DEBATE^^^^^ •̂••••••MMHM
Do thePaparazziHaveToo MuchFreedom?Celebrity photographersgo to great lengths to getshots of the biggest stars.Some think they go too far.
' used to like looking at photos offamous people. But then I becamea celebrity bodyguard, and I got to
see how the paparazzi really work. Rules rarely matter;it's all about money. They dream of getting the next bigshot, and some will do anything to get it.
What most people don't understand is that thepaparazzi basically stalk the biggest stars to get theirphotos. Some sit in cars at the end of a celebrity'sdriveway 24/7, waiting for them to leave, and thenfollow them to photograph their every move-just incase something happens that makes the photo wortha lot of money. Maybe the star they're following is
going to see a new boyfriend no oneknows about yet! And if they canget a photo of the celebrity kissingthe new boyfriend, that's big, bigmoney—maybe $1 million big.
Then there are the car chases.Sometimes five cars full of paparazziwill chase after a celebrity. And tomake sure they don't lose their target,they'll often speed, run stop signs andtraffic lights, and even drive on thewrong side of the road. This reckless
driving is dangerous and potentially deadly for everyonenear them. In January, a photographer who had beenchasing Justin Bieber's white Ferrari on a Los Angeleshighway was hit by a car and killed. Princess Diana waskilled in 1997 after her driver crashed at high speed tryingto elude paparazzi in Paris.
We'll never do away with the paparazzi or the picturesthey take, but we can and should have laws to preventthem from stalking celebrities and putting the public'ssafety at risk. •
-SEAN BURKEThe Paparazzi Reform Initiative
Rinanna outsideI a London restaurant inI February 2012
We should passlaws to protect
the publicand prevent
paparazzi fromstalking stars.
The First Amendment protects freedom ofthe press. Of course, the Founding Fatherscouldn't have imagined the paparazzi—
photojournalists who make a living pursuing and takingcandid pictures of celebrities. But that doesn't meanFirst Amendment protections don't apply to paparazzi.
The paparazzi-named for an Italian word that origi-nally meant the buzzing of a mosquito—are the target of a2010 California law designed to restrict their activity. Thatlaw and another being considered byHawaii are mistakes.
Press freedom for paparazzi ispart of the price we pay for aggres-sive and independent news-gatheringin America. Paparazzi are journal-ists. They sell pictures of people inthe public eye. And though it maybe inconvenient to be followed byphotographers, celebrities benefitenormously from the publicity.
The paparazzi don't have the rightto break the law. The Constitution protects everyone'sright to take a picture of anything or anyone in public, butyou can't break into someone's home to get your shot.The biggest problem with laws meant to rein in paparazziis that they impose restrictions that can also be used tosilence noncelebrity reporters following "hard" news.
Sometimes reporters—paparazzi included—act badlywhile doing their jobs. But as long as they're not actingillegally, their bad behavior is a tradeoff for the benefitswe receive from their services—holding politicians toaccount, uncovering corporate wrongdoing, evensnapping glossy pictures of Miley Cyrus at a moviepremiere. A free country isn't always a polite country,but that bargain is worthwhile. •
-GABE ROTTMANAmerican Civil Liberties Union
Press freedomfor paparazzi isthe price we payfor aggressiveand independentnews-gathering.
22 5tl)cJvcUrJJork5timc0 UPFRONT • U P F R O N T M A G A Z I N E . C O M
