PGHIMC - Pittsburgh Independent Media Center

Are Anti-paparazzi Laws Unconstitutional
by Janine M. Rectenwald Monday, Dec. 05, 2005 at 6:10 PM
jmrecte@pointpark.edu 724-744-6588 Florida Ave.

Paparazzi are usually considered pests but is passing laws that restrict their activity in public places a violation of the First Amendment?

In 1997 Princess Diana was being hounded by paparazzi when her car crashed into the side of a tunnel leading to the death of both her and Dodi Al-Fayed, her boyfriend. Her death resulted in widespread calls for legislation to restrain the so-called "paparazzi,” who chase celebrities in the hopes of catching a photo which they can sell for cash. As a result California created and passed America’s first "anti-paparazzi" law. This law is a way of attempting to physically limit the paparazzi from taking photographs of celebrities in public locations.


Though paparazzi are resented because of their tendency to badger celebs for photos, they are protected by freedom of speech and of the press granted by the First Amendment. The subjects of their photographs are public figures and therefore are subject to public scrutiny. Therefore, the passing of anti-paparazzi laws are unconstitutional and once they are tested by the courts, they surely will be set aside.


California’s new law is specific to pictures and recordings of celebrities. According to the statute, which is codified as California Civil Code section 1708.0, the law creates liability for "physical" and "constructive" invasions of privacy through photographing, videotaping, or recording a person engaging in a "personal or familial activity." I assume personal or familiar activity refers to activities such as running to the drug store, or taking a walk, or grabbing a soda from the nearest Coke vending machine; all things that involve public property. Regarding these “personal or familiar activities” paparazzi should have freedom to snap away.


The U.S. Constitution does not openly and plainly provide for a right of privacy or for a general right of personal autonomy, but the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that a right of personal autonomy is implied in the "zones of privacy" created by specific constitutional guarantees. Freedom of the press however, is absolutely addressed in the Constitution. The First Amendment gives the press the right to publish information, thoughts, and opinions without restraint or censorship. This includes pictures.


Celebrities tend to be less likely to win a case of invasion of privacy, libel or slander due to the fact that they are public figures defined as any person who has achieved fame or notoriety. If you’re a public figure and on public property you are – and I hate to put it this way – fair game. The only real leg stars have to stand on is filing a lawsuit for trespass and isn’t really applicable if they’re in a public place, that is, until this law was passed in California.


Paparazzi affect your life. Any magazine you pick up invariably has paparazzi pictures in it. If new laws are passed and slapped on paparazzi barring them from entering publicly owned establishments with the intent to photograph a public figure, you couldn’t pick up the latest issue of In-Touch and see if Nick and Jessica are getting divorced. What would our country be without freedom of the press? According to Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, the most significant change made by the "physical invasion of privacy" provision of the anti-paparazzi law is the availability of stiffer sanctions for a trespass if the purpose of the trespass is to photograph or videotape someone. To me, that sits in a grey area. Trespassing is illegal and punishable by law but should the punishment be more severe if the intent was to photograph or videotape someone? Couldn’t that be taken as an example of prior restraint? The answer is yes, it could. Prior restraint is a way to censor something before it has a chance to be published. In this case, establishing a steeper punishment for someone who intends to snap a photograph of a celebrity as opposed to someone who is merely sneaking a peak of them in their homes is a way of deterring these photographers, the paparazzi, from taking the chance, effectively censoring their creative expression.


While I find the lives of paparazzi disdainful, it’s clear that they are protected under the freedom of the press and freedom of speech laws. As long as the subjects of the photographs are public figures and are in public places; the grocery store, a public sidewalk or at the park, the paparazzi should be legally allowed to photograph them and sell their pictures.


Us Weekly's editor-in-chief, Janice Min, says, "A celebrity is like an elected official. You're getting paid $20 million a movie, you have to rely on public goodwill to stay in office. You have to accept the fact that you're a public commodity."


Anti-paparazzi laws put a gag on the first amendment rights of American citizens. Though it’s clear that everyone must be able enjoy the right to privacy, public places are just that: public. All celebrities actively sought the status of public figure. With that comes the knowledge that your life, all of it, will be of interest to the public and therefore they shouldn’t be clamoring for anti-paparazzi laws to protect them while they’re in public. Slapping laws on paparazzi that force them to pay through the nose if they come within a certain distance of a public figure with a camera isn’t an answer the problem that clearly exists.

add your comments

Excellent
by Matt Deegan Wednesday, Dec. 14, 2005 at 6:19 AM

Great piece!!! cleary well thought out and researched.

add your comments

fuck 'em
by fuck 'em Thursday, Dec. 15, 2005 at 8:38 PM

"public commodity" is an absolute load of shit.

People have a life, conttrary to how much the Trekkies think they own someone.

Take those lowlifes's cameras and bash in their heads.

add your comments

The Golden Rule...
by author Saturday, Mar. 08, 2008 at 9:04 PM

...Hey, Janine...if *you* were suddenly a big celebrity, with paparazzi doing things like installing a camera in your toilet so they could take daily pictures of your rear...would you stick to your principles, and let them do it? Even if you were getting paid 20 million a year? mmm, don't think so... >:)

add your comments

Common Sense
by Sensible human being Sunday, Apr. 06, 2008 at 12:55 PM

What about common sense? Common courtesy? The paparazzi are vile members of society who do not respect privacy and ruin lives; if you fight them, more will come when a person needs their privacy the most. Maybe someone should employ one of the growing numbers of paparazzi with criminal records such as sex offenses and attempted murders to come to your house and take pictures. They will also go to your children's school. You f*cking idiot.

add your comments

Here's A Good Idea
by MdG Thursday, Sep. 25, 2008 at 2:13 PM

I have a great idea! We should have a Paparazzi Paparazzi. If you decide to follow the life of a Paparazzi, then you too are putting yourself out there as a public figure. Right? Paparazzi ARE public figures too! Sooo let's have someone follow them in their personal lives and violate every private moment. Let's have someone ruin intimate moments like the enjoyment of having theiir first baby, marrying the man/woman of their dreams; then making a comment on how it won't last, attending their loved ones funerals. Let's add some hurtful comments about the most important times of their lives until they're sick to their stomachs. LET'S DO JUST THAT! I bet they would not like the taste of their own medicine!! Just terrible how they lack respect.

add your comments