Schwarzenegger signs new anti-paparazzi law

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by VenusianSky, Oct 14, 2009.

  1. VenusianSky macrumors 65816

    VenusianSky

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    #1
    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.
     
  2. Unspoken Demise macrumors 68040

    Unspoken Demise

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Location:
    >9,000
    #2
    Do you have a link, or are you just ranting about "kids these days?"
     
  3. VenusianSky thread starter macrumors 65816

    VenusianSky

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    #3
    Update: Forgot the link
     
  4. thegoldenmackid macrumors 604

    thegoldenmackid

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Location:
    dallas, texas
    #4
    Was this one of the 700 he signed the other night?
     
  5. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #5
    Good. It's about time this BS got under control. Does this mean The Enquirer may be put out of biz?
     
  6. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #6
    Not that I've any sympathy for Paparazzi but doesn't this raise questions of first amendment rights.
     
  7. patrick0brien macrumors 68040

    patrick0brien

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Location:
    The West Loop
    #7
    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.
     
  8. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #8
    Invasion of privacy is not a first amendment right.
     
  9. jav6454 macrumors P6

    jav6454

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #9
    Now this is something good. Finally closure on so many crap out there... TMZ is going to have it tough...
     
  10. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #10
    No perhaps not but photography in a public place should be covered,no?
     
  11. patrick0brien macrumors 68040

    patrick0brien

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Location:
    The West Loop
    #11
    -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.
     
  12. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #12
    Not if it's used for the purposes of making money from the particular people in the photo without their permission.
     
  13. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #13
    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.?
     
  14. VenusianSky thread starter macrumors 65816

    VenusianSky

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    #14
    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).

    In other words, upskirt photos of celebs at their favorite night club are still on the table.
     
  15. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #15
    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.
     
  16. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #16
    I think the OP clarified with his post above.
     
  17. Rampant.A.I. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    #17
    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.
     
  18. patrick0brien macrumors 68040

    patrick0brien

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Location:
    The West Loop
    #18
    -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.
     
  19. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #19
    Surely there are laws covering harassment and stalking already?
     
  20. MyDesktopBroke macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2007
    #20
    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.
     
  21. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #21
    No, but unfortunately, Freedom of the Press would.

    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.
     
  22. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #22
    *plans to boycott Arny movies* :mad:

    No reason. It's just fun being melodramatic.
     
  23. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #23
    I agree with the signing, but it's murky water in Constitution land.
     
  24. kavika411 macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #24
    Your analysis of tricky issues is usually quite impressive. So, I'm cruious; why do you disagree with Schwarzenegger on this?
     
  25. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #25

    LOL. I see what you did. :D
     

Share This Page