In CA it is gov't by the people for the elite

California Anti-Paparazzi Law Would Threaten First Amendment Rights

August 16th, 2013 by Wills Citty and tagged California, California State Assembly, celebrities, children, Halle Berry, harassment, hollywood, Jennifer Garner, Justin Bieber, legislators, Paparazzi, unconstitutional


Earlier this summer the California legislature proposed a new “anti-paparazzi” bill, which NPPA opposes. More recently, Actresses Halle Berry and Jennifer Garner testified before the California State Assembly, voicing their support for the bill that carries with it serious First Amendment implications. The measure would make it illegal to photograph a child because of their parent’s job (i.e, acting) without the parent’s permission, and expands the scope of existing California harassment law while increasing the penalty for a violation. Photographers convicted under the measure could face up to year in prison. SB 606 would also allow an aggrieved party to pursue enhanced civil suit against a photographer.

If the bill is ultimately signed in to law, anyone with a camera who tries to get a snapshot of a celebrity’s child could be liable if their conduct “alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the child” and causes “substantial emotional distress.” It’s not the clearest of legal standards, and the bill doesn’t offer much more in the way of explanation, something NPPA General Counsel Mickey Osterreicher took issue with in opposing the bill. “We are extremely concerned that the bill as it pertains to photography and recording is overly broad and vague and infringes upon otherwise protected forms of speech and expression,” Osterreicher said, also noting that the terms used in the bill are “vague and susceptible to subjective interpretation.”

The mercurial relationship between the Hollywood “paparazzi” and the stars they photograph is well documented. Confrontations are not uncommon. Protecting children is certainly a laudable goal, but there are already laws in place for situations when someone, photographer or otherwise, steps over the line. With this in mind, Osterreicher contends that the measure in question unjustifiably blurs the line between actual harassment and valuable First Amendment activities, saying “[the bill] fails to recognize those acts done for valid newsgathering or expressive purposes and in fact creates additional liability for visual journalists and members of the public with a camera.”

“[T]he First Amendment has permitted restrictions on few historic categories of speech, including obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, and speech integral to criminal conduct,” Osterreicher continued. “Visual images and recordings of another person, albeit a child, who is out in public where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy should not be added to that list.”

Again, there’s a difference between punishing photographers who harass someone and defining photography as harassment in and of itself.

This isn’t the first time the California legislators have targeted photographers. A 2010 anti-paparazzi law was called into question earlier this year, when a judge threw out charges against a photographer who authorities say was driving recklessly while attempting to get picture of Justin Bieber. The judge said the law was unconstitutionally broad and violated the First Amendment. The NPPA along with the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and six other media organizations filed and Amicus Letter Brief on behalf of the photographer. That ruling is currently under review.

SB 606 passed the California State Assembly and is set to go to appropriations committee. As the bill moves closer to becoming law, legislators should take care not to allow a distaste for the manner in which some photographers conduct themselves to undermine their ability to uphold their duty to defend free speech rights guaranteed to all citizens.

 

So not everyone is equal under the law? The celebrities have it better? In situations where paparazzis initiate a physical confrontation with the celebs where the latter get hurt or discomforted, then the paparazzis should be prosecuted. But jail time over snapping some photos? Moreover, the NSA and other such government surveillance programs are somewhat equivalent of a paparazzi. Just like the paparazzis obtain material for the public's entertainment consumption, so does the nsa obtain it for the elite's entertainment consumption. Often it has little or nothing to do with national security. The paparazzis harass celebs in public. NSA harasses the public when in public and private. Moreover, throwing someone in jail over a photo is something you see in a police state or when states of emergency are declared.

 

You also cannot have a situation where one group's privacy is protected when in public, reinforcing their own unjustified snobbery, leading to an elevated sense of self worth stemming from a pampered, photoshopped and censored self image. If a celeb is caught drunk or otherwise wasted, why can't their telling photos be published if their kids happen to be nearby?

 

I agree with the first part where children can't be photographed without their parent's consent. There's no reason for them to be in the limelight. But I do see a problem with this. The free press is supposed to be free, they need to be able to do their job without the government interfering.