Posted on 08/14/2013 5:52:22 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
Actresses Halle Berry and Jennifer Garner urged California lawmakers Tuesday to support legislation that they say would help them better protect their children from the paparazzi that follow them daily. The stars testified before the Assembly Judiciary Committee regarding SB606, which would impose tougher penalties on photographers who harass celebrities and their children.
It was Berry's second state Capitol appearance on the measure. The Academy Award-winning actress, who is pregnant, told lawmakers the constant presence of photographers yelling and snapping pictures has made her daughter scared to go to school.
(Excerpt) Read more at twincities.com ...
What this does is basically give special protection to celebrities, who can now have a child in tow, and never be photographed.
Frankly, I think the media STINKS....but this kind of carved out special protection for starlets is a violation of the First amendment....not that the California legislature CARES about the Constitution.
Sidney should just shove the camera up the paparazzo’s nose.
And Storm should just blow the bothersome folks away.
After listening to some of the testimony I actually have sympathy for the celebrities viewpoint. Heck, we have to sign waivers for my kid at school for the school to use their image in any manner, like in a newspaper story (my son was in the local newspaper for being first-team All-county in a sport and had his picture taken for the story) so its not like the celebs are really asking for something special.
The celebrity is fair game as public figures but the CHILDREN?? If they are not in the business as a model or actor/actress they should be as protected as any other child, like mine.
Who wants to take a picture of Halle Berry? Unless of course she’s topless.... Anyway, I thought she was still crying on the stage at the Academy Awards ceremony...
I agree that the children of celebrities should not be considered ‘public figures’, and their faces shouldn’t be splashed across the magazine pages without parental permission....
but:
These celebrities are trying to walk a fine line and have it both ways. They want to live in the trendy areas, where they will ‘be seen’ by photographers, and keep getting free publicity - but they don’t want their kids involved. If they want to walk that line, fine...but don’t waste everyone else’s time with photographic thought crime legislation. Its really not that hard to stay out of the spotlight.
What they want is to protect their KIDS.
As much as I do not like their politics, they are actually trying to be good parents. Give them a break.
Yes, as disturbed as I am with this move towards two-tiered citizenship, I am sympathetic. It has to be horrifying to be famous and have a child. And these paparazzi are total jerks.
Having a child in that viper’s den of Hollywood is tantamount to child abuse.
Wow, where do I start on your post?
If a celebrity wants to try to give their children a normal life, like going to a normal day care center instead of some high-end gated one they should be applauded for trying to give their children some grounding. It seems like just the opposite of what you are saying - NOT going to a trendy place. Both Garner and Berry have pretty good reputations compared to so many others in Hollywood (as pertaining to arrests, complaints, etc.) and it seems they are trying to keep a lower profile.
If a photographer shows up to take pictures of their kids how is that trying to get free publicity? Your logic is kind of off on that one. Seems more like the opposite; they just want to be left alone while doing normal parenting chores.
Children should not be photographed for commercial gain (paparazzi certainly qualify for that) PERIOD without written parental permission unless they are famous themselves.
This is not a tough decision for me at all.
shall we wait and see if MS Berry and others maneuver to sell pictures of their weddings, parties, family vacations, newborns etc etc etc to the tabloids for personal gain?
Getting paid to be photographed hyping an event or even being out and about while wearing gratis designer clothes and jewels is a major source of revenue for these “celebs”
Now they can’t turn it on and off at will
waaa
Ever hear about Halle Berry and her hit and run? Some reputation.
I think they deserve no better protection than any other public figure....
If they have a problem with the media, SUE THEM.
All sorts of disdainful things were said about Sarah Palin and HER children in the news/entertainment industry.....and nary a PEEP from Hollywood.....the Palin bashers claimed First Amendment freedom.
I just think these members of the 1% can afford their own lawyers if their privacy is truly invaded....taxpayers don’t need to fund their protection.
“I think they deserve no better protection than any other public figure....”
Right now they have less then we do - my son is safe from being photographed unless I give permission.
“All sorts of disdainful things were said about Sarah Palin and HER children in the news/entertainment industry.....and nary a PEEP from Hollywood.....the Palin bashers claimed First Amendment freedom.”
Since when did we on the right fall to the level of our adversaries? We’re the side that believes two wrongs don’t make a right. We lead by example; the left leads by ignorance.
I agree. These are the Hollywood parents who in many cases are trying to provide their children with some normalcy. My only concern is that the law should apply to everyone. It would be a good thing if nobody could be photographed without giving permission.
I really am not enjoying smart phones and the everyone's a spy aspect of our technological world.
They wan't normalcy? Then don't live in frickin' Hollywood.
Equal protection means that they have the same rights as you....if someone illegally photographs you, you can sue.
So can these millionairesses....what THEY are demanding is special protection of the law.....this law changes the law to define “harassment” as photographing children of public figures.....not YOUR kids.
“Right now they have less then we do - my son is safe from being photographed unless I give permission.”
You are wrong about photographing your son. If he is in public, no permission is needed to photograph him, regardless of age. Same goes for you, your spouse, your dog, etc.
Just more silliness to show how mentally ill the Hollyweird folks are.
There is a good alternative to this. Through their agent, the celebrities hire a contractor, who in turn hires strong arm men. At random, for a while, they go to where obnoxious paparazzi hang out to harass celebrities, and give them a good thumping. Then without any comment, they leave the area and are paid in cash.
Pretty soon the paparazzi get jumpy. So much so that when they even see a strong arm man, they leave. So the celebrity, his family and friends can have a pleasant day or night out.
Of course, one of the strong arms might be arrested, but can claim the paparazzi hit him first. So they get paid a bonus for jail time. If they really get pressured, all they can do is rat out the contractor, who keeps no written records connecting him to the agent, much less the celebrity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.