Hawaii lawmakers propose shielding celeb privacy

More than two-thirds of Hawaii's state senators have signed onto a bill to protect celebrities from paparazzi, giving famous faces power to sue over unwanted beach photos and other snapshots on the islands. Read more: www.myfoxny.com...

To be honest, the thread title will be a bit misleading without actually commenting on this bill. The bill itself does not carve out an exception for only "celebrities" its intent and purpose is solely for it. Below is an excerpt from the Hawaii legislature regardind the "purpose" of this action:

SECTION 1. The legislature finds that Hawai‘i is home to many celebrities, particularly on Maui, who are subjected to harassment from photographers and reporters seeking photographs and news stories. The privacy of these celebrities endure unwarranted invasion into their personal lives. Although their celebrity status may justify a lower expectation of privacy, the legislature finds that sometimes the paparazzi go too far to disturb the peace and tranquility afforded celebrities who escape to Hawai‘i for a quiet life.

Link to SB465

The bill is specifically catered to "celebrities" and while I agree they should be afforded the same "expectation of privacy" as anyone else, they should not have a separate exclusion of that expectation; especially in the public square.

I should think photographers in general will be raising some hell over that. We are lead to believe there is zero expectation of privacy, anywhere but inside your own house. I hardly think that it should be any different for "celebrities".

reply to post by ownbestenemy


A lot of paparazzi photographers are freelance and make not as much money as people think, and this act is very vague. Am not saying that paparazzi can't be jerks, it's almost in their job description but ...

A person is liable for a civil action of constructive invasion of privacy if the person captures or intends to capture, in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person, through any means a visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of another person while that person is engaging in a personal or familial activity with a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Source

I simply can't see this being applied in any constructive way. I can see it wasting court time on frivolous law suits though. Also, when is a paparazzi a paparazzi? Fans are going to get caught up in this as well. I'd rather see 'photo free zones' applied than this type of thing I imagine.

A person is liable for a civil action of constructive invasion of privacy if the person captures or intends to capture, in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person, through any means a visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of another person while that person is engaging in a personal or familial activity with a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Source

Added embhasis to the points that stick out for me.
What kind of reasonable person finds pictures in public offensive? They want to have reasonable expectation of privacy on public beaches?
Makes no sense to me.

If they don't like all the attention they could always quit their jobs. I'm sure there are plenty others who would gladly take their place.

Originally posted by PsykoOps

A person is liable for a civil action of constructive invasion of privacy if the person captures or intends to capture, in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person, through any means a visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of another person while that person is engaging in a personal or familial activity with a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Source

Added embhasis to the points that stick out for me.
What kind of reasonable person finds pictures in public offensive? They want to have reasonable expectation of privacy on public beaches?
Makes no sense to me.

edit on 2/2/2013 by PsykoOps because: (no reason given)

Makes no sense to me either.

I wonder how they determine who has celebrity status? Will this include politicians who think they are celebrities? Will it include That guy who is famous for eating the most hot dogs? Maybe everyone who has ever appeared on television anywhere ever. My cousin was in a commercial...will it apply to her? I'm famous in my own mind...how about me? What about all those people who are only famous in Japan???

I can't agree with giving them more privacy than the rest of us. They're famous, they sought fame and people wanting pics and autographs are part of it. They knew what they were in for and if you don't want photographers swamping you, don't get famous. I do think though that paparazzi should be held accountable if they cause accident or injury, just like anyone else.

Originally posted by DAVID64
They're famous, they sought fame and people wanting pics and autographs are part of it.

Not always seeking it.

Lot of artists just like making music or films - that's not always 'seeking fame'. It's not even a normal part of the job in a lot of ways. The vast majority of actors, producers, directors, and artists aren't what you would call restrictively famous.

First off Hawaii's lawmakers will be overturned by the Courts.

Second...the paparazzi can use low key miniature cameras on remotely controlled vehicles and get their photo's without EVER getting caught.


Essentially Hawaii's Lawmakers just wasted a few hours of their day and some perfectly good paper and ink.

Originally posted by Pervius
First off Hawaii's lawmakers will be overturned by the Courts.

Second...the paparazzi can use low key miniature cameras on remotely controlled vehicles and get their photo's without EVER getting caught.


Essentially Hawaii's Lawmakers just wasted a few hours of their day and some perfectly good paper and ink.

Completely agreed. They (meaning the Hawaiian government lawyers) will have a very uphill battle to contend with in explaining how this doesn't trample the precedents of "no expectation of privacy in public places".

An update: Hawaiian legislatures passed this bill. My guess, it will be challenged in court and should be. It is too vague and has the appearance of creating a "royalty" class. Time will tell though since nearly all of them voted yea on it.

You have a link to that? I'm not familiar with them US gov sites and didn't find it.

reply to post by PsykoOps


I should clarify also: it passed the State Senate and now moves to the House. It isn't law yet.

Hawaii's Senate Passes "Steven Tyler Act"

Here is the state's legislature site:
Hawaii State Legislature: Measure Status for SB 465

As is, since I first reported it, the bill was amended to narrow its scope. The amended bill that passed now identifies and duplicates what basically would be trespassing for would-be photographers trying to obtain imagry of "celebrities" on private land.

I had a friend hit the lotto a few years ago and I know what he went through I can only imagine what the famous have to deal with every day

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Thanks. Steven Tyler is on my blacklist from now on Let's hope it doesn't pass.

Originally posted by mikell
I had a friend hit the lotto a few years ago and I know what he went through I can only imagine what the famous have to deal with every day

Okay. So because of his sudden "fame" and "media attention" he should be afforded better protection under the law? Granted the bill narrowed it a bit, but laws are already in place for much of what this law puts into place; which is trespassing.

Originally posted by DAVID64
They're famous, they sought fame .

You can't generalize like that... each and every single one of them had different goals and desires.

Also, fame is a by-product of doing their job..