Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Proposed anti-paparazzi bill aimed at protecting children Options · View
lafayettemister
Posted: Thursday, August 15, 2013 8:34:22 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,373
Location: Alabama, United States
Anti-paprazzi bill to protect kids

SACRAMENTO, California (Reuters) - Hollywood moms Halle Berry and Jennifer Garner continued their campaign to keep paparazzi away from the children of celebrities on Tuesday, appearing at a legislative hearing in California to urge passage of a bill that would increase state penalties for harassing children.

In emotional testimony, Garner told members of a California Assembly committee that she and her children are followed wherever they go.

"How often do we see a tragedy unfold and say, 'Oh, there were so many warning signs - why didn't anybody pay attention?'" said Garner, who has three children with actor Ben Affleck. "I am asking you as a parent to pay attention."

The bill, which already has passed the state Senate, focuses on people who target children based on their parents' occupations. The idea originated with a 1990s-era law protecting children of health clinic workers from harassment by anti-abortion activists.

It would increase penalties for doing so from a maximum of six months in jail to a maximum of one year, and increase the potential fine for doing so to $10,000, from the current $1,000.

"I don't want a gang of shouting, arguing, lawbreaking photographers who camp out everywhere we are all day every day to continue traumatizing my kids," Garner told the Assembly Public Safety Committee, which voted to support the bill on Tuesday.

"What this bill would do is give us our rights back so that we can protect our children," Berry said in testimony shown on KCAL-TV in Los Angeles.

Berry had a daughter with model Gabriel Aubrey and is expecting another child with her husband, actor Olivier Martinez.

The bill has been opposed by some news organizations, who say it will restrict their news-gathering abilities.

But state Senator Kevin De Leon, the Los Angeles Democrat who sponsored the bill, said it was important to protect children from unwanted harassment and dangerous situations.

"No child, regardless of his or her parent's occupation, should be subjected to such unwarranted and harmful persecution," Leon said in a statement on his website.
"By increasing penalties and authorizing civil actions, (the bill) will have a significant deterrent effect on those who would consider tormenting the most vulnerable and defenseless members of our society," he said.


==========

I doubt that photog/paparazzi is the kind of thing the founding fathers had in mine, but should paparazzi get full protection under the 1st Amendment?

Jennifer Garner says, "I don't want a gang of shouting, arguing, lawbreaking photographers who camp out everywhere we are all day every day to continue traumatizing my kids" What are the laws they're breaking? Has she reported or filed charges against a law breaking photographer? He's not breaking any laws by shouting or arguing or camping out, at least not yet.

What responsibility does Bennifer and Berry have in protecting their kids? If the photogs are that harmful to their kids, why don't they move away from L.A./Hollywood? Passing any legislation could take years, in the meantime, why haven't they moved away from the paparazzi in order to protect the kids? If it's THEIR safety that's the concern, if it's all about the children... why haven't they moved away. They have the money to go anywhere in the country. Even an hour or two north,south, or east could put them in a nice city/town/community without the ever watchful press.

Would this be the proverbial "slippery slope" towards legislation that says who can and cannot be photographed? Anyone currently involved in any scandal or crime could carry their kids with them and avoid any press or media?

As a celebrity, do you know going in that youv'e chosen this life of scrutiny? Or should they be afforded some extra protection? Or does this all fall under the 1st Amendment and it's up to each person to protect themselves and the children?





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Dani
Posted: Thursday, August 15, 2013 9:12:04 AM

Rank: Big-Haired Bitch

Joined: 12/25/2010
Posts: 4,658
Location: Under Your Bed, United States
It wouldn't matter what my occupation is. As a mother first and foremost, I would want my children protected from crazed photographers trying to take their picture for a quick buck. Their rights aren't being trumped on. I hate the old, "You're a celebrity, it's what you bargained for" excuse. And even if that does apply, I'M the celebrity. I've chosen this occupation, so leave my kids the hell alone. What about their rights and protection?



Baby put your arms around me, tell me I'm a problem...

elitfromnorth
Posted: Thursday, August 15, 2013 10:06:20 AM

Rank: Brawling Berserker

Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,620
Location: Burrowed, Norway
Those Paparazzi's are in general the bottom feeders of society. The scum of the earth. Even if Halle Berry moved to the middle of Montana she would still have a bunch of paparazzi's following her and her kids, because they're celebreties. Headlines would be "See Berry's new country life" and so forth. Once you've hit the star, these piranahs will go through hell and back to get pictures of you. The newer and more different the better. Just look at Lady Diana. She was dead in her car and those bastards were still taking pictures of her.

So no, the paparazzis will get no sympathy from me. They're the kind of people that abuse the 1st ammendment and freedom of press and make a mockery of it. No way in hell will I ever stand shoulder to shoulder with those cunts.

"It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."
lafayettemister
Posted: Thursday, August 15, 2013 10:28:51 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,373
Location: Alabama, United States
elitfromnorth wrote:
Those Paparazzi's are in general the bottom feeders of society. The scum of the earth. Even if Halle Berry moved to the middle of Montana she would still have a bunch of paparazzi's following her and her kids, because they're celebreties. Headlines would be "See Berry's new country life" and so forth. Once you've hit the star, these piranahs will go through hell and back to get pictures of you. The newer and more different the better. Just look at Lady Diana. She was dead in her car and those bastards were still taking pictures of her.

So no, the paparazzis will get no sympathy from me. They're the kind of people that abuse the 1st ammendment and freedom of press and make a mockery of it. No way in hell will I ever stand shoulder to shoulder with those cunts.


I'm not so sure about paparazzi in Montana. Maybe at first and on rare occassions, but paparazzi make money taking lots of pics of lots of celebs. No way a bunch of papis would move to or spend an extensive amount of time in Montana for one celeb. In my home state of Louisiana we've had a recent boon in movie productions coming here to film. Several actors/celebs have commented on the lack of paparazzi following them around. They don't come here because it's not economical enough to do so, not in the long run.

I do agree that the paparazzi are douche bags. I just worry about the unseen consequences of a law like this. There's always someone, some politician that abuses it for the wrong reasons and fucks it all up. I support the 1st Amendment, even for the assholes with whom I disagree.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Guest
Posted: Friday, August 16, 2013 10:10:07 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 535,080
Ummm, other than branjolina, beyonjay, and tomkay, media whores, does this actually need precedent?
Don't lawmakers have more pressing issues?
Rembacher
Posted: Saturday, August 17, 2013 11:09:43 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,106
Any non "celebrity" has to sign a release for their image to be used in a commercial context. Reporters who go to schools to shoot a news story regularly have to get permission from the parents for their kids to appear on television. This helps protect the children from predators who would suddenly know their names and be able to act like they were a friend of the family. For some reason, all that protection has been thrown out for celebrities and their kids. I have absolutely no problem with strengthening laws to protect innocent children from harassment or potential kidnappings.

I also don't buy the argument that the parents should move out of Hollywood. That's where their jobs are. It makes sense for them to be there to work their industry connections and get signed on for new projects. Would we think it made sense to say "move to a new area" to us, if someone was harassing our kids?
Guest
Posted: Saturday, August 17, 2013 10:47:53 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 535,080
There are plenty of hollywoodies that don't move out, but still need no further action by lawmakers.
Buz
Posted: Saturday, August 17, 2013 11:03:41 PM

Rank: The Linebacker

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 5,798
Location: Atlanta, United States
Paparazzi are leeching scum, but then again Hollywood stars are mostly way overpaid assholes. Hollywood actors are mostly huge narcissists, so having to put up with those scummy leeches is kind of justified.

But children, now that is another story. When the paparazzi are so intrusive that the family members and especially the children are being harassed that goes way too far. If it takes legislation then I guess go ahead or maybe less legislation and just allow someone to kick their ass as justified assault.

spank

sprite
Posted: Sunday, August 18, 2013 9:53:51 AM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 14,545
Location: My Tower, United States
Buz wrote:
Paparazzi are leeching scum, but then again Hollywood stars are mostly way overpaid assholes. Hollywood actors are mostly huge narcissists, so having to put up with those scummy leeches is kind of justified.

But children, now that is another story. When the paparazzi are so intrusive that the family members and especially the children are being harassed that goes way too far. If it takes legislation then I guess go ahead or maybe less legislation and just allow someone to kick their ass as justified assault.

spank


so, you've met a lot of Hollywood stars? and they've all been narcissitic overpaid assholes? just curious, cause i think that most of them are like you and me, some of them are probably asses, but the majority of them aren't. do i have any proof of this? i know people who've worked in that setting, and i can only go by what they tell me - a lot of actors are pretty decent people, even when they get to be super stars. and a few aren't. and think about it, Buz - if someone decided that you are an asshole based simply on your job, and that gave them the right to hound you, would you think, ok, right, that's the price of doing what i do, or would you kind of get a little tired of it after a while?

http://www.lushstories.com/stories/hardcore/west-coast-games-part-one-the-beach.aspx
LadyX
Posted: Sunday, August 18, 2013 2:17:43 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
I love all the celebrity antipathy masquerading as pragmatism. Would anyone argue that below a certain quantity of people, that safety and protection just aren't our concern? Or does being famously wealthy and drawing resentment for it make them somehow exempt?

"but then again Hollywood stars are mostly way overpaid assholes..." According to what metric? Their compensation is based on their ability to draw viewers and ancillary income. Free market, baby. Would you rather they get less of a share and make the studios and networks more of the total revenue? It's hard to argue that, IMO, since they're the reason people tune in or buy tickets in the first place.
MadMartigan
Posted: Sunday, August 18, 2013 5:22:21 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 6/17/2013
Posts: 2,094
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:
I love all the celebrity antipathy masquerading as pragmatism. Would anyone argue that below a certain quantity of people, that safety and protection just aren't our concern? Or does being famously wealthy and drawing resentment for it make them somehow exempt?

"but then again Hollywood stars are mostly way overpaid assholes..." According to what metric? Their compensation is based on their ability to draw viewers and ancillary income. Free market, baby. Would you rather they get less of a share and make the studios and networks more of the total revenue? It's hard to argue that, IMO, since they're the reason people tune in or buy tickets in the first place.



All "stars" whether they be actors or sports figures are grossly overpaid. It is the market we've been blessed with or cursed with depending on who you ask. Without the ticket buyer, they, like many things, wouldn't make a dime. Entertainment is societies escape from the doldrums of life though, so we have no problem.

As for paparazzi. Fuck most of em. And the idiots who buy their shit in the first place. But then, I guess they ARE trying to make a living so....pretty sad that's how they have to make it.


At any rate, I have no sympathy for the most part. Why should I? They live in a socioeconomic class I'll likely never reach.

And many of them whore their kids out for attention. Just look are the retarded "look at me" names like "Blue Ivy" and "Apple" etc. And them trying to copyright that shit.

Crazy.

That said, I pity the children. Growing up like that would drive me nutters. And pestering and selling images of children crosses a line.
LadyX
Posted: Sunday, August 18, 2013 5:38:14 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
MadMartigan wrote:



All "stars" whether they be actors or sports figures are grossly overpaid. It is the market we've been blessed with or cursed with depending on who you ask.


Maybe it's semantics, granted, but the only real argument one can make re: "stars" being overpaid is to argue about their income as a percentage of total revenue. Studios and networks generate massive revenue and are still profitable on the whole, ergo, the talent is not obviously overpaid.

Otherwise, the argument is essentially "I wish I lived in a world where their value amounted to far less."

Aside from that, if I understand you correctly, you feel that certain people among us should be subject to all manner of creepy intrusion, and that's somehow justified based on income and fame disparity?
MadMartigan
Posted: Sunday, August 18, 2013 8:35:06 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 6/17/2013
Posts: 2,094
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:


Maybe it's semantics, granted, but the only real argument one can make re: "stars" being overpaid is to argue about their income as a percentage of total revenue. Studios and networks generate massive revenue and are still profitable on the whole, ergo, the talent is not obviously overpaid.

Otherwise, the argument is essentially "I wish I lived in a world where their value amounted to far less."

Aside from that, if I understand you correctly, you feel that certain people among us should be subject to all manner of creepy intrusion, and that's somehow justified based on income and fame disparity?


No, you misunderstood me. I implied that those who put themselves and their children out there (I'm talking the really fucked up people like the Kardashian ilk) will get no sympathy from me.

Children as a whole, however, as I said, crosses a line. I guess it's more "indifference" to the topic. I don't pay attention to paparazzi shit. I only know enough to say most if not all are jackasses.

I think, though, as a public figure, you do kind of put yourself out there though. Not that they deserve it, but it comes with the territory.

Like the regular folks, we all have to deal with shitty aspects of our jobs. I guess the paparazzi is theres.

But again, if you wanna be creepy and snap shots of celebs, w/e.

I will admit a problem with creepy obsession photo spots of celeb's children and celebs who are minors.

Crosses a line. Children didn't choose a career with that kind of thing to deal with. Their parents did.
elitfromnorth
Posted: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 2:02:49 PM

Rank: Brawling Berserker

Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,620
Location: Burrowed, Norway
How about passing a law that says you can't post or publish pictures of children(below 18) without the parent or legal guardian's written consent. Sure, you take out the paparazzis and they'll cry about free press and all that, but then again; what about the protection of other children? Children that are somehow involved in witness protection program, children that are hiding from abusive parent(s). I'm sure if we took the time we could come up with hundreds of reasons why posting pics of people under the 18 without the parent's written consent should be against the law.

If national security can override civil liberties, then why the hell can't the protection of children do so?

"It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."
Sirene_Jaune
Posted: Thursday, September 05, 2013 3:40:38 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 5/6/2011
Posts: 771
Location: In my mind, Australia
I actually feel sorry for those children. Just look at pictures of Suri the most photograph celebritiy child. She always has a scowl on her face.

Media today don't care about the children. Once a celeb is pregnant then the Media waits and once it is born then it is who pays the highest for first glimpses or shots of Celeb XY's baby.

Kind of happy to see Prince William and Duchess Catherine go out there to present their baby with good grace.

However I did laugh when a doopleganger Prince William and Duchess Catherine drove to the hospital and the Media went wild until they found they got prank. It just goes to show how greedy and disgusting these parasites are.



Axl - Take a look at our piercing menu.

Daria - I don't think that's how you spell "uvula."

Axl - That's not "uvula."

From: "Daria" episode "Pierce Me"
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.