How Not to Control Paparazzi
There’s no excusing the behavior of some photographers, the paparazzi who hunt down celebrities like game animals. But proposed legislation to make their actions a federal crime is unnecessary. Existing laws already protect celebrities and others from harassment.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) plans next week to introduce the Personal Privacy Protection Act, which would make it a crime for a commercial photographer to persistently follow or chase someone in a manner that causes an unreasonable fear of injury. Imposing restrictions on the behavior of celebrity photographers has been a long-term goal of the Screen Actors Guild. But previous proposals, such as a state law to ban annoying behavior and outlaw taking photos in public without consent, failed to pass constitutional requirements.
Even its authors concede that much of what the bill would ban is already outlawed in most states under provisions barring trespass, harassment or stalking. Indeed, earlier this month, a jury convicted two celebrity photographers who last May pursued actor Arnold Schwarzenegger and his wife, news correspondent Maria Shriver, through Westside streets as the couple drove their son to preschool. The charges were false imprisonment. The photographers will be sentenced on Feb. 23 and both face a maximum of two years in prison. That’s pretty tough medicine, but appropriate for actions that the judge in this case correctly called “outrageous.â€
The guild resumed the fight against paparazzi again last August, when Princess Diana was killed in a Paris auto accident, reportedly while fleeing paparazzi. Diana’s death triggered a loud debate about the tactics of tabloid photographers who hounded the princess throughout her royal life.
For Feinstein, Diana’s death was the catalyst for this bill. The draft measure addresses only the action a photographer takes to shoot a photo, and specifically forbids “persistent chasing or following†if the picture is intended for sale. Conviction would be punishable by up to a year in prison, at least five years if bodily harm results and at least 20 years if a death results.
Another provision of Feinstein’s bill renders it worse than unnecessary. It updates the definition of trespass to include zoom lenses and other enhancement devices, a provision intended to stop photographers from, for example, peering into backyards without actually stepping onto private property. Use of such technology would be grounds for a civil suit if it produced photos that could not otherwise have been taken without physically trespassing.
But despite her insistence to the contrary, this provision blatantly limits information-gathering by the legitimate press as well as the celebrity stalkers. As such, it is an unacceptable curb on the 1st Amendment. As the Schwarzenegger case shows, existing law protects against clearly dangerous behavior.
