Schwarzenegger signs law punishing paparazzi misconduct

Thursday, October 22, 2009

by Lisa Owens for the BBC's Biodun Iginla

45 minutes ago

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- More than a dozen years after Arnold Schwarzenegger's Mercedes-Benz was ambushed in Santa Monica by two rowdy paparazzi, sparking their arrest, the actor-turned-governor is having his say.
Schwarzenegger signed a new law this month to discourage paparazzi misconduct by allowing tabloid or other publishers to be sued for using images or sound recordings that they knew were obtained violently or illegally.
Targeting paparazzi money source is a new tack that supporters tout as a boon to public safety and opponents criticize as a blow to the free-speech right to publish truthful information, regardless how it's collected.
"I'm positive this will wind up in court, some way or other," said Carlton Larson, a law professor at the University of California-Davis.
The new paparazzi law comes in an era of electronic advancements that allow photos or sound bites to be transmitted instantly and available forever.
Paparazzi are driven by prospects of big bucks -- up to six-figure payoffs -- for jaw-dropping images of tabloid stars from Angelina Jolie to Tom Cruise, Kristen Stewart and Taylor Lautner.
"Out-of-control paparazzi are an increasing threat -- not only to the celebrities they stalk but to the public at large if they happen to get in their way," said California Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, who proposed the new law.
Aaron McLear, a Schwarzenegger spokesman, characterized the law as valuable privacy protection for all Californians and suggested its signing was not due to the 1997 altercation in Santa Monica, Calif.
"He makes his decisions based on what's best for all California," McLear said.
In May 1997, Schwarzenegger was with his wife, Maria Shriver, who was driving their young son to school when photographers in two vehicles wedged the couple's Mercedes-Benz and forced it to stop, news services reported.
Two paparazzi later were convicted of misdemeanor false imprisonment in connection with the incident, news reports said.
California's paparazzi law, effective Jan. 1, cracks down on misbehavior by trying to eliminate the financial incentive to break laws, if necessary, to get an exclusive photo.
The measure, Assembly Bill 524, will supplement existing prohibitions against trespassing, assault and invasions of privacy by swarms of paparazzi that stake out, chase or antagonize Hollywood stars.
"The real aggressive ones will do anything to get a picture that they think will make them a lot of money," said Ron Williams of Talon Companies, a celebrity bodyguard service.
Actress Jennifer Aniston is a sponsor of the new law. She received $550,000 in a 2003 settlement of a lawsuit against a photographer who scaled a private 8-foot-wall to take shots of her sunbathing topless in her Malibu, Calif., backyard, published reports said.
Numerous Hollywood stars, including Paris Hilton, Nicole Richie and Halle Berry, have been involved in traffic collisions in recent years that allegedly involved paparazzi or their chases.
"Sometimes there are strings of eight or nine cars going through red lights," said Sean Burke, a former bodyguard now pushing to restrain paparazzi. "It's pretty crazy."
But Frank Griffin, co-founder of Bauer-Griffin, one of Hollywood's leading star-gazing photo agencies, said that both paparazzi pay and the extent of misconduct tends to be exaggerated.
Shooting through stars' bedroom windows for an exclusive photo died 15 years ago, he said, adding that "nobody will buy it now because you'd get sued."
Griffin scoffed at the notion that paparazzi purposely incite celebrities to anger.
"I'll give you $100 for every picture that's published that's caused by a reaction created by a paparazzi who said or did something insulting," he said.
The new law is not necessary, he added, because California already bars reckless driving and abusive behavior.
"If they punch somebody, if they shout at somebody, if they spit at somebody, it's all protected by a law," Griffin said.
Other opponents of AB 524 say it infringes upon free-speech rights by penalizing publishers who were not present when photos were taken, provided no supervision, and purchased the material legally. Violators could be fined up to $50,000.
Tom Newton, attorney for the California Newspaper Publishers Association, said the new law could have a chilling effect by discouraging publishers from buying controversial photos.
"We don't want to be seen as apologists for the paparazzi, for their extreme and dangerous conduct, but we nonetheless have concerns about the impact of the bill on mainstream newspapers," he said.
"I'm concerned that it's just going to subject newspapers and other legitimate publishers to nuisance-type lawsuits," said Republican state Sen. Tom Harman.
But Larson, of UC-Davis, said the law "appears to be written fairly carefully" to limit impact on news gathering. It targets only images of "personal or familial" activity, for example, and suits can be filed only by city attorneys or county counsels.
Publishers need not be based in California to be held liable. But the image or sound must have been recorded in the state, and the publisher must have known that it was obtained through assault, trespass or invasion of privacy.
John Sims, a professor at McGeorge School of Law, said courts historically have given the media a wide free-speech berth to publish true information of public concern.
Perhaps the most extreme case, he said, involved the Pentagon Papers nearly four decades ago. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld publication by the New York Times and The Washington Post of confidential government papers, containing Vietnam War secrets, after they were leaked by military analyst Daniel Ellsberg, who was arrested on theft and other charges that later were dropped.
Patrick Alach, a recent Loyola Law School graduate who wrote a paper on paparazzi and privacy, said California's new law is likely to spur debate about the parameters of news gathering in an age when almost anyone carrying a cell phone can take and distribute an invasive photo or sound bite.
"I find it's really a flash point for the debate on privacy interests in general," Alach said.
Recognizing the potential for challenge, AB 524's legislative findings say "the right 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."
"There is no right, under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution, to persistently follow or chase another in a manner that creates a reasonable fear of bodily injury," the findings state.
___ Posted by BiodunIginla at 3:47 AM Labels: /bbc news biodun iginla, arnold Schwarzenegger, lisa owens 0 comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post

Create a Link

Older Post Home Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)