Comments on: Malibu Mayor Asks For Paparazzi Laws http://www.showbizspy.com/article/86675/malibu-mayor-asks-for-paparazzi-laws.html Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:21:41 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Iamthenextgovernor http://www.showbizspy.com/article/86675/malibu-mayor-asks-for-paparazzi-laws.html#comment-26525 Iamthenextgovernor Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-26525 A couple of things, as a political scientist who dabs in candid photography as a hobby. 1. Malibu can't ban the photographers from the beach because it is public property. They do have every right to be there and they do have a constitutional right to take the candid pictures. 2. Unless the photographer's business is located in Malibu, you can't tax them either. Because to tax them you have to tax income. 3. On the other side of the equation, it is always disturbing when you have some one camp outside your home or follow you around whether or not it is the paparazzi. It can be the same as stalking and if the paparazzi is doing that then you should be able to hit them with antistalking laws already in existence. 4. Celebrities do not have any extra rights or previleges that are not applicable to anyone else. As the beach is public everyone has the right to use for any purpose that is legal. Clearly, what the surfers did was illegal. 5. There is a reason why we do not have european style laws, unlike europe, the US is a true constitutional republic where people have the right to do things even if the majority don't agree. In short, candid photography is a constitutionally protected right, but following people around and making cell phone calls or text messaging other photographers to join in, is tantamount to stalking. Photographers and the public should be aware that there is a difference between the two. Unfortunately, california's stalking laws exclude the papparazzi. That's something that needs to be fixed with a new constitution which I am working on. A couple of things, as a political scientist who dabs in candid photography as a hobby.
1. Malibu can’t ban the photographers from the beach because it is public property. They do have every right to be there and they do have a constitutional right to take the candid pictures.
2. Unless the photographer’s business is located in Malibu, you can’t tax them either. Because to tax them you have to tax income.
3. On the other side of the equation, it is always disturbing when you have some one camp outside your home or follow you around whether or not it is the paparazzi. It can be the same as stalking and if the paparazzi is doing that then you should be able to hit them with antistalking laws already in existence.
4. Celebrities do not have any extra rights or previleges that are not applicable to anyone else. As the beach is public everyone has the right to use for any purpose that is legal. Clearly, what the surfers did was illegal.
5. There is a reason why we do not have european style laws, unlike europe, the US is a true constitutional republic where people have the right to do things even if the majority don’t agree.

In short, candid photography is a constitutionally protected right, but following people around and making cell phone calls or text messaging other photographers to join in, is tantamount to stalking.
Photographers and the public should be aware that there is a difference between the two. Unfortunately, california’s stalking laws exclude the papparazzi. That’s something that needs to be fixed with a new constitution which I am working on.

]]>