Hawaii is looking at adopting a new law that would protect celebrities from the prying eyes of the paparazzi - and by extension, from the eyes of you and me.
Politicoreports that the tropical state is hoping to keep its reputation as a top spot for big name entertainers and movie companies by proposing the so-called "Steven Tyler Act," named after that famed Aerosmith frontman who requested the bill. It's being backed by Maui Democrat Senator Kalani English, who is explicit about the bill's intention to satisfy the film industry.
"The bill would open people up to civil lawsuits if they invade privacy by taking or selling photos or videos," reads the report, which also takes note of the opinion of longtime media lawyer and island resident Jeffrey Portnoy, who thinks the law is nothing more than "pandering" to celebrities and a possible affront to the First Amendment.
Read Full Story
you've got a problem with the rolling stones and mick jagger? a whole lot of women would rather do him than they would you, i'd imagine... even at age 69. not only that, but he's been knighted by the crown... have you?
Yes the paparrazi are vultures and I don't care for them or the pretend celebrities they force on us and create. I find it funny that stephen tyler, an attention whore, is the one proposing this. He couldn't get enough face time with the media and the paparazi a couple of years ago when it was making him money. Now it's to much for him again?
"the law is nothing more than "pandering" to celebrities" Absolutely. When you are in the public eye, you are NOT special unless you're being stalked/harassed. Now, on your own property and out of the eye site of the public, that would be called trespassing! Next, the celebrities will want every video camera within view turned off....
no... what they want is to be able to walk down the street in peace rather than have herds of wannabe photographers hanging around the toilette door waiting to see them walk out or even to rush into the bathroom because someone saw them puking in the toilette and taking photos of them while they're doing so. they don't want to have to risk their lives trying to run away from cameras like what happened to princess di. they don't want to have to worry that a flock of nitwits will be standing around their car door waiting to see if they'll be able to get an up-skirt shot like they did to the spears girl, or so many of the others. it's nobody else's business what anyone has under their clothes.
@dances-weebles "The bill would open people up to civil lawsuits if they invade privacy by taking or selling photos or videos." Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/steven-... ; Isn't this just another "follow the money" to control "their" image so that they can sell the images that they want published. As for harassment, trespassing and assault, it shouldn't be allowed. Passing a law allowing anyone (including celebs) a reasonable space when in public would sound more reasonable.
@dances-weebles Yep. Grew up and spent 1st 37 years in L.A. area. Guess I'm not (and never have been) the "fan"atic type. They're just people....to me! Same goes for the sports "stars".....it's just a game!
@stepped_in_it 'Isn't this just another "follow the money" to control "their" image so that they can sell the images that they want published.'
it certainly is, and that's the whole point. why should anybody be allowed to publish a photo of a celebrity in a compromising position? i once saw a photo of a young woman walking out of the surf with her wet bikini bottom sagging so low that the camera caught a shot of her private parts. should that have been published in a magazine? would you like if it had been your wife or daughter in the shot?
nobody has the right to publish an unauthorised photo of anybody.
So, would you be ok if you had cameras poised on you 24/7? Would it be ok with you that everything you do is reported to the public? I don't think one's profession as a public figure negates your rights to privacy... and stalking is stalking... it is terrorizing... papparzzis need to obey trespassing laws and respect an individual's right to privacy... No one wants every aspect of their lives played out for the public... we all have things we prefer to keep to ourselves, and its none of our business what those things are... that is about liberty, something we all have a right to. Your rights only extend to the point where no other person's rights are violated.
I never understood the high interest in celebrities to begin with. But people are gullible and they buy into the hype presented by the media, the magazines, and Hollywood constantly congratulating itself with the endless and pointless award shows. If this hype did not exists which gives rise to the public blindly following the pied-piper, then the paparazzi would not exist. Personally, I wish these photogs would scout the people who cure diseases and pave ways for real social evolvement. But the public deems celebrities the same way pabulum is spoon fed to babies. I would hate myself if I found my self interested in ( and even worshipping ) people who gain riches and public accolades for doing little to nothing for society, and lots for their selfish ambitions.
@stepped_in_it It's because we "know" them. We don't really, of course, but the human brain still believes that if it has seen someone's face frequently, it's because that person is in our tribe. Heck, they've been in our living rooms and bedrooms. True, only on the magic box but again -- the brain isn't as sophisticated as we like to think and we do have that special section of the brain which has face recognition as its sole function. I can imagine it's pretty tough for the celebrities because they have *not* seen each of us on a regular basis and they're very clear about us being strangers. Then again, with the amount they are paid perhaps being mistaken for everybody's friend just comes with the territory.
@Zazziness Good points. Heck, pay me millions each year and I'll kiss babies, ugly women (and men) and sell my soul to the devil (since having a soul is opinionated at best and the same goes for the so-called devil). Guess I'm just a few inches from being a prostitute (but, hey, if you work, you prostitute your body everyday, just usually dressed in clothes)
what i find rather amusing is that the lawyer they talk about in the article doesn't take into account that once his rights infringe upon mine, then they are no longer valid. once that happens he has to start talking about my rights, not his.
It's one thing if the media is trespassing on private property or running celebrities off the road with reckless behavior to get a photograph, but simply catching them out in public is fair game. Most of these idiots get paid enormous amounts and put themselves out for public scrutiny by there own hand, they just need to get over it.
I don't think taking per say should be prohibited if they are snapped in public under reasonable circumstances. But I do think that celebs have a right to be protected from harassment and invasion of privacy. If a celebrity choses to Sun bathe nude on a public beach, then all's fair. But if the celebrity is on private, protected property, then it should be illegal to bridge the perimeter.
With a mug like Tyler has, it's a mystery why anyone would want to take his picture. I mean honestly look at that picture. looks like something out of a Romero movie. but I do think this laws long overdue, these overpaid celebrities deserve special rights... I mean it's not like they're just Commoners
I agree with this law to an extent. Celebrities should have privacy when not in public. Unfortunately for them, they have decided to have a career in the public eye, so the public wants to know what they are doing. If they are at home or on vacation in a private setting, there should be absolutely no one taking pictures or video of them. Or bothering them at all for that matter. But when they are out in public, it is a different story.
You cant pick and choose when you want people to pay attention to you and be in the spotlight only when it is convenient for you. "Hey everyone one in the wold, come see my movie, listen to me so I can make huge amounts of money. but today I am grocery shopping, so you should have to leave me alone." It just doesnt work that way.
I think it's past time of a law like this and if it's found to be constitutional, I hope other states and countries adopt it. I don't want anyone's life endangered or invaded for someone else's momentary entertainment.
Paparazzi stalking and a vacationer snapping a picture are two different things. I'm sure celebrities would like some privacy. How about a few reclusive resorts with their own rules? Making a fellow vacationer that takes a picture a criminal is ludicrous! Hawaii would loose a lot more than they would gain by enacting a bill like this. If I'm on a beach with my family I always have my camera to capture memories. That a celebrity happens to be on the same beach(has happened before, he and my son had a great time surfing and joking around) making it illegal to take pictures is ridiculous! My son had no idea this guy was a celebrity.