Malibu Surfside News
Story Home Page
|
 |
• The Publisher’s Notebook
•
The Malibu City Council is reluctant to
take on rude and noisy motorcyclists but not rude and noisy
paparazzi. The symbiotic relationship of those in the celebrity
spotlight who want the pap-packs at their film or clothing line
openings but not around them during casual hair days is a
complex subject in its own right, but the council should think
long and hard about tinkering with the First Amendment,
especially if it is going to let the tinkering be done by
someone with the Constitutional approach that made
Clintwinskygate a major paparazzi event of the twenty-first
century, if not the greatest political paparazzi event of all
time. Ken Starr singlehandedly (no pun intended) helped create
a sea change in the public discourse on human sexuality. That
could have made him a liberal but for the content of that
discourse. The announcement that Starr might be
engaged by the city council allowed the media to link
Malibu and Clintwinskygate ad nauseum. Interestingly, the
possible involvement of the American Civil Liberties Union in a
project to explore ways to curtail paparazzi behavior
didn’t even rate major media mention. Starr’s
potential engagement has created a stir among some in the
journalism community because they fear that Starr not only
would like to curb the paparazzi, the so-called “bad
boys” of the media, but all members of the media. They
think he shares the Karl Rovian approach that the media should
be manipulated, if not muzzled. In addition, I’ve asked
the mayor whether she should be the person negotiating a city
project with the dean of the law school she teaches at. She
says too little money is involved to constitute a conflict of
interest, but he’s still her boss.
In a similar vein, I am puzzled that the
media describes the drafting of paparazzi controls as a
done deal and doesn’t even acknowledge the role of the
rest of the city council in the process. Personally, I’m
counting on the ACLU and other First Amendment advocates
to join me in protecting the rights of all media, from the
humblest blogger to the surliest paparazzo, because
freedom of speech and the press is indivisible. You allow it to
be taken from some, and it becomes easier to take from all.
Soon politicians will start demanding that photographers only
be allowed to shoot them from their “good” side.
Seriously though, the media has responsibilities and
guidelines. Unsafe driving, jostling passersby, harassing
children, and physically or emotionally abusing anyone are
wrong. But Sheriff Baca and Chief Bratton are correct that
there are adequate laws on the books to address this kind
of behavior. We don’t need to be Starr-struck because
some people are star-struck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
