Hollywood = Anti-Paparazzi?

The celebrities of Hollywood have just won a major battle in the war with the paparazzi. I guess it helps to have a mega-movie star such as Arnold Schwarzenegger get voted into office as governor of California. The governator just signed an anti-paparazzi law that allows civil lawsuits against media outlets that commission or publish photographs. The most important part of the law is an amendment on the decade old Anti-Paparazzi Act that was a response to Princess Diana's death due to aggressive paparazzi. The new law comes as Los Angeles authorities try to crack down on aggressive photographers following a series of altercations involving actresses and actors especially. The law is set to take effect in January 2010. But what about the ethics of the situation?

The California measure states that the rights of a free press "to report details of an individual's private life must be weighed against the rights of the individual to enjoy liberty and privacy." The measure amends an existing California state law that makes photographers subject to legal action if they trespass on private property or photograph someone who has a "reasonable expectation of privacy."

The new fine for unauthorized clicking? 50,000. Dozens and dozens of photographers dedicate their whole lives to getting the perfect picture of a celebrity. They are not exactly a well-liked a group among the famous. Celebrity photos can be big business, especially when it comes to major milestones-marriages, children, scandals. They make or break a career for a celebrity, and make or break a career for a photographer. Eva Longoria and Tony Parker received $2 million from OK for photos of their lavish Paris, France, wedding. People magazine reportedly paid $14 million for the first pictures of the Brad Pitt-Angelina Jolie twins. The public that consumes these photos is not innocent either. One reason why this industry is so profitable is because so many people go out and buy these tabloids and keep an eye on what certain celebrities are doing.

Paparazzi have earned their aggressive reputation worldwide. Some block cars so celebrities have trouble arriving to or leaving a scene. Others hit cars and cause an accident just so they can get photos. They don't care about their welfare, or the welfare of the people whose photographs they are trying to obtain. Governator Schwarzenegger himself had several run-ins with the paparazzi where his life was endangered. He and his wife were once run off the road by paparazzi trying to take their pictures, and the governor has been surrounded by paparazzi while trying to pick up his kids from school.

The law is a big win for celebrities who have been the target of paparazzi who try their hardest to get pictures of their families. A photographer trying to take a picture of actress Reese Witherspoon's young daughter at an amusement park was charged with assaulting two park workers after they tried to intervene.

Not all paparazzi are bad either. "This new law is significant," said Sean Burke, Founder of The Paparazzi Reform Initiative (www.paparazzi-reform.org), a supporter of the bill. "The organizations that publish celebrity photos have always been shielded from liability if the paparazzi broke any laws in the act of getting the photo. The photographer would be in trouble, but the publications wouldn't get touched. This law opens the door to law suits against internet sites, publications and other media outlets if they knowingly publish a photo that was gotten [sic] illegally. It doesn't solve the entire paparazzi problem, but we're heading in the right direction."

However, the media is not letting this law slow them down either. Media groups contend that the law violates the First Amendment. I don't believe that this is so. First, although the law is clearly designed to target the paparazzi, it applies to everyone, not just the press. Many paparazzi are not even members of the press - they are independent actors or regular people who gather photos and hawk them to the press (or the highest bidder).

While it is true that taking photos and recording sound are activities involved in newsgathering, people might undertake these activities for other reasons, such as snooping on others. Taking photos and recoding sound are not exclusively newsgathering activities. Second, there is no special constitutional right to gather news by taking photographs. The First Amendment primarily protects the right to speak, not the right to gather materials and photos to use in one's speech.