Originally posted by john9001
a public figure in a public place can be photographed for editorial purposes without their consent.
that is the law now, are some of you nanny state lovers saying you want to restrict a free press? don't we have enough laws now, you want more?
Restrict a free press?
Only to the point where you cant go jamming a camera within arms reach of the person your photographing.
A free press should also be respectful of people and their privacy too
what these guys do is push that right to a free press to its verymost limit.
to the point where they it more closely resembles assaulting the person with the camera then it does simply taking their picture
you want to take a picture fine. Just stay back.
there is absolutely no reason why you have to get within 6 feet of someone to take their picture let alone inches, or 2 or 3.
Try pulling that crap on me and I take your camera and shove it up your arse. No lube
Somewhere along the line there has to be a balance between a free and RESPONCABLE press and the rights of the person being covered.
Exercising your rights to a press does not givbe you carte blanch to violate individuals right.
Not to mention that original intent was that the goverment could not prevent the press from criticism of it. Not in allowing them to report how many hairs a person in the public has growing on their arse or what color underwear they might wear
the way things are now these guys are not acting in a responcable manner and are certainly in violation of the rights of alot of the people they are taking pictures of in the manner in which they take their pictures
Free press is no excuse for the practices these guys use.
And if your one of them. that would include you
"The founders of the United States enacted the First Amendment to distinguish their new government from that of England, which had long censored the press and prosecuted persons who dared to criticize the British Crown.
As Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart explained in a 1974 speech, the "primary purpose" of the First Amendment was "to create a fourth institution outside the government as an additional check on the three official branches" (the executive branch, the legislature and the judiciary). "The protection of the First Amendment extends beyond press reports concerning major government policies and well-known public figures. The Supreme Court has held that if the press
"lawfully obtains truthful information about a matter of public significance then [the government] may not constitutionally punish publication of the information, absent a need to further a state interest of the highest order," Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co., 443 U.S. 97 (1979).
While it has been extended well beyond being critical of the government it Information does have to be gathered in a lawful manner.
When you voilate someones rights. such as the right to privacy you are breaking the law
"Legal Definitions
Legal definitions vary but many states define stalking as willful, malicious, and repeated following and harassment.
- Isolated acts may not fall under this type of law, but where there is a pattern, the behavior is generally illegal.
- In some states, for stalking laws to apply, the commission of the offense requires an explicit threat of violence against the victim, but elsewhere an implied threat is sufficient.
- Under most state laws, Montana's included, the victim's fearful response is built into the legal definition of stalking. This recognizes that the perpetrator's repeated, uninvited pursuit of the victim is by its nature frightening and threatening
Not to mention several courts have ruled that a peson has a right to personal space
even if the thirs isnt violated. it certainly seems to me that many paparazzi gather their material by violating the first two.
