Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Does California's Paparazzi Law Violate First Amendment or Not?
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: September 27, 2013
Key Contacts
Back
Many celebrities, athletes, and public figures are accustomed to being followed and photographed by the paparazzi, but when it comes to their children, many of these people have called for a “hands-off” rule.
Many states currently allow photographers to snap images of celebrities’ children when they’re in a public setting, but a new law in California prohibiting this activity is calling First Amendment rights into question.
California Gov. Jerry Brown enacted a new law that bars members of the paparazzi from “harassing” children of public figures. This includes speaking to or touching children of famous individuals, which may now result in fines of up to $10,000 and up to a year in prison. Parents will also be permitted to bring a civil action against violators to seek damages and attorneys’ fees.
Many celebrities – including Halle Berry and Jennifer Garner – support the legislation and recently gave testimony about the emotional trauma and fear that shouting crowds of photographers have had on their young children. In addition, they argued that photographers should be banned from taking photographs of and publishing photos of minors without parental consent.
In addition to celebrities, the law is also geared toward helping children of people who serve in high-profile positions – such as lawmakers, police officers, and judges – who also face harassment.
However, media organizations are in staunch opposition to the new entertainment law, which they argue blocks legitimate news gathering. Proponents of the law responded by that First Amendment rights are not in jeopardy, because the law seeks to govern the conduct and activity of photographers, but does not prohibit them from taking pictures.
The First Amendment has historically been used by the paparazzi to shield them from litigation, but a recent string of lawsuits filed against overly aggressive photographers could be a game-changer. Photographers have been accused of blocking celebrities from navigating the roads safely, getting too physically close to snap a photograph and prying on private property. As the number of lawsuits against the paparazzi builds, many are wondering how it will impact First Amendment rights.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Related Posts
See all
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
Author: Dan Brecher
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
Author: Ronald S. Bienstock
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
Author: Patrick T. Conlon
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Does California's Paparazzi Law Violate First Amendment or Not?
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Many celebrities, athletes, and public figures are accustomed to being followed and photographed by the paparazzi, but when it comes to their children, many of these people have called for a “hands-off” rule.
Many states currently allow photographers to snap images of celebrities’ children when they’re in a public setting, but a new law in California prohibiting this activity is calling First Amendment rights into question.
California Gov. Jerry Brown enacted a new law that bars members of the paparazzi from “harassing” children of public figures. This includes speaking to or touching children of famous individuals, which may now result in fines of up to $10,000 and up to a year in prison. Parents will also be permitted to bring a civil action against violators to seek damages and attorneys’ fees.
Many celebrities – including Halle Berry and Jennifer Garner – support the legislation and recently gave testimony about the emotional trauma and fear that shouting crowds of photographers have had on their young children. In addition, they argued that photographers should be banned from taking photographs of and publishing photos of minors without parental consent.
In addition to celebrities, the law is also geared toward helping children of people who serve in high-profile positions – such as lawmakers, police officers, and judges – who also face harassment.
However, media organizations are in staunch opposition to the new entertainment law, which they argue blocks legitimate news gathering. Proponents of the law responded by that First Amendment rights are not in jeopardy, because the law seeks to govern the conduct and activity of photographers, but does not prohibit them from taking pictures.
The First Amendment has historically been used by the paparazzi to shield them from litigation, but a recent string of lawsuits filed against overly aggressive photographers could be a game-changer. Photographers have been accused of blocking celebrities from navigating the roads safely, getting too physically close to snap a photograph and prying on private property. As the number of lawsuits against the paparazzi builds, many are wondering how it will impact First Amendment rights.