Paparazzi face jail for chasing celebrities under new law signed by Schwarzenegger

Despite strong opposition from news organizations, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill cracking down on photographers who drive recklessly in pursuit of celebrities or block sidewalks and create the sense of "false imprisonment" for Hollywood glitterati.

The paparazzi bill, AB 2479 by Assemblywoman Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles), imposes stiff penalties — including possible jail time — for photographers who cross the line. Reckless driving and trespassing already are illegal, so singling out photographers for special prosecution is an affront to the 1st Amendment, argued the California Newspaper Publishers Assn.

Bass helped craft the bill with help from Los Angeles City Atty. Carmen Trutanich. She told The Times in August that Jennifer Aniston and Reese Witherspoon had discussed their concerns to her about the aggressive actions of the paparazzi.

"Some artists fear there is going to be a terrible accident," Bass said at the time. "This is certainly no attempt to regulate the press."

But the California Newspaper Publishers Assn. argues that laws on the books already allow the prosecution of people who recklessly flout traffic and trespassing laws. Heaping new penalties on violators just because they are seeking photographs, the organization says, is an affront to the 1st Amendment.

Backers praised the governor's decision to sign the bill.

“This new law is specifically targeted to increase public safety,” said Sean Burke, founder and CEO of the Paparazzi Reform Initiative. “In addition to the sheer invasiveness of broadcasting a person’s personal life to hundreds of millions of people worldwide without his or her consent, paparazzi tactics cause severe disruption to the general public."

-- Patrick McGreevy in Sacramento and Andrew Blankstein in Los Angeles

Photo: Paparazzi on the prowl in Malibu in 2008. Credit: Los Angeles Times

Comments

[Hypatia]

I truly suggest that the charming members of the 4th estate stop behaving like scum and get behind this initiative instead of fighting it. They spout a lot of high-minded nonsense, but all they really want is the liberty to drive over pedestrians in pursuit of that celebrity photograph.

[Mike]

Good but lets follow through. First offense fine, second jail time

[wrath of god]

As a member of the "general public" I must say I have never felt any "disruption" severe or otherwise caused by any paparazzi. Boring people become the fans the paparazzi serve -- people with interesting lives have more to do than focus on a celebrity.

[Kathy M]

The press - necessarily - ignores the obvious in their stance. Yes - driving recklesslessly is already a crime, but reckless drivers rarely if ever "target" another driver to harass and interfere with. THAT is the issue here - and THAT is why the law will pass muster regardless of any lame 1st Amendment challenge. No tickets if you just drive by and take a picture - but hunt them down, try to impede their progress and box them in or interfere with their safety is going to stop or the "media" is going to pay dearly. Way to go Arnie! Finally got one right!

[gio]

Cali airheads installed the "Governator" who is an idiot.

It's more important to him to protect movie stars than animals.

He signs an anti-photographer bill which violates the First Amendment.

He vetoes a bill that allows animals skinned alive to be sold in California.
But he loves that Chinese cas.

He's a soulless prostitute.

[Karen Stewart]

Good for Governor Schwarzenegger. I will miss him as our governor in California.

The paparazzi get away with stalking and they should be legally charged under the anti stalking law, as well. They stay outside many celebrities home, lying in wait, to take their photographs. Why is that different than any other stalkers? Also, it should not be allowed to take photos of the children of the celebrities.

The "paparazzi press" should not be able to do whatever they want and use the first ammendment right as an excuse.

[noones business]

i dont like this governer, being a pro business guy, and not so much a pro human guy, and a German born ( Austria, ok) steroid drinking weight lifter/actor of all things,
who is holding an office in the US, (which I think should not be legal, you should have to be born here to hold office...)
but
Celebrities are citizens and the fact that they are famous should never have
denied them the right to not be chased... thats all, you should not be able to chase people in such a manner as to endanger their or others right to
walk on the sidewalk or drive down the street. If a person without a camera was chasing a girl and saying things that were inappropriate, he would be charged with harrassment. The same rules should apply to paparazzi. Famous actors and musicians have a right to walk into a store without being harassed, just like polititians. Why isnt anyone chasing Cheney and asking about him shooting his lawyer, or Haliburton, or the supreme court intimidation? Take pictures of his kids ( does he have kids?0 tell us everything about these criminals,
i dont care about Angelina Jolies daughters wardrobe. If judges were chased around, and people sat in front of thier houses, i am sure this 'right' ( of the photographers - not the writers, but
the photographers - to do anything to get a shot) would long ago have been revised. Freedom of the press cannot usurp the right of the individual
IF you are polititian - a true public servant. But the right of the individual takes a back seat to the press if you are an artist who has gained noteriety - not an elected public official, just a performer.

[Paul]

How about a group of celebrities follow paparazzi around relentlessly?

[KrissinLA]

It's about time!!!!

[LA Citizen]

I work in a building where Stars often visit, and I can really say that the paparazzi outside are pretty vicious. Even stepping out sometimes for lunch or trying to go home, I have to walk through these people, and they have no respect for the general public trying to get to where they need to go. I could imagine being someone famous and being hounded by these hyenas. But then again, if you chose to be a star - then this is your life, you have to deal with them respectfully.

[Realist]

About time. I have no love for celebrities but they have been unfairly harassed by these jerks for too long. Stalking people in order to publish privacy- invasive photographs of them strictly for money hardly qualifies as an exercise of freedom of the press.

[Sage Advice]

Princess Diana - does anyone need to say anything more?

[LA Reader 2010 Comment]

As a member of the public and a fan of US Weekly Magazine, I applaud the governor for supporting and signing this bill. Even though it is fun to read about what is happening in celebrities lives, it is not right to make them feel like they can't live a life because crazy photographers are constantly hounding them down, blocking traffic, and chasing people down to get that one photograph.
The press always go back to the 1st Amendment. Well, I know that the forefathers who drafted the Bill of Rights did not intend for it to also mean that photographers and news organizations can stalk people in pursuit of a picture.
Shame on the press and good for our governor for doing something right.

[Mike]

About Time! Papparazzi ae a pestilence. They are bottom feeeders who scavenge off others. I hope that they receive severe sentences and that the three times law applies. Not just celebrities but evey one has the right to privacy. They encroach on private property and invade personal space and are nothing less than peeping Toms.

[Gary Sims]

I am in favor of this law. Yes, reckless driving is already on the books, but the penalty is usually a fine. This law would permit a judge to give jail time to those who abuse it. Just as I don't want to get killed because some idiot is texting, I do not want to get killed because another idiot wants to pay off his mortgage with a pic of J-Lo...

[Bryan]

This is great!! Anyone who lives in LA and has driven up Robertson Blvd past the Ivy (to be blocked by papparazzi who are swarming some yahoo or another) will applaud this loudly..I've seen papparazzi abandon their cars in the middle of traffic to get a shot..and that's just inconvenient..let's never forget what happened to Princess Diana..

[Jim Chandler]

This is NOT about the 1st Amendment. The First Amendment does NOT guarantee the right to act like a fool. They still have the right to obtain and publish their stupid photos of "celebrities", they just have to use a little common sense. If the general public would stop acting as if these "celebrities" were some kind of gods or royalty and stop wanting these photos, newspapers and magazines would stop publiching them and if that happened, there would be no need for these ridiculous photographers to run after every supposed "celebrity". These people are nothing more than make believers. They act in films and on TV and that makes them famous. WHO CARES? They are no better than you or I and, in many cases, not as worthy. Americans need to get lives of their own and stop caring what these "better than thou" twits do.

[Matthew B. Tepper]

To "wrath of god": I don't particularly care about the comings and goings of Spears and Lohan and the rest. What I do care about is lowlife-scum-with-cameras blocking public streets and causing traffic hazards. I drive Coldwater Canyon home from work on a daily basis. Back when Spears lived in that part of town and was the object of their prurient interest, these leeches often added another half-hour to my commute. Toss them in the clink and give them time to consider their career options.

[Aaron]

@noones business

Australia is a completely different country than Germany, you do know that right? Arnold was born over 120 miles from the German border so unless you are so old you remember when Austria was part of Germany I'm not sure how you could mix these 2 up, other than sheer ignorance.

[jon]

This is comming 13 years TOO LATE, this should have been done, as it was talked about after Princesses Diana was murdered! Actually this should have been done LONG before that, when the warning signs were out there that a disaster was going to happen eventually!

[Lou]

It's about time.

[Gregg]

This bill has a flavor similar to hate crime legislation, which increases the severity of punishment solely based on the assertion the defendant's motive was of certain, specified types. The paparazzi bill basically creates a new category, but it's based on exhibition of greed, rather than hate. Perhaps if we regard greed as uncontrolled love of money, this activity would be called a "love" crime. Only in California can this kind of bill get passed while the legislature can't pass a budget. I guess their priorities are different than... humans.

[Lou]

Finally..........it's about time. These individuals are human vultures. Glad to hear it. Now enforce it. Thank you.

[LEXUSRY]

WOW, IT TAKES THAT MANY YEARS . LET SEE IF THEY TAKE THE LAW SERIOUSLY

[Karen]

I'm pretty sure that the first amendment wasn't put in place to allow "photographers" to take "upskirt" shots of women while they are attempting to get out of their vehicles. Legitimate news photographers will not mind this law, only the leeches of society will. Paparazzi are a menace to public safety and an affront to everyone but themselves. Celebrity or not, people have a right to privacy and the paps violate it constantly. Then they cry when their foot is run over by a car or when they get their butts kicked for taking invasive photos. What do you expect when you lean on a moving vehicle and blind the driver or take close-up photos of children without permission? I'm surprised nobody has been killed yet and I support this law.