|Halle Berry (Photo credit: Wikipedia)|
Actress, Halle Berry, had claimed that the new law would not prevent the paparazzi from taking pictures of celebrities or their children but nothing could be further from the truth.
The new law does not allow for children of celebrities or politicians to be photographed without their parents consent.
The SB606 law defines harassment as follows – “[to] conduct in the course of the actual or attempted recording of children’s images and/or voices, without express parental consent, by following their activities or lying in wait.”
It also give celebrities the power to more easily sue the paparazzi if they break the law and are now facing a year in jail and $10,000 for the first offense, $20,000 for the second offense, and $30,000 for the third.
It is a law aimed at protecting the children of people in the public eye but what it really does is give celebrities the power to decide if they want their picture taken or not. The law allows the celebrity to make the call when news are newsworthy and gives them the power to have a photo journalist arrested because they feel that their children have been harassed.
The protection of all children is important and should not be handled lightly, especially if some paparazzi have harassed the kids, however this law gives the power to celebrities to control the news that go out about them.
If a celebrity doesn’t want to be photographed doing something or being with someone, all they would have to do is grab their kids, and the paparazzi along with main media journalist, would be forced not to take a photograph of the celebrity because they have their children with them.
The big claim from celebrities is that photographing them doing their daily routines is not newsworthy and they should not be subjected to the constant coverage because of it. However, who is to say when the news will happen? Who will police powerful people who have such a huge influence in everyday lives?
News break as they happen, if paparazzi aren’t there to cover what happens in famous people’s lives, most news would go by without being noticed to the delight of the people involved.
The web community went abuzz yesterday and they had a lot to say about Paparazzi-Deterrent law.
Jen, a reader on the E! website wrote–
“I support the idea of protecting the privacy of children, but I question these two particular women’s motives. Halle and Jennifer have only ever dated/married actors, models, athletes and musicians… and they live in LA. There are actresses who have prioritized the privacy of their children (i.e. Meryl Streep, Julia Roberts, Matt Damon). They married non-celebs and chose to live out of the public eye. It can be done.“
StarOne1979, another reader on the same site commented-
“These women and all other people in Hollywood or any type of role in public life chose to have their children in the life when they had them. You want a private life and don’t want your kids picture taken? Don’t be a celebrity. Otherwise, shut up. You make millions of dollars… hire a nanny or send your kids to private school. Figure something else out instead of complaining and playing the poor me game.”
We couldn’t agree more! If a celebrity really doesn’t want their picture taken or of their children, it’s so easy, move out of the Entertainment Capital of the World, and voila! like magic, the paparazzi disappear. It is not like they have to give up their careers as actors, they, like many other celebrities do, can fly into LA and NYC when their jobs require them to do so.
Do you think the celebrities should get special treatment? Weigh in and let us know!