Hollywood leftwingers decry child labor in Asia making Nike shoes, yet routinely employ young children as actors/ actresses in their movies working the little kids often with little regard for their well-being. Is that hypocritical?

Whatever the Hollywood left-wingers have to say is irrelevant; they can pool their gazillions and open up a Nike plant in Hollywood, employing exclusively LWNJ Unionists, then let’s see how fast non-Hollywood-gazillionaires rush to Dillard’s, Macy’s, Nordstrom’s or Coach to purchase that $500 pair of Hollywood-look-for-the-Union-... pair of Nikes.

not in the slightest way the same thing. not even close.

but typical of the liberals in Hollywood.

I have a lot of problems with how the industry uses child entertainers. But it is no where near as bad as working in a sweatshop where your life is in danger every day you go to work and being exploited daily.

So you call it "the lesser of two evils" then, right? But why should any evil be allowed done to a 4 year old child?

I don't think any evil should be done. If it were up to me, there would be no child actors. I'm just saying that there is a difference between the life of child actors and children working in a sweatshop.

This hasn't happened in Hollywood for decades.

Disney does it NOW, as well as TV shows. I admit I haven't been keeping up with Hollywood movies, since I lost interest in them. But I know for a fact that Hollywood still casts kids in their movies even today.

Today's child actor is not exploited. They go to school, work shorter hours and twins are used a lot to make up for the shorter hours kids are allowed to work.

There is a BIG difference between working on a movie/TV set and working in a sweatshop.
Children in working in the entertainment industry, by law can only work a certain amount of hours (ergo twins are often used) and must attend school or have a teacher on site. People working on movies and TV are also fed and have plenty of 'down time' to rest.

That being said, children working in third world sweatshops would not be going to school if they didn't have their jobs. They would be working with their families in subsistence farming or begging or picking through garbage dumps trying not to starve to death.

So you call it "the lesser of two evils" then, right? But why should any evil be allowed done to a 4 year old child? The government has even been meddling in families that own farms who give the kids chores.

Have you ever seen or hear a sweatshop worker say that they don't want to be there? In these countries factory work is desirable. When the choice is either a sweatshop or near starvation they choose sweatshop. Children who work on farms or in the streets have a far higher mortality rate.
Sweatshops are how third world countries elevate themselves. Look at Hong Kong and Thailand. In a matter of a few decades they went from dumps to economic powerhouses. The governments of these countries collect taxes on these businesses which they use for hospitals, schools and infrastructure. The next generation, instead of going to sweatshops goes to school because the whole family doesn't have to work 14 hour days to subsist.
Look at our country. How often do you hear of families in the 1800's where the father worked crap jobs since he was a child so that his children didn't have to?

Watch this video. It might open your eyes. BTW: I sued to be against sweatshops

kids in the entertainment industry also go to school or are home schooled. and they aren't always on set.

And that for you rationalizes using kid labor there, but anywhere else it's legal taboo? Sorry, I don't buy that. Just because it's "a Hollywood tradition" doesn't make it ethical. And that "home school / go to school" an hour or two doesn't substitute for a full-time education.

they often do have a full time education. some of them quit acting and move on to other stuff. like that kid that played Chuck on Goonies, he's a lawyer now. Winnie from the wonder years is a math genus. and the girl that played Blossom has a PhD. yeah small example but it goes to show they also goto school, and these kids want to be in the industry. while the kids in the sweat shops, you actually think they want to be there all the time?

A child in the movies is miniscule amount of time to a sweat shop. I've seen real child labor in third world countries and breaks and going to school wasn't part of the work day.

So you call it "the lesser of two evils" then, right? But why should any evil be allowed done to a 4 year old child?

Have you ever worked on a TV set? I have and no child is being abused in fact every child I've ever seen around were happy. They aren't there for hours on set in fact there is someone on set with them constantly watching for anything that can be misconstrued. I have kids in our TV Film school that I attend and they are wonderful actors and try out all the time for roles. No parents interfering...their choice.

If you are so pig headed to think a child can't think and have desires to do things like act then you are really clueless about Children. I've talked to many and they think it's like play time. The real child actors normally go to school on the set. So I guess getting to study and have breaks and being pampered to you is worse than going to school in a boring classroom with kids. Now that can be abuse right there.

I've seen kids in sweat shops in Egypt making carpets or in Nepal doing the same. Or the little kids banging rocks together by hand along side their parents making gravel for the roads in the hot sun day in and day out without port-a-potties around.

There is no comparison at all and for you to say that a child doing what they love to do evil than God help us all.

You just like to argue just for the sake of it.

What do you expect from the Looney Left/Liberals and celeb types....when they do it it's ok but let anyone else anywhere in the world do it and these ass-clowns start flapping their gums about things they know nothing about....morons