Steven Tyler Act passes: New curbs on paparazzi

Steven Tyler Act passes Hawaii senate: The bill tries to protect celebrities, such as Steven Tyler, from zealous photographers. Steven Tyler owns a home in Maui.

|
(AP Photo/Oskar Garcia, file)
Aerosmith lead singer Steven Tyler testified last month on celebrity privacy during a hearing at the Hawaii Capitol in Honolulu.

The Hawaii state Senate passed the so-called Steven Tyler Act Tuesday, a bill that seeks to protect celebrities from overeager paparazzi by creating a civil violation if people take unwanted photos or videos of others in their private moments.

The Aerosmith frontman from Massachusetts asked Sen. Kalani English to sponsor the legislation after unwanted photos were taken of him and his girlfriend last December and published in a national magazine, causing family drama.

Tyler owns a multimillion dollar home in Maui, which is part of English's district. English said the proposal could help increase celebrity tourism in Hawaii.

Twenty-three of the state's 25 Senate members voted in favor of the bill, which now goes to the House for consideration.

Sen. Sam Slom, the body's only Republican, opposed the measure.

"We have been the butt of many editorials and jokes across the country for this proposed legislation," he said.

Slom said senators had fun with the bill, but Hawaii has adequate laws protecting privacy and this proposal is an attack on rights guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

"My final remarks to Steven Tyler as he sang so eloquently are, 'Dream on, dream on,'" Slom joked.

Besides Tyler, other celebrities have supported the bill, including Britney Spears, Mick Fleetwood and the Osborne family.

They say intrusive paparazzi make it difficult to enjoy simple activities with family and friends.

But national media organizations worry about the proposal's impact on freedom of the press. The National Press Photographers Association and the Society of Professional Journalists were among several national media organizations that submitted testimony opposing the bill.

The Senate Judiciary Committee responded to criticism of the measure's vague language by replacing the original version with the text of an existing California anti-paparazzi statute.

But longtime media lawyer Jeff Portnoy said the bill is still problematic.

"It's better, but it doesn't change its fatal flaws," he said. The measure's language is still ambiguous and it is unnecessary, given Hawaii's existing laws, Portnoy said.

"Our only chance to get some sanity into this is in the House," he said.

As The Christian Science Monitor reported, laws to protect celebrities from paparazzi are spreading. In California, for example, the laws now:

• Protect celebrities against trespass or the use of audio- or video-enhancing equipment that violates a reasonable expectation of privacy and make it easier for celebrities to sue for invasion of privacy.

• Increase the penalties for paparazzi who cause altercations in their attempt to photograph celebrities, and prohibit paparazzi from profiting from such images.

• Penalize paparazzi who drive recklessly to get a photo with as much as six months in jail and a $2,500 fine.

Copyright 2013 The Associated Press.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Steven Tyler Act passes: New curbs on paparazzi
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2013/0306/Steven-Tyler-Act-passes-New-curbs-on-paparazzi
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe