We Don’t Need New Laws in California on Paparazzi

Thank you, Peter, it is nice to see that someone somewhere is monitoring this issue in Malibu.

As a freelance newspaper writer and photographer, writing for the local weekly and nearby metro dailies, I am quite concerned that a city ordinance that will impact my livelihood and place a legal stamp of approval on local vigilantes who already take it upon themselves to try to block me doing my work.

The "paps" make my life difficult, as a working reporter here. I am constantly challenged by officials --- from park rangers to sheriff's deputies -- and passersby assailing and challenging my newsgathering activities. I have had sherif''s deputies called on my while taking pictures of bad traffic in front of the local school ... while prominently wearing an official press ID card. Inteference in my constitutionally-protected job is already plentiful.

I've been harassed on public beaches by little old ladies. And I've been "guided" by state parks rangers away from brushfires to go "check in" at the distant command post to "ensure the privacy of the residents in nearby houses" ... although I was taking pictures from a public highway that was open to all.

As a third year law student, I am quite concerned with the fact that Kenneth Starr has been charged with this sensitive issue. No matter what one may think of his prior political activities, it must be noted that Starr was the lead counsel arguing the recent "Bong Hits For Jesus" case before the Supreme Court.

Although that the was decided on the narrow grounds that the "free speech" advocated by the high school student in Alaska had an impermissible "pro-drug" message and could therefore be censored by school officials, Star''s arguments persuaded the Supreme Court to issue the most-regressive First Amendment decision in decades. It effectively gutted press and speech freedoms accorded American public school students by the landmark Tinker decision decades ago.

Taken at its basest level, the "Bong Hits" argument advocated by Starr demonstrates an authoritarian government desire to control publicly-exhibited opinion that does match official public policy. I am concerned that a similar authoritarian desire to control unpopular, but constitutionally-protected activities, may soon end up on Malibu's ordinance books.

For example, I am most-concerned that the city might prohibit newsgathering on private property that is open to passage by the general public, such as a shopping center. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the protections afforded by the California Constitution that allow petition-gatherers, news photographers and private citizens to conduct peaceful, inobtrusive acts that are constitutionally-protected in such public spaces on provate land.

These freedoms (from the "Pruneyard" case) are very, very important, and have been chipped away by courts and police frequently. I can easily foresee what putting Mr. Starr in charge of interpreting them would be.

But I do not wish to put words in Mr. Starr's mouth. I am anxious to hear what the task force will come up with. As an affected party and resident of Malibu, I have requested to attend meetings of the "task force" headed by him. No response yet from the city on this summer holiday week, but rest assured this journalist will attend those meetings.

Peter, the paparazzi packs are causing serious safety problems.
Many Malibu residents have had it with dangerous, illegal acts performed by the "paps".

Of course, the police should charge people with crimes if they endanger others. Charge them with gang enhancements if they are acting in concert to break the laws through intimidation. As you point out, existing laws should be used here.

But, Peter, a few points from a journaliust who has to work with these people:

(1) Holding Malibu residents (or Americans everywhere) collectively responsible for enabling the paps is not fair. Many Americans do not patronize such sites, and we deserve better than to be dismissed as hypocrites.

(2) It's not the celebrities complaining, it's the just plain folks. And Peter, there are just plain folks in Malibu. Lots of them. And many of them resent it when a First Amendment advocate patronizes them as "the good folks" of "a quaint town" who are asking people to "feel sorry for them."

(3) Finally, and most-importantly, advocates of free speech cannot win public support by dismissing the legitimate concerns of law enforcement and the people of Malibu and other places that attract the packs of amateur and professional paparazzi. There is a legititmate public safety concern brought about by a lawless horde, endangering others by their willful acts.

(4) Finally, suggesting that Malibu record videos of "paps" acting like idiots is not helpful on several levels. It assumes that these photographers have a sense of collective identity, as opposed to being a pack of independent actors. It assumes a public appetite for pictures of hairy oafs sitting around on a sidewalk. And it assumes a naive belief that this would do anything other than encourage more bad behavior -- this time for the offical City of Malibu Pep-Perp cam.

And besides, Peter, how can you shame people with no shame?

So, enough silliness. We need to make sure that Dean Starr and Mayor Conley Ulich do not exceed practicality and constitutionality in this effort. We need to ensure that the legitimate newsgathering process by what's left of the news media is not restricted here. And we need to do something about the lawlessness and violence that paps have exhibited -- and not just in Malibu.

Hans Laetz,
freelance reporter/photographer
3d year law student

Please.

Do you really believe these paparazzi leeches care whether they are filmed or not or how they behave?
They are making big bucks for these pictures and they won't stop unless forced to.

Invasion of Privacy is not a Constitutionally protected activity pure and simple. It's got nothing to do with free speech at all.

Post a comment