• The Publisher’s Notebook •

Malibu Paparazzi and State Law: Signing Up

BY ANNE SOBLE

It was a sure-fire headline grabber and sound-bite provider to announce to the media that the City of Malibu is going to do something about the local pap-packs. The spotlight swiveled in response to a flashy name, especially when replete with innuendo, but it’s fair to ask whether anything will come from this short-lived frenzy. In the interim, one Malibu commercial center is taking an aggressive stance on the paparazzi by emphasizing that existing laws will be enforced. Without fanfare, and maybe that’s what’s really going on here, a sign was posted that states that if these laws are broken, the parties who are found guilty will face triple damages. The Brits have already used the legal system to levy hefty fines against paparazzi, most notably in the recent case won by Hugh Grant. Sizable “invasion of privacy” damages speak loudly and make the cost of being a stalkerazzi prohibitive for most of the unaccredited freelancers hoping for a money shot. Reliance on existing laws and publicizing an intent to enforce them, including the California Anti-Paparazzi Act, is an indication that these businesses want to protect their patrons. Any restaurant or other kind of commercial establishment that is tired of being an exploitation venue can do the same, unless, of course, they are really just pretending to not want all the attention and free publicity.
The Anti-Paparazzi Act criminalizes trespass “in order to physically invade the privacy of the plaintiff with the intent to capture any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of the plaintiff engaging in a personal or familial activity and the physical invasion occurs in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person.” A person can also be found liable for violating “a reasonable expectation of privacy.” Although there is debate over what constitutes privacy, the law targets all torts, whatever the source—the media cannot commit torts in the news gathering process. That notwithstanding, what constitutes media is in the throes of a technological and cultural revolution. The channels for sharing facts and ideas are no longer as clearly defined as they once were. That’s why First Amendment rights are more important than ever. Everyone is a potential news gatherer. Witness the roles of cellphones in the dissemination of information at times of emergencies, such as tornados, floods and fires. There are those who fear a journalistic free-for-all, but then there also was a time when those in power didn’t want the masses to learn to read or write.