The bill that targets aggressive celebrity photographers is approved by the state Assembly late Tuesday.
By Melonie Magruder / Special to The Malibu Times
The so-called “anti-paparazzi” bill, largely aimed at reining in aggressive behavior by paparazzi in pursuit of celebrities, was approved by the state Senate last week with a vote of 21-13, and, in an amended form, by the Assembly on Tuesday with a vote of 43-13.
The bill now must go before Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger for signature.
The language of Assembly Bill 2479 increases the punishment against anyone who willfully interferes with the driver of another vehicle, “falsely imprisons” a plaintiff by preventing easy passage or follows a pattern of conduct that could be construed as unwanted stalking for the purpose of recording an image for commercial gain. While punitive damages rest between $5,000 and $50,000, the bill also provides jail time upon conviction. Additionally, if a stalking or harassing incident involves a child, jail time is upped to a year.
“This bill is ultimately about protecting privacy rights for everyone, but particularly celebrities,” Sean Burke, founder of the Paparazzi Reform Initiative, said in an interview with The Malibu Times. “Malibu especially has seen crazy behavior on the part of photographers and celebrity news gatherers who stalk, harass and deliberately antagonize people just going about their business.”
The California Newspaper Publishers Association lobbied against the bill.
“We’re obviously disappointed,” Tom Newton, CNPA general counsel, said. “We don’t doubt that there’s a problem with extreme behavior by some paparazzi. But this bill subjects working journalists to unfair punishment. We feel this bill violates not only the right to a free press but the law of equal protection.”
Newton said the CNPA will present their objections to Gov. Schwarzenegger.
TMZ, a Los Angeles-based online and television celebrity news service, declined to comment on the legislation.
Burke launched his reform initiative after heading a security team for a “high-profile” celebrity. He said his job turned from security to keeping aggressive paparazzi at bay.
“It’s not just photographs,” he said. “Their invasiveness is dangerous, especially when they are pursuing a ‘money shot’ by driving recklessly or chasing someone with their child. I know of an actress in Malibu who was with her young daughter and she couldn’t leave a store because of the horrible things paparazzi were shouting at her just to get a reaction.”
While Burke said most celebrity news-gatherers are respectful, some will go to great lengths to photograph their target in compromising or emotional situations. Several incidents of celebrity stalking, ramming of cars or harassment have been documented in recent years, starting with the 1997 death of Princess Diana in Paris after being pursued by photographers, up to actress Reese Witherspoon claiming she was chased in a Disneyland parking lot by a particularly aggressive paparazzo.
Following a brawl involving paparazzi trying to photograph actor Matthew McConaughey at Little Dume Beach in 2008, two local residents were indicted for misdemeanor counts of battery. Charges against Skylar Peak and Philip “John” Hildebrand were dismissed in July after a mistrial. A civil suit has since been filed against the two.
“Most photographers obey the laws and respect people’s privacy,” Peak said in a phone interview. “But others are ridiculous. Driving 105 miles per hour after a movie star and then saying ‘I was just after a photo’ is not a defense. People are put at risk.”
Peak also questioned the fairness of someone who pays for a film permit and obeys the laws on record, versus “a guy who just shoots for TMZ and clears out.”
Patrick Alach, of the firm Longo & Alach, LLC, the legal counsel for Burke’s initiative, said celebrity media’s opposition to the legislation, claiming First Amendment infringement, doesn’t apply to Bill 2479.
“This law is specifically written to target reckless behavior that endangers the public at large,” Alach said. “It takes no issue with news content, but the methods in which it is gathered.”
Alach said nothing should prevent legitimate news sources from traveling to, say, the scene of a fire; but he compared some paparazzi pursuits to the danger of drunk driving.
“The jail time is what gives this legislation teeth,” Alach said. “Most paparazzi might be able to handle a $5,000 fine if they can sell a photo for tens of thousands of dollars. But spending a year in jail really messes up their cost/benefit analysis.”
Local governmental officials lauded the bill.
Malibu City Councilmember Pamela Conley Ulich, who has long railed against the excesses of paparazzi, and at one time proposed anti-paparazzi ordinances within the city, said she was grateful for the bill’s increased penalties.
“It’s not a First Amendment right to chase someone in a car,” Conley Ulich said. “The vast majority of photographers who are respectful won’t be impacted by this legislation. But for those that are predatory, they are looking at very real penalties.”
Assemblymember Julia Brownley authored AB 920 in 2007, making it illegal to sell nonpublic information in the course of a criminal investigation, something celebrity publications have been known to practice.
“I voted for AB 2479 in June and I plan to concur in the Senate amendments when it comes back to the Assembly,” Brownley said. “I am a firm supporter of the First Amendment’s right to free speech. But, no one should have the right to jeopardize public safety, terrorize young children or block anyone’s movement, including celebrities, to take a photo or video.”
Sen. Fran Pavley expressed concern about paparazzi who stake out schools to get a shot of celebrity children, fearing an eventual car accident.
“More and more we’ve seen paparazzi employing disturbingly unsafe tactics to obtain photographs of celebrities,” Pavley said. “These tactics endanger not just the targeted celebrity, but the general public as well and therefore I believe these enhanced penalties are justified.”