Imagine that. Just when you begin to wonder whether elected officials can get anything meaningful done, the State Senate proved it could by overwhelmingly passing Senate Bill 465, the so-called “Steven Tyler Act,” intended to protect real or imagined celebrities from harassment by gangs of roaming paparazzi.
This is the bill a NY Times editorial called “an earnest but boneheaded measure.” It is, unfortunately, getting lots of national media attention, not necessarily positive.
But perhaps we can salvage something from the situation by using it as an example of the valid use of “gut & replace.”
The House should strip the existing language from the bill and replace it with a different provision, something along these lines–“It shall be unlawful for Steven Tyler to appear without a shirt in any public place, or in a location visible from any public place with or without any visual enhancing device.”
Seriously, though, the bill was opposed by the Motion Picture Association of America, which argued that it violates both the First Amendment and the Hawaii State Constitution. A freelance photographer on the Big Island wrote in testimony submitted to the Senate: “Don’t make photography a crime in Hawaii.”
And Attorney General David Louie made another key point: “There is no evidence to suggest that celebrities are deterred from buying property or vacationing in Hawaii because of photographs being taken of them. Celebrities are photographed wherever they go and it is a consequence of their celebrity status.”
Thanks to Senators Les Ihara and Sam Slom for having the good sense to vote “no” on this bill.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It appears that there are a lot of ” boneheads” in the Hawaii Legislature! Now the public has a clear insight as to why so few significant issues are targeted and passed in Hawaii! Think of how long education improvement has been an issue as an example!
Celebrities can have a horrible time just being human because of the paparazzi. Here is a famous video of the model Kate Moss at the LAX with her family.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoXi0sUMBvE
However, there is nothing like this in Hawaii, and never has been.
Moreover, the private lives of celebrities have been accepted by American law for some time as a “matter of public concern”. There are two reasons for this. One is because politicians as public figures are under scrutiny in their personal lives because their personal life is seen to reflect their character (e.g., Bill Clinton). This is an American thing. In contrast, in France it is illegal to divulge matters from a politician’s private life as irrelevant and intrusive, although this may be changing (e.g., photos of a nude sunbathing British Princess Kate were published without consequent prosecutions, but she is British, not French, and not a politician).
Second, celebrities have a certain status that makes their right to privacy problematic. A celebrity is someone who is famous for being famous, and often not much else (e.g., Paris Hilton). Their private lives are central to the massive wealth they accumulate (back when she was a hot item, Paris Hilton used to make $100,000 a night just to attend a single party in Los Angeles). Their manipulation of the public image of their private lives is at the center of their careers (e.g., Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez pretended to be engaged just when their careers were fizzling, and it made their every action instant news). So paparazzi and celebrities are secretly in cahoots with one another.
Here is a blog post from a legal scholar more sympathetic to the European policy toward celebrities’ right to privacy.
http://today.uconn.edu/blog/2010/10/the-price-of-fame-celebrities-and-the-right-to-privacy/
How much does the Steven Tyler Act line up with European policy on celebrity rights to privacy? Is the European version better or worse?
Steve Tyler should be arrested for impersonating a “star”.
Personally… taking Tyler, et al out of the picture – I’d be upset if someone used a telephoto lens to shoot pictures of me & my family while I was in my own home… so I can understand the desire for limitations. What is so all-fired important to anyone that they would do such a thing? $$$$$$$$$. That’s it.
This side show aside, what is the status of the journalism shield law which needs renewal to protect bloggers? That is important.
Amazing all of the time spent on a bogus bill I predict will be DOA once challenged in court as a violation of federal and state constitutions.
Les Ihara has just given another example of why he is the best senator. He is thoughtful, conscientious, principled, and bright. He is not susceptible to the allure of fads and shiny objects.
Who is ultimately at fault here? It is us. Why are the paparazzi taking these pictures? Because they can sell them for bug bucks to tabloids and other publications. Why do they pay so much for salacious pictures? Because they sell magazines/newspapers/whatever. Who are the idiots buying this junk and thus creating a demand for the pictures? Us, of course.
Simple solution. Stop buying the tabloids, magazines etc. which publish the pictures. The demand would go away and the paparazzi would move on to more gainful employment. Problem solved. But unfortunately it’s not going to happen since we (collectively) are not that smart.
How is it that celebrities who surround themselves with security personnel cannot manage to keep their drapes closed when they want a little privacy at home?
It would be useful if you described what it is that is so illegal or unconstitutional about what is being proposed in the bill.
Yes, I am being lazy because I could go to the Legislature’s web page and find out, but we are paying you all those bucks to have you break it down and feed it to us!!
Oh, that’s right. We aren’t.
Still it would make for a more informative blog if you could let us know specifically what has you so upset that you think the bill should be gutted.
Is there no reasonable expectation that if you are at home in the relative privacy of your house, your lanai, or your backyard, that you should not have to fear that somebody is flying over head or peering with a telescopic lens to take a picture of you?
Very disappointed, but hardly surprised.
I first saw Steven Tyler play in a barn in Lake Sunapee, NH, in the late 60’s. Ghastly, just ghastly.
Then, he and Aerosmith were mismatched as the opening act for John McLaughlin and the Mahavishnu Orchestra in New Haven, CT, in 1974 or so. Even worse.
Here I am, 40 years later in Hawaii, thinking I’ve left him long behind and I just can’t get away from the guy. Plus, he’s still bad, albeit marginally more amusing.
He doesn’t need a law to keep us away from him, I NEED A LAW TO KEEP HIM AWAY FROM ME!!!
this comment needs a “like” button!
What “celebrities” fail to understand is that unlike some other states, the property lines for oceanfront lots end at the mean high water mark. Any “beach” they are cavorting in is mostly “public property” in most cases.
If they are in the water or near it, there is no expectation of privacy or protection thereof, because they are on “public land” at that point. Unless this legislation changes Hawaii land law, “celebrities” won’t get any break from the hordes of photographers on the beach.
As a former professional photographer, I sure would not want to waste my time or film on taking any photo of Steven Tyler in his bathroom or on the beach. God, this guy looks like a bad version of Keith Richards.
There seems to be a changing of the guard in the Democratic Party locally. This means that for the first time in a long, long time (arguably, perhaps the first time ever) the legislature, dominated by Democrats, are actually pursuing progressive policies. (Imagine that!) It also means that there is a leadership vacuum, so that when some celebrity blows into town, they do his bidding. In this void where big shots once commanded policy, perhaps we could offer some constructive suggestions.
One recent issue is releasing the names of officers accused of brutality. On the one hand, that sounds like a formula for retribution against officers’ families, and for crimes that the officers might not have actually committed. It seems essential that the accusations be made public, but it also seems essential to shield the identities of both the accused officers and of the accused, for the safety of both. (Innocent until proven guilty…) Release of information with redaction of names seems adequate. What do other states and countries do?
What we might be missing is the big picture on this issue. It’s the 21st century. A century ago, a legendary figure like Chang Apana strode through Chinatown with a bullwhip. Things are more complicated today. What we might need are more educated cops, perhaps cops with college degrees. That might mean less police brutality, and fewer lawsuits.
http://www.psmag.com/legal-affairs/cops-and-college-do-police-need-book-smarts-21852/