Schwarzenegger signs new anti-paparazzi law

VenusianSky

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Aug 28, 2008
1,283
46
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/14/paparazzi.law/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

Thumbs up to Arnie on this one. Now the question is, will the world's infatuation, or more like obsession, with Hollywood's personal lives begin to subside or intensify? I personally am tired of reading headlines like, "Britney Spears shaves her head", or "John and Kate...blah blah blah". It also bothers me how the younger people are so wrapped-up into the lifestyle and these horrible reality televisions shows. I wish Arnie would put a ban on the production of reality television shows. THEY AREN'T REALITY! These people know they are on television, they are getting paid and the producers are PRODUCING a show, with heavy influence.
 

patrick0brien

macrumors 68040
Oct 24, 2002
3,238
0
The West Loop
Gentle reminder on the 1st Amendment: Freedom of speech does not absolve you of freedom of responsibility for that speech.

Apply that to the Paparrazi, how destructive is that picture? What did you have to do to get it?

It's a fuzzy land, difficult to define, ergo this debate being so sticky, but I, for one agree with Arnie.
 

Peterkro

macrumors 68020
Aug 17, 2004
2,143
1,362
Communard de Londres,Tiocfaidh ár lá
-Peterkro

Interesting point. Photography in a public place of a public place yes, but not of photography of a private place even though the photographer may be standing in public to take the shot.
It's a controversial subject in law for various European countries, are you saying you can not take photographs of private property from public areas in the U.S.?
 

VenusianSky

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Aug 28, 2008
1,283
46
In regards to some of the responses, keep in mind that this law protects the people under the circumstances of "personal or familial activity" (if you haven't read the entire article).

The new California law makes it a crime to take and sell unauthorized photos of celebrities in "personal or familial activity".
In other words, upskirt photos of celebs at their favorite night club are still on the table.
 

Peterkro

macrumors 68020
Aug 17, 2004
2,143
1,362
Communard de Londres,Tiocfaidh ár lá
I should perhaps make clear what I'm getting at here. I find Paparazzi and the "celebrities" that are their subjects equally loathsome.The celebrities manipulate the Paparazzi for career reasons as much as the other way around.What worries me is the mission creep of such a law and it's potential to protect the dubious activities of the rich from any oversight from the media or others with an interest in exposing them.
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
I should perhaps make clear what I'm getting at here. I find Paparazzi and the "celebrities" that are their subjects equally loathsome.The celebrities manipulate the Paparazzi for career reasons as much as the other way around.What worries me is the mission creep of such a law and it's potential to protect the dubious activities of the rich from any oversight from the media or others with an interest in exposing them.
I think the OP clarified with his post above.
 

Rampant.A.I.

macrumors 6502a
Sep 25, 2009
579
9
I'm sure he's saying it has more to do with harassment and stalking of persons of interest than it does with where you're allowed to take a photograph.
 

patrick0brien

macrumors 68040
Oct 24, 2002
3,238
0
The West Loop
It's a controversial subject in law for various European countries, are you saying you can not take photographs of private property from public areas in the U.S.?
-Peterkro

Not quite. You can take picures of private property just fine. Its when you start taking pictures into said property things begin to get more legally tangled. There is still some fuzzy area as to how far into the private property the act becomes wrong.
 

MyDesktopBroke

macrumors 6502
Jun 2, 2007
396
0
I think Brad Pitt said it the best.

On Paparazzi: "Let me be blunt: I hate them."

It really has become ridiculous. These people drive celebrities off the road, break into their houses, barge in front of them, start brawls in public just to take advantage of some one for money.

I'm not a "aww poor rich people" person, but I agree with Brad Pitt on this.
 

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
Gentle reminder on the 1st Amendment: Freedom of speech does not absolve you of freedom of responsibility for that speech.
No, but unfortunately, Freedom of the Press would.

Apply that to the Paparrazi, how destructive is that picture? What did you have to do to get it?

It's a fuzzy land, difficult to define, ergo this debate being so sticky, but I, for one agree with Arnie.
I agree with Arnold too, but this is definitely going to get nasty. I see this heading to the State Supreme Court, if not the Paparazzi suing in Federal Court, and running up to SCOTUS.

BL.