First Amendment topicsAbout the First Amendment
News Story
print this   Print

LAPD: City should scrap new bid to restrict paparazzi

By The Associated Press

LOS ANGELES — The City Council should scrap a proposal for a new ordinance limiting the activities of paparazzi around celebrities, the Police Department says.

Calling the proposal unfair, ambiguous and likely unenforceable, department officials told the city Police Commission, which met yesterday, that numerous laws already on the books enable officers to deal with unruly paparazzi behavior.

Cmdr. Kirk Albanese said after the commission’s meeting: “There are laws that exist out there. We need to use those laws.”

The department presented its recommendations in a report written by Chief William Bratton.

The motion for a new ordinance was put forward by Councilman Dennis Zine in February after Britney Spears was taken from her home by paramedics amid a frenzy of photographers, and a phalanx of officers on motorcycles and in squad cars and helicopters was used when she was taken to a hospital a second time.

Zine said the Police Department’s report on his proposals was premature.

“They are jumping the gun on this; there hasn’t been any public discussion,” Zine said. “If they have enough rules, why does it cost $25,000 to transport Britney Spears to the hospital?”

Among proposals Zine wants the city to consider is the creation of a “personal-safety zone” that would create several feet of buffer space between paparazzi and their celebrity targets. Additional measures would likely emerge from public discussions after input from celebrities and the city attorney, Zine said.

Zine’s motion notes paparazzi can create a safety hazard by blocking entrances to hospitals and courthouses and “are becoming increasingly aggressive in their tactics, posing a clear danger not only to the people they are trying to photograph, but to the general public around them.”

Bratton’s report suggested there may also be constitutional concerns with any new ordinance. He highlighted the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under law — something that could become an issue in defining who is a celebrity or a paparazzo.

“Are all celebrities — A list, B list, C list — entitled to the same protection?” Bratton asked in his report. “The wording of the proposed ordinance may be too ambiguous to enforce.”

The Police Commission, the civilian overseers of the Police Department, voted to approve the report and forward it to the City Council. Zine’s motion has not yet been scheduled for committee review.

Representatives from groups including the California First Amendment Coalition and the American Civil Liberties Union have spoken out against the ordinance.

“Any kind of law that you try to draft to cover the paparazzi will apply to all reporters. You can’t carve out a law that will apply to just the paparazzi,” said Ramona Ripston, executive director of the ACLU of Southern California, when the law was proposed in February.

An “anti-stalkerazzi” law went into effect in California two years ago that increased penalties against photographers who impeded celebrities or were responsible for car accidents. Photographers are liable for three times the damages they inflict, plus lose any payments their published photos might earn.


New Calif. law aims to rein in aggressive paparazzi

Though measure is aimed at 'stalkerazzi,' it could have 'chilling effect' on news media, says attorney for newspaper publishers' group. 01.07.06

Calif. governor signs tougher anti-paparazzi law

Measure, which takes effect in January, will make it easier to sue media outlets that use photos that invade celebrities' privacy. 10.14.09

Calif. court bars 2 paparazzi from coming near Nicole Richie
Judge had said she was concerned about impeding photographers' First Amendment rights, but her concerns evaporated when both men agreed they could abide by restraining order. 11.17.09

Privacy & newsgathering

News summary page
View the latest news stories throughout the First Amendment Center Online.

Last system update: Friday, April 23, 2010 | 16:35:52
About this site
About the First Amendment
About the First Amendment Center
How to contribute
First Amendment programs
State of the First Amendment

Religious liberty in public schools
First Reports
Supreme Court
First Amendment publications
First Amendment Center history
Freedom Sings™
First Amendment

Congressional Research Service reports
Guest editorials
FOI material
The First Amendment

Lesson plans
Contact us
Privacy statement
Related links