The first rationale is that most public people seek and consent to publicity. But, consent in a general sense does not justify invasions into every aspect of an individual’s life. Unfortunately, the personalities and affairs of celebrities are viewed as inherently public. Paparazzi argue that the nature of celebrities’ jobs is construed as waiving their rights to privacy. However, this waiver should be regarded as a limited waiver, restricting the press to examine and exposing only that information that has some bearing on the individual’s position in society. The constant exposure that celebrities receive tends to make celebrities more physiologically tolerant of the press behavior ...view middle of the document...
In France, the French law prohibits the publication of photographs against the will of the subject. It is, however, only punishable by a $32,000 fine; a chance most tabloids are willing to risk because profits can easily exceed that figure. Britain, while known for its “history of restrictive press laws and government intimidation of news gatherers” has never fully succeeded in protecting its royal family. After the death of Diana there is now greater protection of children, ban on pictures of persistent pursuit, preventing harassment, and broader definition of private property (Nordhaus 312-313).
Children are also being affected by the paparazzi and media and the parents are taking action. State governor Jerry Brown has signed an anti-paparazzi law, championed by Halle Berry, into California law. The bill seeks to prevent harassment of children of public figures. Senate Bill 606 asked for an increase in penalties for anyone attempting to record or photograph a child because of their parent or guardian’s employment in a manner that “seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes” them. This new law made taking and selling unauthorized photos of celebrities in “personal or familial activity” a crime punishable by a fine of up to $50,000 (Pulver).
Celebrities have very few enforceable causes of action available to them to protect their rights of privacy and publicity against invasions by the press. Ideally, the press should regulate their own behavior and enforce their own standards of acceptability in newsgathering practices rather than risk having their rights severely limited by unsympathetic courts and legislatures. Maintaining a free press and respecting the rights of individuals could serve the best interests of all. But, in reality, such practices by the press will continue to diminish newsgathering process and the respectability of the media. A solution is available that can adequately meet the interests of the press, celebrities, the public, and the courts. It involves no new legislation and no new development in law. Rather, the solution lays dormant awaiting resurrection by the courts and the victims of the paparazzi (Nordhaus 314-315).
Celebrities, or any public figure, have very limited privacy due to the paparazzi and media. The paparazzi and media are also affecting celebrities’ children. Laws are being put into effect to stop this. This is a very big issue in society, especially with the growing technology. It needs to be stopped before it gets out of hand and someone gets accidentally harmed.
Andrews, Marc. “Pap’ not the direction: Singer Niall Horan blasts the paparazzi on Twitter for
dragging him to the floor at LAX airport.” Mail Online. 20 November 2013. Mail
Online. 23 March 2014...