First Ammendment Rights Alert

[doug anderson]

Kenneth Starr, the prosecutor who went after Bill Clinton during the Lewinski scandal, is now going after photographers. He is fighting for legislation against Paparazzi. Although I think Paparazzi are a bunch of low lifes, legislation against their right to photograph in public places will have dire consequences for the rest of us. I suspect that Starr is trying to become less reviled by appearing to support rights to privacy, but don't trust him. We should not go to sleep during this one.

 

[Colleen Vermillion]

Here's a link to a news story about it:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/10/starr.paparazzi/

My understanding is that the roving gangs of paparazzi are starting to become a public nuisance and interfering with non-celebrities' ability to do simple things like pick their kids up from school, or have dinner out with friends. Unless we're going to put our celebrities in zoos, I don't see much recourse other than putting some restrictions on the paparazzi. I don't see it as much more of an impediment on free speech than requiring a permit to block streets for a protest or parade.

I do see allowing the paparazzi to behave as badly as they want to without consequence as giving them freedom at the expense of other people's freedom. I don't see how their right to free speech should trump my right to leave a restaurant. If they didn't have cameras around their necks would it be OK for them to barricade a business and prevent customers from entering or leaving? If I have my camera, does my right to free speech allow me to block traffic or to prevent the person I want to take a picture of from walking away from me?

-Colleen

 

[doug anderson]

Here's a link to a news story about it:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/10/starr.paparazzi/

My understanding is that the roving gangs of paparazzi are starting to become a public nuisance and interfering with non-celebrities' ability to do simple things like pick their kids up from school, or have dinner out with friends. Unless we're going to put our celebrities in zoos, I don't see much recourse other than putting some restrictions on the paparazzi. I don't see it as much more of an impediment on free speech than requiring a permit to block streets for a protest or parade.

I do see allowing the paparazzi to behave as badly as they want to without consequence as giving them freedom at the expense of other people's freedom. I don't see how their right to free speech should trump my right to leave a restaurant. If they didn't have cameras around their necks would it be OK for them to barricade a business and prevent customers from entering or leaving? If I have my camera, does my right to free speech allow me to block traffic or to prevent the person I want to take a picture of from walking away from me?

-Colleen

Colleen:

In principle, I agree. I don't like them either. The problem with legislating these guys is that people who want to control free expression generally will draw up the statute in such a way that people like us cannot shoot on the street. A lot of this kind of thing has happened during the present administration. There has to be a way to curb paparazzi that acknowledges the difference between them and the rest of us. It's bad enough that the police themselves often don't know the law. I ran into this in California.


The best way to deal with the paparazzi is to stop buying the tabloids that employ them. What kind of people buy these things? That feed on other people's suffering? I have always thought that Brittany Spears was appalling, but came to her defense when she began to fall apart and the tabloids moved in like sharks.

Also, anything that Kenneth Starr is involved in is suspect. You remember what he did to completely innocent people during the investigation of Bill Clinton, and the orgy of snitching it caused.

 

[Colleen Vermillion]

The problem with legislating these guys is that people who want to control free expression generally will draw up the statute in such a way that people like us cannot shoot on the street.

Well then Californians need to stop electing people that want to control free expression. Seriously though, the problem can be solved without even mentioning photographers. The problem isn't that the paparazzi are photographing someone. If a town was invaded by say a cult of evangelists that were blocking traffic, stopping people from going about their business, and littering the town with pamphlets, it would be nice to have some public nuisance laws that could be used to put a stop to it. Honestly, I think that Malibu probably has laws already on the books that might apply but they'd rather foist the responsibility and cost for dealing with the problem off on the state.

-Colleen

 

[doug anderson]

Honestly, I think that Malibu probably has laws already on the books that might apply but they'd rather foist the responsibility and cost for dealing with the problem off on the state.

-Colleen

Absolutely agree. Also, I dare say Mr. Starr is using the issue for self promotion."