Child Labor in Entertainment
<p>Why is the entertainment industry exempt from the <a href="https://www.dol.gov/whd/flsa/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Fair Labor Standards Act</a>?
I have no idea how to research this question.
edit: I mean, I thought the constitution specifies that laws shall be equally enforced.</p>

<p>There is a specific exemption in <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/213" rel="nofollow noreferrer">29 USC 213(c)(3)</a> that</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The provisions of section 212 of this title relating to child labor
  shall not apply to any child employed as an actor or performer in
  motion pictures or theatrical productions, or in radio or television
  productions.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>See <a href="https://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/jbl/articles/volume6/issue2/Krieg6U.Pa.J.Lab.&amp;Emp.L.429%282004%29.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this article</a> for further analysis, a propos state laws. Incidentally, the act defines "<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/203" rel="nofollow noreferrer">oppressive child labor</a>" as:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>a condition of employment under which (1) any employee under the age
  of sixteen years is employed by an employer (other than a parent or a
  person standing in place of a parent employing his own child or a
  child in his custody under the age of sixteen years in an occupation
  other than manufacturing or mining or an occupation found by the
  Secretary of Labor to be particularly hazardous for the employment of
  children between the ages of sixteen and eighteen years or detrimental
  to their health or well-being) in any occupation, or (2) any employee
  between the ages of sixteen and eighteen years is employed by an
  employer in any occupation which the Secretary of Labor shall find and
  by order declare to be particularly hazardous for the employment of
  children between such ages or detrimental to their health or
  well-being; but oppressive child labor shall not be deemed to exist by
  virtue of the employment in any occupation of any person with respect
  to whom the employer shall have on file an unexpired certificate
  issued and held pursuant to regulations of the Secretary of Labor
  certifying that such person is above the oppressive child-labor age.
  The Secretary of Labor shall provide by regulation or by order that
  the employment of employees between the ages of fourteen and sixteen
  years in occupations other than manufacturing and mining shall not be
  deemed to constitute oppressive child labor if and to the extent that
  the Secretary of Labor determines that such employment is confined to
  periods which will not interfere with their schooling and to
  conditions which will not interfere with their health and well-being.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Without the statutory exemption, if you are under 16 and employed by a non-parent, in any occupation, that is oppressive child labor. But because of the specific exemption, what would otherwise be statutorily oppressive child labor is allowed.</p>

<p>The political "why" question (why did the bill contain such language) is extremely difficult to answer. The only substantive clues that I have seen are in a <a href="https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=osu1486475308017293&amp;disposition=inline" rel="nofollow noreferrer">1959 dissertation</a> by G.E. Paulsen and <a href="https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1972&amp;context=lcp" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this article</a> on the passage of the act. It seems to be a legislative compromise relating stricter original standards, and was particularly driven by the need to allow children to work on family farms. The relevant clause was added from the floor of the House on May 24, 1938 by Rep Charles Kramer (CA). This is recorded on p. 7441 of the Congressional Record, which, unfortunately, is not freely available online. The two toughest questions were asked by Schneider (WI), Kramer's reply in parentheses:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The  gentleman's  amendment  would  exempt  children  engaged  only 
  in  the  making  of moving  pictures?  (The  gentleman  is  correct) 
  There  are  very  few  young people  employed  in  that  occupation?
  (Very  few.  There  are  hardly  more  than 10  employed  at  one 
  time.)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Shirley Temple <em>was</em> in fact invoked by Kramer.</p>

employment minor labor-law regulations guardianship