Paparazi College Essay Example

become even more pronounced with advancements in telephotography, digital imaging, editing, and wireless technology (Berzon, 2005). As new and innovative technological tools for imaging and publishing are developed, the debate on invasion of privacy versus freedom of press will undoubtedly grow. Beyond just being a journalism or news gathering matter, the issue with paparazzi extends further. Valdes (2006) raises the question about whether the actual concern should be the increasing public demand for voyeuristic content, instead of simply focusing on the paparazzi.

Frequently, public figures and their loved ones employ legal means and security to protect their privacy, particularly concerning their offspring. Press freedom and individual liberties are cornerstones of any liberal society. Similarly, individuals also have the entitlement to relish liberty and confidentiality. The maintenance of these privileges is vital in assuring their rights while promoting a feeling of accountability among the populace.

Although privacy issues and paparazzi have distinct differences, they both assert their roots in constitutional rights. Often, the laws supporting these rights are open to interpretation that could lean towards either side of the argument. The debate primarily focuses on distinguishing between what is considered private or public - a challenging task as those usually targeted by paparazzi live most of their lives in full public view. In the context of American law, freedom of expression protected under the First Amendment holds significant relevance for journalism.

First Amendment lawyer, Douglas Mirell argues that the anti-paparazzi laws are misguided and have emerged from showmanship (”California law strikes at paparazzi”, 1998). He notes that the anti-paparazzi movement of late 1990’s was nothing more than a public relations stunt triggered by the unfortunate demise of Princess Diana

and does not tackle any real problem not already covered by existing laws (para. 9). There are concerns regarding the range of the anti-paparazzi legislation, as it extends to all kinds of media. Solove (2005) emphasizes that these laws end up impacting many press-related activities even when numerous paparazzi are not authentic press members.

In his work, C. Thomas Dienes discusses the legality of laws restricting paparazzi behavior. He points to the US Supreme Court's decision in the case of Arcara v. Cloud Books, Inc., in which the court stated that even laws aimed at non-expressive activities could unjustifiably impede protected First Amendment activities (Dienes, 1999, p. 1139). This latest legislation on paparazzi not only attempts to curtail the unauthorized photography of celebrities but also expands to include other potentially illegally obtained information, such as audio recordings, private correspondence, and legal, medical, and personal records and possessions.

The constitutional rights to privacy and personal autonomy are the pillars of individual freedom in society. The essence of a truly free society lies not only in freedom of expression, also considered a vital component, but significantly in personal liberties. These rights, safeguarded by the First Amendment, allow individuals, including celebrities and public figures, to maintain the confidentiality of the details they deem as private (Hudson, 2006).

Despite the US Constitution not explicitly addressing privacy, it does assert the right to personal autonomy. Hudson (2006) states that the US Supreme Court has upheld these principles through its determinations that have validated “zones of privacy” (para. 26). This characteristic also incorporates a person's right to be shielded from “unjustified public scrutiny”, which could lead to harassment and restriction of activity (para.

27). The Fourth Amendment also contains clauses for safeguarding the privacy of individuals' residences or personal areas (Hudson, 2006). There are differences in this regard between US and European laws.

In the United States, personal privacy in one's own home is immensely valued, but this right diminishes as soon as one steps outside, be it physically or virtually, such as working on the internet (Sullivan, 2006). This suggests that no matter how important a person's activity inside their house may seem, it doesn't fall under the public's "right to know" ("Paparazzi", 2006). On the contrary, in Europe, workers are extended greater privacy rights to protect their communication or action as long as there's a preceding reference or suggestion (Sullivan, 2006). Connecting Responsibility with Rights and Regulation

The concept that every right comes hand in hand with accrued duties is essential not only for preserving these rights for everyone but also for ensuring no other rights are jeopardized. The debates frequently arising around paparazzi revolve around where their journalistic rights infringe upon individual rights. Drawing a clear line between what constitutes acceptable probes in investigative journalism and invasive actions is crucial not just for identifying any legal wrongs but also due to the increased penalties imposed on these transgressions (Kirtley, 2002).

Machan (1997) articulates that the American press enjoys constitutional safeguards against stringent regulations, unlike its global counterparts. This freedom is attributed to the press's role as a platform for expressing views and highlighting concerns. While this has been instrumental in preserving freedom of speech, Machan notes that it creates room for potential abuse. Hence, he proposes that the safest way to safeguard journalists' primary rights is by

ensuring the protection of all individuals' rights (para. 10).

When the press hampers an individual's movement or freedom, it ironically turns its purpose of safeguarding freedom into a cause for the individual's loss of freedom. There is no surefire protection against the misuse of any rights. As observed by Kirtley (2002), the US Supreme Court has acknowledged that while every society would prefer its press to exercise responsibility and conscientiousness, the aspiration of a "responsible press is decidedly commendable, yet, the obligation of the press to be responsible is not constitutional mandate and similar to many other values, it cannot be imposed by law" (para. 45).

The imposition of steeper fines for privacy intrusions and increased regulation appear to be the primary methods for fostering accountability within the press. Back in 1890, Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis penned an article titled "The Right to Privacy" for the Harvard Law Review. They proposed in their piece that media harassment, which infringes on one's privacy and decency, should bear consequences for the emotional distress it can cause (Hudson, 2006). Their groundbreaking work laid the foundation for legal acknowledgement and enforcement against breaches of personal privacy.

Prosser, William in 1960, delineated the tort into four categories: infringing on physical privacy, casting in a false light, the unwarranted disclosure of personal information, and misappropriation (Prosser, 2006). As per Taylor (2006), the inaugural privacy lawsuit against press entities taken up by the US Supreme Court was Time Inc. v. Hill. The lawsuit centered on Life magazine publishing an advertorial for a stage performance derived from the narrative "The Desperate Hours" by Joseph Hayes. The literary work was generated from James Hill's family's terrifying

ordeal of being held captive at their residence in Connecticut.

The publication leveraged images of the Hills’ residence to boost the publicity for the play, leading to a lawsuit from James Hill. He claimed that the text accompanying the pictures distorted the truth, essentially transforming the feature into fiction (Part 2, Paragraph 25). Despite an attempted appeal from Life magazine, the New York Appellate court upheld the previous ruling in favor of Hill. They stated that "Life had manufactured a completely fictitious display for mercantile promotion and sales intentions, involving the plaintiff's name and family as a basis for a realistic thriller" (Paragraph 26). Right to Personal Privacy

Every person has an inherent right to privacy and liberty to conduct themselves in their preferred manner. Machan (2006) posits that each individual, including those in public spaces, reserves the right to partake in any lawful activity without infringing on others' rights or causing harm to themselves or others. This liberty is not just permitted, but safeguarded by law and is an alternative open to everyone. The legal provisions on privacy rights and associated laws are established to defend all individuals and offer them a basis to take legal action if these rights are infringed upon.

Nonetheless, privacy laws have varying implementations for public figures and celebrities, a distinction that paparazzi exploit while attempting to gather pictures or information. (Taylor, 2006) Valdes (2006) states that the present privacy rights are different for public figures and common citizens. He mentions the inherent interest in prominent social individuals, celebrities and public figures diminishes the level of privacy expected for all individuals.

Predominantly, celebrities express strong disapproval of the invasive nature of the paparazzi.

Conversely, it is argued by some media figures that an equal number of celebrities actively seek out this attention. The public recognition gained from being in the limelight is advantageous for celebrities, and the paparazzi contribute significantly to boosting public awareness and remembrance of these individuals (Hudson, 2006). Moreover, there are criticisms suggesting that certain celebrity public appearances are strategically implemented to attract public focus. Even anti-paparazzi demonstrations have been scrutinized as attempts to secure media exposure (Kaplar, 1999).

Amitai Etzioni argues that each individual has a role in safeguarding their privacy and should be accountable for their actions. He emphasizes that the central issue isn't whether the information or material under scrutiny is private, but rather if there was any infringement in acquiring it. When no such instances exist, he suggests the media ought to be free from liability, provided they act in good faith (Taylor, 2006).

This suggests that for public figures, including celebrities, the interest of the general public that triggers the attention of paparazzi is seen as an inherent aspect of their profession and a compromise made due to their job nature. In the year 1908, an individual named John Moser filed a lawsuit against the news publication 'New York World', which was under the ownership of Press Publishing Company. This legal action was initiated after the publication disseminated a derogatory article about Moser. Moser's lawsuit in court alleged that both the published pictures and the article constituted an invasion of his privacy.

Nevertheless, keeping in mind that Moser was a recognized figure and there wasn't any intrusion during the formulation of the article or the images, the New York court ruled in

favor of the magazine (Taylor, 2006). In this context, Moser being under media's focus was a part of its role to examine significant social aspects that attract public interest, hence it constitutes a part of press freedom rights (Rectenwald, 2005). Sidis v. F-R Publishing Corp. is another lawsuit where the verdict was given in support of the press.

The legal dispute involved William James Sidis, a one-time childhood celebrity. He claimed that the New Yorker breached his privacy through an article they published about previously renowned individuals. Sidis contended that since he had receded from public life, referencing him in the article constituted a violation of his private citizen's rights. However, the court eventually sided with the newspaper. In its ruling, it stated "Regardless of our personal feelings, people are inherently interested in and often discuss the difficulties and faults of their neighbors and 'public figures'" (Taylor, 2006).

The crux of all regulations related to paparazzi in California is the protection of individual privacy, ensuring that personal freedoms of expression and autonomy are not violated by the press's equivalent rights. The pursuit of truth and maintaining the public's access to information should not be considered superior to an individual's right to privacy unless it endangers oneself or others.

It doesn't mean that he loses his right to shield himself from acute examination or public scorn (Sullivan, 2006). The necessity for privacy protection is claimed to be an inherent requirement that a state needs to uphold. Numerous existing regulations that uphold these rights stem from the constitution, however, the evolution of laws safeguarding privacy took quite some time to authenticate. The strongest stance against paparazzi to date was taken

by California in 2005 with the inception of the "Anti-Paparazzi Act". Content and Provisions

A crucial component of California's Anti-Paparazzi Act is the delineation of what actions constitute an intrusion or transgression upon a person's privacy. If a journalist or photographer "aims to physically intrude upon the plaintiff's privacy with the intention of procuring any kind of visual image, audio recording or any other physical impression of the plaintiff engaged in a personal or family activity and this invasion is conducted in a manner that a reasonable person would find offensive", then he is guilty of violating this act (as referenced in Solove, 2005).

The explanation given is an answer to the demand for more stringent anti-paparazzi laws aimed at augmenting the safeguarding of celebrities when in public areas (Rectenwald, 2005). One distinctive aspect of this legislation, when compared to other pre-existing privacy laws, is that the punitive measures it imposes on paparazzi are not majorly based on intrusiveness levels (Taylor, 2006).

The Anti-Paparazzi Act stipulates that a paparazzo could be in violation, even if they didn't trespass to gather the information. If their actions are deemed invasive or offensive to an average person in trying to capture any visual representation, sound recording or another physical impression of the plaintiff involved in a personal or family activity where they should reasonably expect privacy, especially with the help of a visual or auditory augmenting device, they're contravening the act (referenced from Solove, 2005).

This suggests that, regardless of whether the action is performed by a celebrity in a public place or not, if there is an anticipated level of privacy, then the extraction of photographs or other resources, provoked or

otherwise, is also a violation of the Anti-Paparazzi Act. In addition to presenting the aforementioned details, the act also amplifies the punitive measures for privacy law breaches. These punishments can encompass all profit generated from the acquired content and up to triple the estimated general and unique damages (Solove, 2005).

The Anti-Paparazzi Act aligns with the principles outlined in the 2003 verdict of the US Supreme Court in the case of Virginia vs. Black, endorsing the individual’s right to a life free from fear and intimidation (Shapiro, 2005, para. 11). It also harmonizes with the views expressed by John Whitman in his paper, The Two Western Cultures of Privacy: Dignity versus Liberty, stating that “Personal privacy, akin to other aspects of one’s dignity, could not be simply bartered like an ordinary market commodity” (as referenced in Sullivan, 2005, para. 3). Debates and Criticisms

While the media does not question the authenticity of the need to guard individual rights and privacy irrespective of celebrity status, it primarily opposes California’s Anti-Paparazzi Act on the grounds of it potentially restricting First Amendment rights and sanctioning genuine media organizations for paparazzi activities unrelated to any credible press. Rectenwald (2005) refers to Davis Wright Tremaine's assessment that the new act influences media universally rather than just tackling paparazzi-specific issues.

Rectenwald argues that the act may pose a threat to freedom of speech. She emphasizes that current laws already penalize trespassing, independent of the Anti-Paparazzi Act. Hence, escalating the penalties for intent to photograph can be viewed as censorship (para. 6). Tom Newton, a lawyer for the California Newspaper Publishers Association, also criticizes the law stating it unfairly punishes legal exercise of the First

Amendment rights, selectively focusing on those in the media industry (“California Expands Anti-Paparazzi Law”, 2006).

Kirtley (2006) believes that the laws before the implementation of California's Anti-Paparazzi Act were sufficient in offering protection against defamation and privacy invasions. She advises caution when the government imposes restrictions on information, conduct, or content, as this could inadvertently infringe on freedom and rights. In an evaluation of effectiveness, it is rather paradoxical that individuals seeking to protect their privacy have found unrelated statutes more successful than those explicitly intended for this purpose.

In instances where the foundation of a lawsuit is solely the privacy rights defense, it's often observed that the judgment favours over the latter (Taylor, 2006). Kirtley (2006) notes that maintenance of current laws safeguarding personal rights could be more significant than formulating additional laws which may only discriminate against lawful media. Detractors of the Anti-Paparazzi Law speculate that it might potentially suppress freedom of press in the future, while supporters believe it's about time for such a statute to be passed (Taylor, 2006).

The two points are justified, but the true difficulty lies in striking a harmony between the privacy rights and press freedoms. As previously noted, it becomes counterproductive if the media turns into an intruding or obstructive force against individual liberties. Current legislations require enhancement to ensure their relevance and adaptability to ongoing changes in media and technology. This is essential to avoid aftermath actions and nurture preventive safeguards for privacy and individual autonomy (Crews, 2006). Reference is made to the 1970's cases of Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn of 1975, Oklahoma Publishing v.

The decisions of both the Oklahoma County District Court in 1977 and Smith

v. Daily Mail Publishing in 1979 were in the media's favor. This was due to the court's stance that "Should a newspaper rightfully acquire truthful details about a topic of public importance, state officials are not constitutionally permitted to punish the publication of such facts, unless it is to progress a state interest of the utmost degree" (Taylor, 2006, para. 19). These rulings didn't only symbolize victory for the media individually; they also established a precedent that shaped future determinations supporting the right to report.

Robert Ellis Smith, the founder of the Privacy Journal, notes that there has been a significant alteration in the landscape today (Taylor, 2006). Technological advancements have led to the advent of digital photography, remote videography, and compact electronic devices which have played a massive role in fostering the evolution of secret media activities and have amplified intrusion levels (Valdes, 2006). Smith draws attention to recent rulings such as the case involving the Los Angeles Police Department and United Reporting Publishing Inc to exemplify the changes that need to be accommodated when evaluating privacy rights and freedom of speech matters (Taylor, 2006).

Smith highlights that modern media is increasingly delving into personal aspects, often bringing forth intimate details that barely hold any news value (para. 21). In reference to privacy-related incidents, Taylor (2006) elucidates that the responsibility of substantiating the confidentiality of the released information lies with the plaintiffs. Moreover, the plaintiffs have to debunk the idea of newsworthiness, which forms the base of numerous court judgments favoring the press. However, this should not be misconstrued as an undue advantage for the media.

Existing laws preemptively regulate the media to prevent violations of individual

rights (Kaplar, 1999; Kirtley, 2002). When these rights, especially privacy rights, are infringed upon in defiance of these laws, the guilty parties should face penalties outlined for privacy invasion offenses. Rather than emphasizing on technicalities already covered by current laws, the focus of new anti-paparazzi legislation should be on establishing the underpinnings of privacy itself. This proactive approach will allow us to foresee and effectively handle potential future threats to this right (Kirtley, 2002).

Citations

http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/woverbeck/2006.htm

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20060414-085720-8847r.htm

http://www.mediainstitute.org/ONLINE/FAM99/intro.html

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1354

http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2005/12/21823.php