California Bans Paparazzi From Photographing Children of Stars
24 replies, posted
[URL]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-24294901[/URL]
[QUOTE][B]New legislation which will limit the paparazzi's ability to photograph stars' children has become law in the state of California.[/B]
Bill 606, championed by actress Halle Berry, who testified before the state assembly, sets out to protect the children of those in the public eye.
It lays out penalties for taking photos and video of a child without parental consent and in a harassing manner.
It would be "the beginning of the end," Berry said, for "aggressive paparazzi".
Earlier this week, it was signed into California law by state governor Jerry Brown.
"I started this fight with a great deal of hope and a bit of uncertainty so I cannot express my immense gratitude that Gov. Brown has recognized, and acted to remedy, the plight of children who are tormented because of the identity
or prominence of their parents," said Berry.
The Academy award-winning actress was seen shouting at photographers taking pictures of her family after arriving at Los Angeles International airport in April, with her partner Olivier Martinez and her daughter.
Pregnant Berry also thanked actress Jennifer Garner and British singer Adele for joining her in her fight.
"I am forever in awe of the support I got within my community from the enormously talented musician Adele to fellow actor Jennifer Garner, who travelled with me to Sacramento to share her children's stories, experience and her
desire to give them a better life."
The law comes into effect in January. Those breaking it could receive between 10 days and one year in jail, as well as a fine of up to $10,000 (£6,252).
[/QUOTE]
Good. Just because your parent is famous doesn't mean you need to grow up being harassed like that.
What is the age of a "child"? Anyone under 18?
The pap are slick pricks. They'll exploit a loophole if they can find one.
Most paparazzi are assholes, especially when they get aggressive over the slightest things.
The paparazzi are just creeps that buy a nice camera and have zero experience in photography.
[QUOTE]The Motion Picture Association of America was among several groups that opposed the legislation, saying it infringes upon free speech protections.[/QUOTE]
How can you even try?
They should ban paparazzi altogether. Personal privacy > free speech
"fuck reasonable expectation of privacy" - Paparazzi
[QUOTE=Kyle902;42330844]"fuck reasonable expectation of privacy" - Paparazzi[/QUOTE]
reasonable expectation of privacy is a phrase they use for bathrooms and such, not places where you're in the public eye already. If paparazzi are taking photos of children using the toilet we've got a much bigger problem than invasion of privacy
They're the scum of the earth anyways, and should be outright banned.
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;42330620]They should ban paparazzi altogether. Personal privacy > free speech[/QUOTE]
Where do they even intersect? Taking a picture of someone else has nothing to do with speaking or expressing themselves freely. I'm of the firm belief that both of which should be left undisturbed, both free speech and privacy, and there should be no problem with that.
Paparazzi are defined as just people who take pictures of other people, and it should be that if the other person doesn't want to be expressed through those pictures, that's both their freedom of privacy and their freedom of expression. Banning paparazzi is something that should've been done long ago.
Commence fp paparazzi hate circle jerk, famous people just need to deal with it. Legally you cannot have an expectation of privacy for things normally visible (i.e. not up-skirt shots). Banning paparazzi altogether will never happen because that would create a precedence that could threaten security cameras, traffic cameras, taking pictures of stuff and/or private property, right to film police officers, etc.
[QUOTE=aydin690;42331314]Commence fp paparazzi hate circle jerk, famous people just need to deal with it. Legally you cannot have an expectation of privacy for things normally visible (i.e. not up-skirt shots). Banning paparazzi altogether will never happen because that would create a precedence that could threaten security cameras, traffic cameras, taking pictures of stuff in public/private property, etc.[/QUOTE]
Could just ban the sell of photos without the consent of the person in that photo unless blurred out and said person may not be identified if consent does not exist.
[QUOTE=aydin690;42331314]Commence fp paparazzi hate circle jerk, famous people just need to deal with it. Legally you cannot have an expectation of privacy for things normally visible (i.e. not up-skirt shots). Banning paparazzi altogether will never happen because that would create a precedence that could threaten security cameras, traffic cameras, taking pictures of stuff and/or private property, etc.[/QUOTE]
Hate circle jerk? Anyone who likes paparazzi and what they do has problems. It's not taking photos of someone, it's straight harassment and invasion of privacy.
Edit: Fuck I promised myself I wouldn't argue in SH anymore
[QUOTE=Gwoodman;42331337]Hate circle jerk? Anyone who likes paparazzi and what they do has problems. It's not taking photos of someone, it's straight harassment and invasion of privacy.[/QUOTE]
It can't be invasion of privacy if it's in public, legally. If it's really harassment, then they can always file a formal complaint.
[QUOTE=aydin690;42331343]It can't be invasion of privacy if it's in public, legally. If it's really harassment, then they can always file a formal complaint.[/QUOTE]
Gullible. Go do some research on what the paparazzi do and what celebrities have TRIED TO DO to stop them and failed.
Paparazzi caused the car accident that killed Princess Diana, because her driver was trying to escape some that were chasing them.
[QUOTE=darkrei9n;42331325]Could just ban the sell of photos without the consent of the person in that photo unless blurred out and said person may not be identified if consent does not exist.[/QUOTE]
That rule already exists. You can't take picture of somebody in public and sell it without their consent if they're the focus of your picture. That's why all paparazzi pics are wide shots that include the street and their cars, other stuff/people and shit.
[QUOTE=aydin690;42331343]It can't be invasion of privacy if it's in public, legally. If it's really harassment, then they can always file a formal complaint.[/QUOTE]
Would taking pictures at a public nude beach be an invasion of privacy?
[QUOTE=Gwoodman;42331362]Gullible. Go do some research on what the paparazzi do and what celebrities have TRIED TO DO to stop them and failed.[/QUOTE]
Why? Because what the paparazzi are doing is legal.
[editline]27th September 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;42331401]Would taking pictures at a public nude beach be an invasion of privacy?[/QUOTE]
Depends, if it's deemed public property, they really can't do anything, as there is no expectation of privacy. However, the nude beach could have specific bylaws banning/restricting photography, in which case, they'd have to put up signs to notify the potential pervs.
[QUOTE=aydin690;42331314]Commence fp paparazzi hate circle jerk, famous people just need to deal with it. Legally you cannot have an expectation of privacy for things normally visible (i.e. not up-skirt shots). Banning paparazzi altogether will never happen because that would create a precedence that could threaten security cameras, traffic cameras, taking pictures of stuff and/or private property, right to film police officers, etc.[/QUOTE]
Sensationalist Headlines is like victim blaming central.
People do not have to deal with someone invading their private space and photographing them
[QUOTE=aydin690;42331402]Why? Because what the paparazzi are doing is legal.[/QUOTE]
That doesn't make it good or even OK.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;42330582]How can you even try?[/QUOTE]
And it's funny since "free speech" was also the reason used by Reddit pedophiles when they were started protesting against a new rule that would ban all child pornography on their site :v:
[QUOTE=aydin690;42331343]It can't be invasion of privacy if it's in public, legally. [/QUOTE]
[quote] legally. [/quote]
Key word
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
