Steven Tyler Act

http://www.tastyislandhawaii.com/ima...er_act_sb1.jpg

The “Steven Tyler Act,” introduced at Tyler’s request by Sen. Kalani English, D-Maui, makes it a civil tort to “capture or intend 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.”

http://www.tastyislandhawaii.com/ima...er_act_sb2.jpg

" ’ENOUGH IS ENOUGH’

Tyler and Fleetwood, the British drummer for Fleetwood Mac, own homes on Maui. Tyler recently purchased a $4.8 million beachfront house. Fleetwood made Maui his permanent residence 10 years ago and, in August, entered the restaurant business, with Fleetwood’s on Front Street.

Both said they have been harassed while on their private property by paparazzi, including some who have cameras that can take high-resolution photos from up to a mile away."

http://www.tastyislandhawaii.com/ima...er_act_sb3.jpg


What do you folks think about this proposed bill?

*Photos courtesy of StarAdvertiser.com

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pomai

Both said they have been harassed while on their private property by paparazzi, including some who have cameras that can take high-resolution photos from up to a mile away."

What do you folks think about this proposed bill?

---

It's a terrible idea. How is it "harrassment" to take a photo from a mile away? Anyhow, the press is protected under the Constitution, so the bill is probably unconstitutional. And if not, by court precedents limiting the rights of celebrities to prevent public slander. I wish Tyler could have more privacy here, but he should remember that he lives in a free society.

The interesting thing is, Mr. Tyler is proposing the bill here in Hawaii - and specifically of interest to him on Maui of all places - and not in California, where Paparazzi are much more notorious.

It appears to me that the bill is directly aimed at the paparazzi altho' how can it be limited to just the paparazzi! I watched the news coverage last night and all these 2 celebs want is privacy within the confines of the property they rent or own. Even Tyler admitted that "public" means "public" and he understands and accepts that. His example was the pap. who, with a very long lens and quite a distance away, got and sold a shot of Tyler brushing his teeth in his own bathroom. I'm with the celebs on this one. The pap. cross way too many lines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tutusue

I'm with the celebs on this one.

---

I am, too.

I believe the current bill before the Hawaii legislature closely mirrors California law on the issue.

Yes, and New York also has a similar law. I'm with the celebs on this one too. Especially since the Princess Diana situation.
It's not unusual for some of the paps to sneak onto celebs private property to get photos. Sometimes they get arrested for trespassing and the celebs can get restraining orders against them.
The bad/sad/mad news is that the paps get really big $$ for those photos because so darned many people buy the tabloids and want to see them. :mad:
And on those photos in post #1 here, it's sad to see Mick Fleetwood having hearing problems in two of the photos, but it's funny that in the very first photo Steven Tyler seems to be indicating the size of his... you know. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaleP

I am, too.

I believe the current bill before the Hawaii legislature closely mirrors California law on the issue.

---

It does -- specifically Cal. Civ. Code 1708.8(b)*. Here is the conclusion of a lawyer's discussion:

Quote:

---

The anti-paparazzi laws appear to be the result of an emotional reaction to a tragic event. They ignore the fact that existing laws have long protected against "abuses" by the media, leaving the new legislation unnecessary and likely unconstitutional. Nevertheless, only time will tell whether the anti-paparazzi laws withstand constitutional scrutiny.
http://apps.americanbar.org/forums/c...um99boese.html

---

So far, I haven't found any mention of an interesting court test of 1708.8(b). I have seen reference to a case brought by Barbra Streisand, but it clearly didn't fall under the statute (and hence it failed).

*1708.8(b)

Quote:

---

A person is liable for constructive invasion of privacy when
the defendant attempts to capture, in a manner that is offensive to a
reasonable person, any type of visual image, sound recording, or
other physical impression of the plaintiff engaging in a personal or
familial activity under circumstances in which the plaintiff had a
reasonable expectation of privacy, through the use of a visual or
auditory enhancing device, regardless of whether there is a physical
trespass, if this image, sound recording, or other physical
impression could not have been achieved without a trespass unless the
visual or auditory enhancing device was used.

---

Where does privacy and freedom of speech meet?

Who holds the cards?

Paparrazzi are free to violate privacy, but citizens must submit themseles?

Let's all go out naked on May 1 2013, to show our support for privacy.

Steven has not been happy since the photos of him in speedos while on Maui hit the papers. :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LikaNui

but it's funny that in the very first photo Steven Tyler seems to be indicating the size of his... you know. :D

---

The size of his Bill?