Malibu Surfside News
Story Home Page
|
 |
• The Publisher’s Notebook
•
Malibu Paparazzi and State Law: Signing Up
It was a sure-fire headline grabber and
sound-bite provider to announce to the media that the City of
Malibu is going to do something about the local pap-packs. The
spotlight swiveled in response to a flashy name, especially
when replete with innuendo, but it’s fair to ask whether
anything will come from this short-lived frenzy. In the
interim, one Malibu commercial center is taking an
aggressive stance on the paparazzi by emphasizing that existing
laws will be enforced. Without fanfare, and maybe that’s
what’s really going on here, a sign was posted that
states that if these laws are broken, the parties who are found
guilty will face triple damages. The Brits have already used
the legal system to levy hefty fines against paparazzi,
most notably in the recent case won by Hugh Grant. Sizable
“invasion of privacy” damages speak loudly and make
the cost of being a stalkerazzi prohibitive for most of the
unaccredited freelancers hoping for a money shot. Reliance on
existing laws and publicizing an intent to enforce them,
including the California Anti-Paparazzi Act, is an
indication that these businesses want to protect their patrons.
Any restaurant or other kind of commercial establishment that
is tired of being an exploitation venue can do the same,
unless, of course, they are really just pretending to not want
all the attention and free publicity.
The Anti-Paparazzi Act criminalizes
trespass “in order to physically invade the privacy
of the plaintiff with the intent to capture any type of visual
image, sound recording, or other physical impression of
the plaintiff engaging in a personal or familial activity and
the physical invasion occurs in a manner that is offensive to a
reasonable person.” A person can also be found liable for
violating “a reasonable expectation of
privacy.” Although there is debate over what
constitutes privacy, the law targets all torts, whatever the
source—the media cannot commit torts in the news
gathering process. That notwithstanding, what
constitutes media is in the throes of a technological and
cultural revolution. The channels for sharing facts and ideas
are no longer as clearly defined as they once were.
That’s why First Amendment rights are more important than
ever. Everyone is a potential news gatherer. Witness the
roles of cellphones in the dissemination of information at
times of emergencies, such as tornados, floods and fires. There
are those who fear a journalistic free-for-all, but then there
also was a time when those in power didn’t want the
masses to learn to read or write.
|
|
|
|
|
|
