Hawaii's Senate passes Steven Tyler Act celebrity privacy bill

[FlaFlaFlunkie]

From news.yahoo.com

HONOLULU (Reuters) - The Hawaii state Senate has approved legislation named for Aerosmith rocker Steven Tyler that would make it easier for celebrities to sue paparazzi and others they see as invading their privacy.Tyler, 64, who lives part-time on the Hawaiian island of Maui, testified on behalf of the bill, which supporters say will make the state more attractive to the rich and famous. Opponents criticize the measure as vague and potentially unconstitutional.
The measure would allow celebrities to sue anyone who "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 on land owned or leased by the plaintiff."


The Steven Tyler Act cleared the Senate on Tuesday with only two of the body's 25 members voting against it. The proposal now goes to the state House of Representatives.


"Public figures, such as celebrities, already have a diminished expectation of privacy," Hawaii Senate Judiciary Chairman Clayton Hee wrote in support of the bill. "Thus, private moments while vacationing and engaged in activities with family and friends are even more precious for public figures."


Appearing beside drummer Mick Fleetwood from the rock band Fleetwood Mac, Tyler told a Senate panel that he accepted being photographed in public but resented paparazzi using telephoto lenses to shoot him when he was inside his house.
"When I'm in my own home and I'm taking a shower or changing clothes or eating or spending Christmas with my children and I see paparazzi shooting with lenses this long, and then see that very picture in People magazine, it hurts," Tyler said.
Hawaii's attorney general, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Society of Professional Journalists all have opposed the bill. Governor Neil Abercrombie and the Hawaii Tourism Authoritysupport it.


Media lawyer Jeff Portnoy said the legislation was highly problematic.
"It's a bill that's simply pandering to some washed-up celebrities at a time when the Hawaiilegislature should be focusing on some much more significant issues that affect all of us," he told Reuters on Wednesday.


"Celebrities have more than adequate protection under Hawaii criminal and civil law for the behavior this is supposed to deter," Portnoy said.

Question: is this constitutional?

I'm thinking about the use of drones to spy on people's backyards and arrest them for growing pot.

How is that legal and this isn't? Paparazzi are taking pictures of people on their property. The paparazzi can't do it but the government can?

[FlaFlaFlunkie]

Here's the picture that got him amped up:

[Anfkid]

its not like he's fucking a lobster. he's in a bathing suit. jeez. get ya man tits lazered off if you don't wanna be photographed poorly.

[FlaFlaFlunkie]

its not like he's fucking a lobster. he's in a bathing suit. jeez. get ya man tits lazered off if you don't wanna be photographed poorly.

You can tell just by looking at him that he's got low testosterone.

[Weed]

He should be more embarrassed about the pussified power ballad factory that his once great band has become than anything that a paparazzi could snap.


I wonder if he ever thought about asking Stern to photoshop away those man boobs for him...?

[Uncle Larry]

The Senate bill seems too broad but at least they're devoting time and energy to a very important issue.

It looks like Tyler uses the same personal trainer as Howard.

[MutteringJohn]

If your a man you have to be a real pussy to use Botox.

[Snotty]

I'm thinking once your behind privately owned doors/Gates especially on your own property you should expect some degree of privacy.....

[Teeney]

Here's the picture that got him amped up:

Stephen Sand Angel Now!

[Gena]

Here's the picture that got him amped up:

HO-LEE-SHEEPSHIT!! Saggy droopy man titties, they kinda look like they are a floppin in the breeze.

[FlaFlaFlunkie]

I'm thinking once your behind privately owned doors/Gates especially on your own property you should expect some degree of privacy.....

But the cops can fly a drone over your home and bust you for growing pot plants?

[BethSucks]

Moved back to Stern forum

[Chimney Portions]

But the cops can fly a drone over your home and bust you for growing pot plants?

Cops can also put camera on your property without a warrant. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...thout-warrant/

Using cops as a comparison is flawed, I think. Unfortunately many courts seem to believe that cops have unconstitutional powers that we don't.

This law seems exceptionally vague. The fact that it seems to protect only a certain group of people and appears to classify speech doesn't seem like it fits within the intent of the 1st Amendment. Should be interesting.

[AcquiringSignal]

Moobies

[KillVampires]

I'm thinking once your behind privately owned doors/Gates especially on your own property you should expect some degree of privacy.....

But the cops can fly a drone over your home and bust you for growing pot plants?

The more restrictions on people taking photographs and video of private citizens the better. You have no business invading someone's privacy because they are famous. If someone walks on a red carpet then snap away with your camera. If they are taking their family to the grocery store or the beach then prepare to get sued for all of your worth. Paparazzi are parasites and leeches who invade people's privacy and expose their personal affairs to get website clicks and sell tabloid magazines.

These same tabloid fucks whine and cry about bullying and cyberbullying and have this hypocritical garbage PSA campaigns about "stopping bullying" yet they have on problem getting three feet away from some kindergartener whose mom is famous and snapping away at her with a camera. It's sick. Mind your own fucking business.

I see no difference in invading celebrities personal lives and bullying them than I do with kids bullying someone in high school or adults doing it at the workplace. The tabloids take pleasure in outing people for being gay or having an affair. For spilling personal secrets just for sick pleasure. It's pathetic.

Tracy Morgan nearly loses his career over making a joke about 'fags' but the same tabloids who crucified him take tons of pleasure in outing celebrities for being gay and shame them for being closeted. It's sad. But hey...fuck these people because they are rich, right? Steven Tyler deserves no privacy at all because he's a celebrity, right?

If they want to walk on a red carpet or go on a talk show they are fair game. But their private lives off camera are no one's business.

[FlaFlaFlunkie]

Cops can also put camera on your property without a warrant. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...thout-warrant/

Using cops as a comparison is flawed, I think. Unfortunately many courts seem to believe that cops have unconstitutional powers that we don't.

This law seems exceptionally vague. The fact that it seems to protect only a certain group of people and appears to classify speech doesn't seem like it fits within the intent of the 1st Amendment. Should be interesting.

Exactly. So Steven Tyler's privacy is protected but mine isn't? That Hawaiian statute is unconstitutional. It's being done to promote commerce. Commerce, at the expense of the 1st Amendment. There goes another fucking Amendment.

[FlaFlaFlunkie]

The more restrictions on people taking photographs and video of private citizens the better. You have no business invading someone's privacy because they are famous. If someone walks on a red carpet then snap away with your camera. If they are taking their family to the grocery store or the beach then prepare to get sued for all of your worth. Paparazzi are parasites and leeches who invade people's privacy and expose their personal affairs to get website clicks and sell tabloid magazines.

These same tabloid fucks whine and cry about bullying and cyberbullying and have this hypocritical garbage PSA campaigns about "stopping bullying" yet they have on problem getting three feet away from some kindergartener whose mom is famous and snapping away at her with a camera. It's sick. Mind your own fucking business.

I see no difference in invading celebrities personal lives and bullying them than I do with kids bullying someone in high school or adults doing it at the workplace. The tabloids take pleasure in outing people for being gay or having an affair. For spilling personal secrets just for sick pleasure. It's pathetic.

Tracy Morgan nearly loses his career over making a joke about 'fags' but the same tabloids who crucified him take tons of pleasure in outing celebrities for being gay and shame them for being closeted. It's sad. But hey...fuck these people because they are rich, right? Steven Tyler deserves no privacy at all because he's a celebrity, right?

If they want to walk on a red carpet or go on a talk show they are fair game. But their private lives off camera are no one's business.

I neither agree nor disagree with your argument. My problem, right now, before I even figure out how I feel about it, is the disparity between rich people, getting to get laws passed for them while the govt can do the same fucking thing for criminal prosecutions, and the additional problem of impeding the press.

Both the Hawaiian statute, as well as the drone/helicopter spying are wrong...but...

Hmmm. I need to noodle on it.

[SleepingWarrior]

Behind closed doors or behind a high fence is one thing but when you're on the beach or in open space you are now in public and subject to "viewing" by the public. There is no expectation of privacy when you're in plain sight.

[BrerJimmy]

Here's the picture that got him amped up:

Nice tits, grandma. You look like a pregnant orangutan.

[BrerJimmy]

The Hawaiian senate should pass a bill changing the name of "Big Ten Inch Record" to "4-and-a-Half Inches Hard".