What First Amendment? Schwarzenegger signs new anti-paparazzi law

[G27]

I'm no fan of the so-called 'paparazzi', but find it hard to believe this could possibly be passed into law...

Schwarzenegger signs new anti-paparazzi law - CNN.com

California - leading the way towards the removal of your rights!

[Guest canynracer]

hmmm.....

on the fence here...I certainly wouldnt want pictures of my kids on the internet, or in a magazine...

but, yeah, I can see the freedom of the press thing too...

[G27]

hmmm.....

on the fence here...I certainly wouldnt want pictures of my kids on the internet, or in a magazine...

but, yeah, I can see the freedom of the press thing too...

AFAIC, you make that choice when you decide you want to be a public figure. Not to mention that one's 'feelings' shouldn't impinge upon another person's rights.

First Amendment has been incorporated, so I can't imagine this will stand long. VERY slippery slope they're treading on here.

[Photoguy67]

I am going to go out on a limb here and say I think this will be in the court system very shortly.

[raydog1]

AFAIC, you make that choice when you decide you want to be a public figure. Not to mention that one's 'feelings' shouldn't impinge upon another person's rights.

First Amendment has been incorporated, so I can't imagine this will stand long. VERY slippery slope they're treading on here.

What if you don't make the decision to be a public figure, but you become one by association? Let's say I marry Britney Spears, but I don't want the paparazzi taking pictures of my mother through her bathroom window. I can see being a little upset by that.

Maybe I foil a terrorist plot onboard a plane and become a celebrity that way, but I don't wan't the celebrity that comes with that and want to maintain my privacy?

[Guest canynracer]

Joe the plumber

[Guest canynracer]

AFAIC, you make that choice when you decide you want to be a public figure. Not to mention that one's 'feelings' shouldn't impinge upon another person's rights.

First Amendment has been incorporated, so I can't imagine this will stand long. VERY slippery slope they're treading on here.

and just cause I made the choice to be a public figure does not mean they have access to my PRIVATE life. ...when I am in public, yep...but my kids? or peering through my gates? followig my spouse? my mother?

nope...sorry.

now, the line needs to be drawn, and like I said...I am on the fence...we will have to see, but I bet it sticks.

[strickj]

AFAIC, you make that choice when you decide you want to be a public figure. Not to mention that one's 'feelings' shouldn't impinge upon another person's rights.

First Amendment has been incorporated, so I can't imagine this will stand long. VERY slippery slope they're treading on here.

I agree. Its also their choice to live in the areas of the public,and paparazzi's eye.

You never hear anything about the celebs that live in NY,ATL,or BFE.If they don't like it,they can move.

However,there is a persons right to privacy.When you are in public,you're fair game to anyones camera regardless of celebrity.

When in the privacy of your home,yard,school,or where ever and you impose on that privacy,there should be consequences for that type of behavior.

Especially when you take into account the number of "accidents" that have been caused by the paparazzi in their diligent pursuit of the perfect shot that no one else can get.

Princes Dianna is the perfect example of this...

[G27]

I understand what you say about not wanting celebrity status or having limits, but once we allow individual's 'wants' more value than our Bill of Rights, we will lose that right. If we allow the government to start compromising the press's rights, how long before the media is controlled?

You want privacy? Close your shades. Otherwise, the light reflecting off of you in your yard or anywhere else belongs to whoever captures it.

[analog_kidd]

I'm sure the fact that a paparazzi photographer busted Arnold's wife, Maria, recently for talking on her cell phone while driving helped sway his decision.

[E4 No More]

Does anyone think that the founding fathers considered things like Hustler and National Enquirer back in the day?

[Guest nosnos]

FREEDOM = GOOD

There will always be crap that goes along with it. Gun deaths, drug overdoses, unfortunate pictures of me taken because I didn't wear my panties in the limo, etc. Life is hard, with or without laws. Laws never fix anything.

But freedom is what we want. You can't go around putting limits on it and making exceptions based on feelings. We'll just all have to deal with the bad stuff. You don't like National Enquirer? Start a movement... Hopefully you'll be free to do so.

[saintsfanbrian]

I was thinking about the Papparazo that took Maria's picture on the cell phone is the EXACT reason he agreed with this.

[leroy]

and just cause I made the choice to be a public figure does not mean they have access to my PRIVATE life. ...when I am in public, yep...but my kids? or peering through my gates? followig my spouse? my mother?

nope...sorry.

now, the line needs to be drawn, and like I said...I am on the fence...we will have to see, but I bet it sticks.

I aint beating ya up; but you might want to read and think on this:

"One of the prerogatives of American citizenship is the right to criticize public men andmeasures -- and that means not only informed and responsible criticism but the freedom to speakfoolishly and without moderation." Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665, 673-74 (1944).

This is part of a supreme court ruling. This little tidbit cuts both ways. Most folks (me included) think that we should speak responsibly. Some folks (including operatives in both political parties and their serfs) spend all their time speaking "speaking foolishly and without moderation". They destroyed George Bush with it; they tried and failed to destroy Ronald Reagan with it -- he answered them back -- Bush didnt. They even slandered Harry Truman by making fun of his daughter's piano playing -- he called their hand. They did the same thing to Sarah Palin.

Politics is a tough line of work -- lots of examination, dirt, and recrimination by your enemies. Remember, as Harry Truman so famously said: "If you cant stand the heat; stay out of the kitchen". If they take unflattering pictures and say unflattering things; thats too bad. If they say untrue things and doctor pictures; thats slander. You can sue for that.

I vote to leave the First Amendment alone. If they can change this one; they can change all the others -- Especially the Second -- the one we really like.

The First Amendment cuts both ways.

Food for thought.

Kind regards,

LEROY

[Chief07]

Now let me get this straight.....................He passes a law making it illegal to talk on a cell phone while driving.His "squeeze" I mean wife gets caught on camera breaking the law her husband passed.So he wants to ban paparazzi photographers for taking pictures.Hmmmmmm. what to do?How about taking her liberal butt home and spanking it!He turned into a real dork.

[leroy]

Now let me get this straight.....................He passes a law making it illegal to talk on a cell phone while driving.His "squeeze" I mean wife gets caught on camera breaking the law her husband passed.So he wants to ban paparazzi photographers for taking pictures.Hmmmmmm. what to do?How about taking her liberal butt home and spanking it! He turned into a real dork.

It's sad but true. The "Govenator" has turned into a weenie -- now he is a "looooser" too. I had great hopes for him; but it goes to show that when you have no core values; you can be talked (or hen-pecked) into anything. The people of the State of Kalefornia deserve better.

Keep up the good work.

Kind regards,

LEROY

[Guest 70below]

I've never understood the fascination with "public figures". I can agree, that I could admire a figure who's actions and principles earned that admiration. (Good luck finding much of that these days).

To find someone who appears on a reality TV show or sings a song I like, worthy of that admiration is beyond my understanding. If we as a society didn't buy into this "hype", then the paparazzi would be out of work.

Its sad that our kids idolize Lindsay Lohan and 50cent, instead of aspiring to be physicists and bankers.

I agree that if someone wants to pursue a career in hollywood that the $20 million buck movie roles are going to come with some loss of privacy. And it should be expected that your immediate family could be affected by this. If someone visits you, or you visit them, they might be affected. But when you're not with them or living with them, I don't think you should be affected. Its no longer a "newsworthy" event.

[G27]

The people of the State of Kalefornia deserve better.

Actually, they don't. People deserve the government they elect and Kalifornia has a history of electing some of the biggest idiots on the planet...

[Mr. Brooks]

That's the truth...

[Guest canynracer]

Yep....I mean they elected Ronald Regan.

yes, that was sarcastic

[Guest canynracer]

I understand what you say about not wanting celebrity status or having limits, but once we allow individual's 'wants' more value than our Bill of Rights, we will lose that right. If we allow the government to start compromising the press's rights, how long before the media is controlled?

You want privacy? Close your shades. Otherwise, the light reflecting off of you in your yard or anywhere else belongs to whoever captures it.

sooo.....peeping tom is OK then....

[G27]

Yep....I mean they elected Ronald Regan.

yes, that was sarcastic

Even a broken watch is correct twice / day...

[strickj]

I understand what you say about not wanting celebrity status or having limits, but once we allow individual's 'wants' more value than our Bill of Rights, we will lose that right. If we allow the government to start compromising the press's rights, how long before the media is controlled?

You want privacy? Close your shades. Otherwise, the light reflecting off of you in your yard or anywhere else belongs to whoever captures it.

Freedom of press.

Not right to pictures.

The simple fact that these magazines have "journalists" to write a "story" makes the magazines "press",and protected by the 1st,but not necessarily the photographers.

I'll also add that SCOTUS ruled that the 1st doesn't apply when it may be harmful to children.

Its funny to me reading all these comments here!

Yall will be damned if a traffic camera snaps a pic of you,because it invades your privacy,but who gives a flying futon about anyone else

[G27]

Freedom of press.

Not right to pictures.

The simple fact that these magazines have "journalists" to write a "story" makes the magazines "press",and protected by the 1st,but not necessarily the photographers.

I haven't looked, but I'd be surprised if court decisions haven't protected photogrpahs under the freedom of press clause.

I'll also add that SCOTUS ruled that the 1st doesn't apply when it may be harmful to children.

Agreed, but not sure how this factors into this discussion outside of the an extreme case.

Its funny to me reading all these comments here!

Yall will be damned if a traffic camera snaps a pic of you,because it invades your privacy,but who gives a flying futon about anyone else

Pretty sure I've never said anything like that.

[strickj]

Not singly directed at you,but an observation based on the comments made in general here at TGO

Agreed, but not sure how this factors into this discussion outside of the an extreme case.

It factors in when a picture of the child is taken in reference to allot of circumstances.It can also apply when a picture of an adult is taken that could hurt a child.

What about pics that are taken during separations,or divorces....