Schwarzenegger signs tougher anti-paparazzi law

AnthemZ · October 13th, 2009, 07:58 AM

Schwarzenegger signs tougher anti-paparazzi law

(AP) – 11 hours ago

LOS ANGELES — California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed an anti-paparazzi bill making it easier to sue media outlets that use photos that invade celebrities' privacy.

A statement issued Monday says the former "Terminator" star had signed a number of bills, including the amendment to a decade-old law that allows fines against paparazzi who illegally or offensively take photos or recordings.

The amendment permits lawsuits against media outlets that pay for and make first use of material they knew was improperly obtained.

Tabloid magazines, TV shows and Internet sites sometimes pay millions of dollars for celebrity fodder.

The amendment takes effect in January.

**tabler** · October 13th, 2009, 09:45 AM

Good for him, I think some of the pap pics are a terrible invasion of privacy fuelled by todays 'celeb culture' and we might see some proper journalism in its place and a thinning out of the pulp magazines such as 'heat' or 'OK' and rubbish like that.
Also lets not forget, if there were those kind of restrictions in place a few years ago in Europe Princess Di would still be alive.

**anklebiter** · October 13th, 2009, 12:51 PM

I support this law, but have to admit, it'll be a shame if we stop getting actress' upskirts, downblouses, and topless beach photos

Personally,I can't wait for a certain 16 year old TV star /pop singer/ actress to turn 18.I know there's going to be a flood of those type of pictures, and I'm going to enjoy every last one.

**smutwerx** · October 13th, 2009, 02:16 PM

In a country where money is valued above all other things, it's pointless to be shocked at what people will do to get it, but I think this law is a good idea. The paps say they are driven by demand, but it's just as valid to say, conversely, that their magazines have nurtured the demand. In any case, the photos never tell the whole story. You have to watch the video clips, in which the paps are verbally harassing and provoking the celebs to force a reaction. Watch these clips and you'll have no doubt that what Tabler said above about Princess Diana is true. But while this law does indeed make sense, it's driven by pure celeb power. We need the same sort of common sense to apply to laws for common folks.

**scoundrel** · October 13th, 2009, 06:24 PM

They have a law to protect individual privacy from unjustified intrusion in France which seems to work. I remember that while under suspension for the notorious Kung Fu kick episode, footballer Eric Cantona took his first wife and 6year old son to Martinique to get away from intense media intrusion in the UK. He was followed there by British reporters, one of whom ambushed the family (bear in mind that Madame Cantona was heavily pregnant at the time) and Cantona reacted by administering a severe beating to the man.

This was reported in British news media with gleeful indignation, another act of gross thuggery by Eric Cantona...Their triumph was coldly overturned by French magistrates in Martinique who exonerated Cantona and convicted the reporter of violating France's privacy law. The guy got a short prison sentence and was deported in disgrace. The British press and media tried very hard to work up a controversy over the perceived injustice, but found British public opinion had no sympathy at all. In Britain, Cantona very likely would have gone to gaol for assault, especially in view of his previous conviction, but the French don't allow journalists to harrass their citizens and then punish the citizen if he resists. In France, there has to actually be a news story before intrusion will be permitted by a court.

I can see merit in a law which punishes boorish and patently unwanted intrusion on peoples' privacy for no other reason than that they are currently the object of popular curiosity. But this law should protect all citizens, not merely celebrities who can lawyer up. I wish Governor Schwarzenegger every success with this measure, as long as it there to protect unlucky little guys who find themselves in the public eye, rather than organised criminals and assorted riffraff who dont want their shady doings to become news.

**brianwp** · October 15th, 2009, 06:44 AM

I don't know, I've been seeing a lot of posts lately that are entirely a series of 30 pictures of somebody, (like especially Jennifer Garner), in sweat pants, walking her dog, taking her kids to school, shopping for groceries, getting in her car, blowing her nose, scratching her ass, etc., etc., that seem totally useless. And you can see the aggravation in her face. I'll bet she just loves going out to get the paper in the morning with guys hiding in the bushes taking pictures. Is there really a need for that, when they do movies, photo sessions, tv appearances, openings, etc.? I've riden around Hollywood, Bel Air, and Beverly Hills incidentally seeing celebs on the street, and that's fun, but do they really need to stalk them? I don't blame them for getting pissed, they're only human, and considering how much of themselves they already give to us, they should have some down time to themselves to be just people.

**DTravel** · October 15th, 2009, 05:14 PM

I've seen those kinds of posts too, Brianwp. There are some (I've even re-posted a few) where the celeb is flipping the photographers off or taking pictures of them as evidence. Unfortunately all I can think of to do to help is to just not download paparazzi pics myself. If we can help reduce the demand....

**squigg58** · October 15th, 2009, 06:04 PM

I don't think it's an issue if the "celeb" is in public ... ie. walking the dog, shopping for groceries etc. It's the "over the fence" long-lens shots which are the problem as everyone has a right to privacy.

Anyway, if it was illegal to photograph someone in public without their knowledge, the government here in the UK would be screwed as we're spied on by cameras as soon as we set foot outside our houses!

I personally dislike the sort of photos which are designed to show an individual in a bad light. If you take fifty shots of someone having a normal conversation, you'll probably get one in which the subject has their eyes closed and their mouth open ... and of course, that's the one which will appear in the gutter press as the individual looks stupid or gormless.

There is one amendment I would like to be added to the laws relating to the media. All images of Peter Andre and/or Katie Price should be outlawed with immediate effect. I believe I have a right NOT to have the tossers inflicted on me whenever I walk into a newsagents or pick up a paper!

**Mad Koala Bear** · October 15th, 2009, 10:36 PM

It will at least stop the pics of his wife, Maria Shriver, illegally using her mobile phone whilst driving, from appearing in the news. Three seperate occasions over the past few months I see.

**John C. Holmes** · October 15th, 2009, 11:51 PM

Cudos to the Governator but doesn't everything the paparazzi do violate state anti-stalker laws already?

October 13th, 2009, 07:58 AM	#1
AnthemZ Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 321 Thanks: 75 Thanked 3,777 Times in 300 Posts	Schwarzenegger signs tougher anti-paparazzi law Schwarzenegger signs tougher anti-paparazzi law (AP) – 11 hours ago LOS ANGELES — California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed an anti-paparazzi bill making it easier to sue media outlets that use photos that invade celebrities' privacy. A statement issued Monday says the former "Terminator" star had signed a number of bills, including the amendment to a decade-old law that allows fines against paparazzi who illegally or offensively take photos or recordings. The amendment permits lawsuits against media outlets that pay for and make first use of material they knew was improperly obtained. Tabloid magazines, TV shows and Internet sites sometimes pay millions of dollars for celebrity fodder. The amendment takes effect in January. __________________ *If you like my posts then Thank you!* To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. My Screen Cap server was history, I've rebuilt my cap base and I'm replacing them all!

October 13th, 2009, 09:45 AM	#2
tabler Comfortably Numb Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: St James Park Posts: 7,029 Thanks: 112,519 Thanked 146,054 Times in 8,009 Posts	Good for him, I think some of the pap pics are a terrible invasion of privacy fuelled by todays 'celeb culture' and we might see some proper journalism in its place and a thinning out of the pulp magazines such as 'heat' or 'OK' and rubbish like that. Also lets not forget, if there were those kind of restrictions in place a few years ago in Europe Princess Di would still be alive. __________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. *Velcome to zee Forum. You must obey zee rules!* Last edited by tabler; October 13th, 2009 at 09:51 AM..

October 13th, 2009, 06:24 PM	#5
scoundrel Super Moderator Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: England Posts: 26,246 Thanks: 162,419 Thanked 278,573 Times in 26,191 Posts	They have a law to protect individual privacy from unjustified intrusion in France which seems to work. I remember that while under suspension for the notorious Kung Fu kick episode, footballer Eric Cantona took his first wife and 6year old son to Martinique to get away from intense media intrusion in the UK. He was followed there by British reporters, one of whom ambushed the family (bear in mind that Madame Cantona was heavily pregnant at the time) and Cantona reacted by administering a severe beating to the man. This was reported in British news media with gleeful indignation, another act of gross thuggery by Eric Cantona...Their triumph was coldly overturned by French magistrates in Martinique who exonerated Cantona and convicted the reporter of violating France's privacy law. The guy got a short prison sentence and was deported in disgrace. The British press and media tried very hard to work up a controversy over the perceived injustice, but found British public opinion had no sympathy at all. In Britain, Cantona very likely would have gone to gaol for assault, especially in view of his previous conviction, but the French don't allow journalists to harrass their citizens and then punish the citizen if he resists. In France, there has to actually be a news story before intrusion will be permitted by a court. I can see merit in a law which punishes boorish and patently unwanted intrusion on peoples' privacy for no other reason than that they are currently the object of popular curiosity. But this law should protect all citizens, not merely celebrities who can lawyer up. I wish Governor Schwarzenegger every success with this measure, as long as it there to protect unlucky little guys who find themselves in the public eye, rather than organised criminals and assorted riffraff who dont want their shady doings to become news. __________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

October 15th, 2009, 05:14 PM	#7
DTravel Lean Mean Screencap Machine Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Better you don't know. Posts: 23,834 Thanks: 10,482 Thanked 207,406 Times in 23,740 Posts	I've seen those kinds of posts too, Brianwp. There are some (I've even re-posted a few) where the celeb is flipping the photographers off or taking pictures of them as evidence. Unfortunately all I can think of to do to help is to just not download paparazzi pics myself. If we can help reduce the demand.... __________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. I rage and weep for my country. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. I can reup screencaps, other material might have been lost.

October 13th, 2009, 12:51 PM	#3
anklebiter Palerider Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: United States Posts: 509 Thanks: 5,603 Thanked 9,862 Times in 515 Posts	I support this law, but have to admit, it'll be a shame if we stop getting actress' upskirts, downblouses, and topless beach photos Personally,I can't wait for a certain 16 year old TV star /pop singer/ actress to turn 18.I know there's going to be a flood of those type of pictures, and I'm going to enjoy every last one.

October 13th, 2009, 02:16 PM	#4
smutwerx Vintage Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 619 Thanks: 2,859 Thanked 21,617 Times in 621 Posts	In a country where money is valued above all other things, it's pointless to be shocked at what people will do to get it, but I think this law is a good idea. The paps say they are driven by demand, but it's just as valid to say, conversely, that their magazines have nurtured the demand. In any case, the photos never tell the whole story. You have to watch the video clips, in which the paps are verbally harassing and provoking the celebs to force a reaction. Watch these clips and you'll have no doubt that what Tabler said above about Princess Diana is true. But while this law does indeed make sense, it's driven by pure celeb power. We need the same sort of common sense to apply to laws for common folks.

October 15th, 2009, 06:44 AM	#6
brianwp Vintage Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: United States Posts: 1,464 Thanks: 4,856 Thanked 25,704 Times in 1,431 Posts	I don't know, I've been seeing a lot of posts lately that are entirely a series of 30 pictures of somebody, (like especially Jennifer Garner), in sweat pants, walking her dog, taking her kids to school, shopping for groceries, getting in her car, blowing her nose, scratching her ass, etc., etc., that seem totally useless. And you can see the aggravation in her face. I'll bet she just loves going out to get the paper in the morning with guys hiding in the bushes taking pictures. Is there really a need for that, when they do movies, photo sessions, tv appearances, openings, etc.? I've riden around Hollywood, Bel Air, and Beverly Hills incidentally seeing celebs on the street, and that's fun, but do they really need to stalk them? I don't blame them for getting pissed, they're only human, and considering how much of themselves they already give to us, they should have some down time to themselves to be just people.

October 15th, 2009, 06:04 PM	#8
squigg58 Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: My own little world Posts: 2,476 Thanks: 14,113 Thanked 25,970 Times in 2,473 Posts	I don't think it's an issue if the "celeb" is in public ... ie. walking the dog, shopping for groceries etc. It's the "over the fence" long-lens shots which are the problem as everyone has a right to privacy. Anyway, if it was illegal to photograph someone in public without their knowledge, the government here in the UK would be screwed as we're spied on by cameras as soon as we set foot outside our houses! I personally dislike the sort of photos which are designed to show an individual in a bad light. If you take fifty shots of someone having a normal conversation, you'll probably get one in which the subject has their eyes closed and their mouth open ... and of course, that's the one which will appear in the gutter press as the individual looks stupid or gormless. There is one amendment I would like to be added to the laws relating to the media. All images of Peter Andre and/or Katie Price should be outlawed with immediate effect. I believe I have a right NOT to have the tossers inflicted on me whenever I walk into a newsagents or pick up a paper!

October 15th, 2009, 10:36 PM	#9
Mad Koala Bear Vintage Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 869 Thanks: 30,809 Thanked 10,734 Times in 850 Posts	It will at least stop the pics of his wife, Maria Shriver, illegally using her mobile phone whilst driving, from appearing in the news. Three seperate occasions over the past few months I see.

October 15th, 2009, 11:51 PM	#10
John C. Holmes Vintage Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 710 Thanks: 14,638 Thanked 7,449 Times in 682 Posts	Cudos to the Governator but doesn't everything the paparazzi do violate state anti-stalker laws already?