Child Protection Laws in Traditional Media vs Social Media
In the dynamic world of entertainment, the protection of child actors has been a longstanding concern. From the golden era of Hollywood to the contemporary landscape of social media influencers, the exploitation of minors has raised profound ethical and legal questions. In examining child protection laws, it’s crucial to compare the safeguards afforded to child actors in traditional media with those in the rapidly evolving realm of social media.
Traditional Media: Hollywood’s Child Actor Labour Laws
Historically, the plight of child actors like Shirley Temple and Jackie Coogan shed light on the need for legislative intervention to safeguard their earnings and rights.
Temple’s 1988 autobiography, “Child Star,” revealed a startling reality – after inquiring about her investments, she discovered that only $30,000 remained from her substantial earnings, with half going to her parents and the rest covering living expenses for other family members.
Temple’s experience reflects a broader issue faced by countless child actors. The majority of Temple’s fortune was amassed between 1935 and 1939, the same period during which California responded to Jackie Coogan’s plight. The resulting legislation, known as the California Child Actor’s Bill or the Coogan Law, was enacted to prevent the financial exploitation of young performers.
Enacted in response to Jackie Coogan’s case, the Coogan Law mandates that 15 percent of a child actor’s earnings be placed in a trust, ensuring their financial security until they reach adulthood. Now, according to The Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA) , it’s necessary within California, New York, Illinois, Louisiana, and New Mexico to open a Coogan Account for a child performer in order to receive a work permit allowing the child’s employment. The necessity of a Coogan Account underscores the importance of financial security for young actors, as their ability to work hinges upon its establishment. Parents must furnish the Coogan Account number, with 15% of their child’s gross wages promptly deposited into the account within 15 days of employment. Though the original loopholes of the California Child Actor’s Bill persisted until January 1, 2000, subsequent amendments unequivocally affirmed that minors’ earnings rightfully belong to them, not their parents. However, as minors are legally unable to manage their finances, California laws dictate the management of earnings, establishing a fiduciary relationship between parents and children to ensure proper stewardship of funds.
As for limits on hours, each age group has different limits set for the time in which they can work, with children under 6 months only able to be on set for 2 hours and work for 20 minutes, whereas children between the ages of 9 to 16 cannot work more than 5 hours in a given day. While the laws protecting minors in the entertainment industry have improved tremendously since the times of Judy Garland and Shirley Temple, they do not fully protect children from the potential dangers within that world.
Despite legislative strides, challenges persist, while legislative measures have provided important safeguards, the journey to ensure the well-being and rights of child actors is an ongoing one, demanding unwavering commitment and vigilance from all stakeholders.
Challenges in Traditional Media
The stories of child actors like Gary Coleman vividly illustrate the dark side of the entertainment industry, where young talents are often preyed upon and exploited by those entrusted with their care. Gary Coleman, celebrated as the child star of the iconic TV sitcom “Different Strokes,” found himself at the centre of this tumultuous reality. Despite the show’s resounding success, Coleman’s parents diverted a substantial portion of his earnings, depriving him of the wealth he rightfully earned. This financial betrayal ignited a protracted legal struggle, ultimately plunging Coleman into a spiral of adversity that culminated in bankruptcy.
In response to these challenges, legislative efforts such as the California Child Actor’s Bill, or the Coogan Law, have been enacted to protect young performers’ financial interests. This law requires that a portion of a child actor’s earnings be placed in a trust, ensuring their financial security until they reach adulthood. However, despite advancements, gaps in protection persist, particularly for reality TV stars who often fall outside regulatory safeguards. So while it’s likely that stars such as Kendall and Kylie Jenner who audiences watched grow up on “Keeping Up with the Kardashians” likely had trusts in place from their father Bruce Jenner’s reported $100 million fortune, it’s more worrisome for children whose families depend on their reality show paydays as their main source of income. An example could be child reality star such as Alana “Honey Boo Boo” Thompson is entirely reliant on her parents to ensure her earnings are being set aside for the future, since the state of Georgia doesn’t require trust accounts for any child actor, according to USA Today. To make matters worse, not only were the children not protected to be compensated for their roles in the show, but were being forced to participate in the midst of horrific sexual and mental abuse. Reality shows like “Dance Moms” have also proven to be unsafe environments for children. In a 2022 interview with Cosmopolitan, former show favourite Maddie Ziegler shared the true events of being a child on a reality show which includes being subject to manipulation and is not as “real” as networks would like us to think.
In addition to the Coogan Act, a California law implemented five years ago aims to safeguard child actors and performers from sexual abuse within the entertainment industry. This legislation mandates that specific individuals in the industry must obtain Child Performer Services Permits before engaging with minors on set. Given the industry’s history of issues with sexual predators, it is concerning that Hollywood professionals have not consistently adhered to these regulations. To acquire a permit, workers must undergo fingerprinting and pass a thorough background check, ensuring that individuals with a history of abuse are kept away from children in the entertainment sector. Despite these preventive measures, companies like Disney have been implicated in disregarding these regulations. A stark example is the case of Brian Peck, whom Disney hired in 2006 for “The Suite Life of Zack and Cody,” just a year after his release from prison for charges including oral copulation with a child, lewd acts, sodomy, and attempted sodomy with a minor. This hiring decision raises serious questions about Disney’s commitment to creating a safe environment for its actors. Notably, California assembly bill 1660 explicitly prohibits registered sex offenders from working with artists or performers under the age of 18 in California, reinforcing the legal imperative to protect young individuals in the entertainment industry.
Moreover, despite the enactment of laws aimed at addressing critical issues such as protecting child actors from sexual abuse, the entertainment industry continues to grapple with instances of exploitation and misconduct. Revelations of inappropriate behaviour by industry professionals, including renowned producers like Dan Schneider, responsible for hit shows such as “iCarly,” “Sam and Cat,” and “Drake and Josh,” have cast a shadow over the industry.
Schneider has faced accusations of engaging in inappropriate conduct with minors on his sets, including requesting massages, making inappropriate comments about their bodies, and orchestrating highly sexualized scenes for national television. Despite these allegations, one would expect that a network like Nickelodeon would take decisive action to safeguard the well-being of its child actors. However, instead of addressing these concerns, Nickelodeon has been accused of protecting abusers within its ranks for extended periods.
Notably, Nickelodeon actress Jeanette McCurdy courageously broke the silence surrounding the abuse she endured on the set of “iCarly” during her upbringing. In her book “I’m Glad My Mom Died,” McCurdy recounts her traumatic experiences, refusing a $300,000 non-disclosure agreement offered by Nickelodeon to maintain her silence. While McCurdy chose to speak out, many others in similar positions may succumb to the pressure of financial compensation, enabling companies with substantial resources to manipulate boundaries and perpetuate abuse.
Unfortunately, McCurdy’s ordeal is not an isolated incident. Lindsay Lohan’s tumultuous journey and Drew Barrymore’s harrowing childhood highlight the pervasive issue of parental exploitation and neglect in the entertainment world. While some parents uphold fairness and support for their child actors, many others succumb to the allure of financial gain at their children’s expense. The phenomenon often arises when a child assumes the role of the family’s primary financial provider, disrupting the balance and power dynamics within the household. This shift can leave the child star ill-equipped to navigate their newfound responsibilities. In contrast, young celebrities from stable, financially secure backgrounds typically find it easier to adapt to their circumstances.
Dr. Shauna Springer, a distinguished psychologist specialising in psychological trauma and interpersonal relationships, offers profound insights into various aspects of pop culture. In Dr. Springer’s view, the journey to fame resembles navigating treacherous waters inhabited by sharks. Child stars, she emphasises, require steadfast guidance and protection from individuals genuinely invested in their well-being. In dire circumstances, a parent or guardian can morph into yet another predator, perpetuating exploitation whether financial or emotional that may precipitate mental health challenges or substance abuse in the young star. Dr. Springer underscores the gravest form of betrayal occurs when a guardian, having caused or exacerbated these hardships, further manipulates the situation to justify their continued control over the child’s life.
Social Media: The Wild West of Child Entertainment
The emergence of social media has transformed the landscape of entertainment, birthing a new breed of child stars and influencers. Platforms like YouTube and TikTok offer unprecedented reach and monetization opportunities for young creators, yet they operate in a regulatory vacuum.
Unlike traditional media, where child labour laws and Coogan Accounts provide a modicum of protection, social media lacks robust safeguards for minors. Child influencers like Ryan Kaji of “Ryan’s World” amass substantial wealth without legal protections akin to those afforded to child actors.
Furthermore, the exploitation of children on family vlogs raises profound ethical concerns. In a 2019 report by The Hollywood Reporter, the potential need for a new iteration of the Coogan Law was discussed, aimed at regulating the management of earnings for minor children who generate income through social media platforms like YouTube. The article highlighted the staggering success of 7-year-old Ryan Kaji, whose YouTube channel RyanToysReview amassed an estimated $22 million in 2018 alone, primarily featuring videos of Ryan unboxing and reviewing toys. Despite his parents’ assertions of responsibly setting aside their son’s earnings for his future, the absence of legal protections leaves minor YouTube stars and influencers susceptible to financial exploitation by parents and other adults.
Recent incidents, YouTube channels belonging to American content creator Ruby Franke were recently scrubbed from the site after the YouTuber was charged with child abuse. Franke was known for making parenting videos on her YouTube channel, 8 Passengers. Her videos frequently featured content on the family and her six children.
Police in Utah said the charges were laid after Franke’s 12-year-old son climbed out of the window of a home and went to a neighbour to ask for food and water. Police said the boy and his younger sister were found emaciated and required hospitalisation.
Similarly, the ACE Family, a family channel with about nineteen million followers, has posted videos with titles such as “WE DID NOT WANT TO DO THIS!”. In this video, there is a clip of one of their children, who was two at the time, “in a state of undress, crying while a doctor examines her with a stethoscope.”
As blogs and live journals gather internet dust, vlogging has emerged as a new source of intimate entertainment, and for creators, potential income. However, they also raise serious questions about exploitation and the privacy rights of children.
Efforts to address these issues are underway, with individuals like McCarty, an 18-year-old political science freshman at the University of Washington, advocating for legislation to protect children in the vlogging sphere. McCarty’s initiative stemmed from reading about the case of Huxley Stauffer, who was adopted from China as a toddler by family vloggers Myka and James Stauffer. After realising they weren’t equipped to take care of Huxley, who had complex special needs, the couple gave him up to live with another family but not before they’d made extensive monetized content about Huxley and his adoption.Numerous articles and videos have been made about the topic, and, at this point, there is not much to add to the generalised feelings of disgust, heartbreak, and anger that the public has been expressing for the little boy.
Despite differing views on family vlogging and the privacy concerns it raises, the notion that someone might conceive or adopt a child solely to boost their channel’s popularity is deeply troubling. While the intricacies of the Stauffers’ motivations remain unclear, many perceive their actions as exploitative and ethically dubious, evoking sentiments of disgust, heartbreak, and anger.
While social media has revolutionised the entertainment industry, the lack of regulatory safeguards for child influencers and the ethical dilemmas associated with family vlogging underscore the necessity for comprehensive legislation. As the legal landscape evolves, it becomes imperative to protect the well-being and rights of young creators in the digital age.
Legislative Responses and Future Prospects
In response to growing concerns, legislators are taking steps to address regulatory gaps in social media. Illinois emerged as a trailblazer by passing the first-of-its-kind law aimed at ensuring financial compensation for minors, specifically children under 16 years old, who appear in vlogs or video blogs. Similarly, California’s state Senator Steve Padilla introduced a comparable bill in December 2023, signalling a broader recognition of the need for protective measures in digital content creation.
Even International lawmakers such as France, for instance, a law implemented in 2021 requires child influencers’ earnings to be deposited into a bank account accessible only upon reaching the age of 16. Additionally, akin to the bill proposed in Washington state, this legislation enforces a “right to be forgotten,” granting children the ability to request the removal of content they appear in from the internet.
As lawmakers and stakeholders continue to navigate the complexities of regulating social media, collaborative efforts and innovative solutions are essential to ensure the safety, well-being, and rights of young individuals in the digital age.
Conclusion
Child protection laws in traditional media and social media represent a critical frontier in ensuring the welfare and rights of young entertainers. While the Coogan Law stands as a beacon of progress in Hollywood, the advent of social media has necessitated innovative legislative responses to safeguard minors in the digital age.
As lawmakers grapple with the complexities of regulating online content creation, the protection of child actors and influencers remains a pressing imperative. Through concerted efforts to bridge regulatory gaps and uphold ethical standards, society can strive to create a safer, more equitable environment for young talents to thrive in both traditional and digital media landscapes.
[Written By: Harshaall Medha Naidu, Edited By: Teoh Jin]
