indeed constitute child labour.  So what?  Getting paid scads of money for being pampered on the set of a TV programme or a film is hardly the same as a six year old forced to mine coal.  If it violated child labour laws, there would be any children in film at all.

I'm pretty sure that the child labor laws do not cover (and I think may be specifically excempt) child actors.

(May 27, 2018 at 5:21 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: I'm pretty sure that the child labor laws do not cover (and I think may be specifically excempt)  child actors.

They are most certainly not exempted. There are all kinds of restrictions placed on how long child actors can be on set and what conditions they can be subjected to. It's the biggest reason the Hollywood will do their damndest to hire young looking 20-somethings to play teen parts and young looking teens to play adolescent parts. Ender's Game was kept off the big screen for nearly a decade because of Orson Scott Card's adamant refusal to allow the screen writers to "age" the very young characters so they could get 18+ actors to play the parts. There may be some exceptions to the rules, but Hollywood has to follow essentially the same rules as everyone else regarding child labor.

In our society there are lots of ways to fuck kids up. This seems like one of the lesser evils.

Keeps them away from church and the pedos?