California wants to ban picture-taking of privileged adults and children

On 2013-08-15 17:08:52 -0700, RichA said:

Otherwise known as actors. Thin edge, of the leftist-totalitarian
wedge. Little by little, as new laws are constantly enacted to restrict
freedoms, Americans will feel it.

Why should anybody's kids have to be targeted by predatory photographers?
The actresses/actors might be fair game, but their kids? There is
nothing news worthy with shots of those kids going to school. There is
no need for the public to see the latest baby picture. This has nothing
to do with freedoms of photo journalists, these paparazzi are
opportunist predators.

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/08/13/564...for-calif.html



--
Regards,

Savageduck

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2013081517202660298-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2013-08-15 17:08:52 -0700, RichA said:

Otherwise known as actors. Thin edge, of the leftist-totalitarian wedge.
Little by little, as new laws are constantly enacted to restrict
freedoms, Americans will feel it.

Why should anybody's kids have to be targeted by predatory photographers?
The actresses/actors might be fair game, but their kids? There is nothing
news worthy with shots of those kids going to school. There is no need for
the public to see the latest baby picture. This has nothing to do with
freedoms of photo journalists, these paparazzi are opportunist predators.

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/08/13/564...for-calif.html


The basic problem is that some want to limit the ability of the public to
look at certain photos if they wish. It's not about photographers. It's
about giving a small minority a power of censorship over the public, where
that small minority freely choose to put themselves before the public for
very substantial gain.

On Fri, 16 Aug 2013 11:24:38 +1000, "Pelican"
wrote:



"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2013081517202660298-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2013-08-15 17:08:52 -0700, RichA said:

Otherwise known as actors. Thin edge, of the leftist-totalitarian wedge.
Little by little, as new laws are constantly enacted to restrict
freedoms, Americans will feel it.

Why should anybody's kids have to be targeted by predatory photographers?
The actresses/actors might be fair game, but their kids? There is nothing
news worthy with shots of those kids going to school. There is no need for
the public to see the latest baby picture. This has nothing to do with
freedoms of photo journalists, these paparazzi are opportunist predators.

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/08/13/564...for-calif.html


The basic problem is that some want to limit the ability of the public to
look at certain photos if they wish. It's not about photographers. It's
about giving a small minority a power of censorship over the public, where
that small minority freely choose to put themselves before the public for
very substantial gain.

It's not about the gliteratti or the stars. It's about the papparazi
hounding their kids. Everyone deserves some privacy, especially
children.

In any case censorship and limitations on what you are allowed to look
at has always existed.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , says...

In article 2013081517202660298-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

On 2013-08-15 17:08:52 -0700, RichA said:

Otherwise known as actors. Thin edge, of the leftist-totalitarian
wedge. Little by little, as new laws are constantly enacted to restrict
freedoms, Americans will feel it.

Why should anybody's kids have to be targeted by predatory photographers?
The actresses/actors might be fair game, but their kids? There is
nothing news worthy with shots of those kids going to school. There is
no need for the public to see the latest baby picture. This has nothing
to do with freedoms of photo journalists, these paparazzi are
opportunist predators.

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/08/13/564...for-calif.html



If you're a public person by choice then you have to accept that the
public has a legitimate interest in what you do and how that corresponds
to the values and other statements you have proclaimed. That goes for
actors too. Remember Eastwood, Reagan and Schwartsen*? Sometimes folks
change their careers... Stalking should be forbidden though, even per
proxy.

"Legitimate interest" is one thing. Being hounded is quite another.
Isabella Rosselini recounts having great fun as a child turning the
garden hose on the paparrazzi who were hounding her mother (for those
who don't know, Isabella is Ingrid Bergman's daughter). If they are
coming around often enough and in sufficienty quantity for a kid to
remember doing that as being a regular occurrance then they are being
pests.

Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-08-15 17:08:52 -0700, RichA said:

Otherwise known as actors. Thin edge, of the leftist-totalitarian
wedge. Little by little, as new laws are constantly enacted to restrict
freedoms, Americans will feel it.

Why should anybody's kids have to be targeted by predatory photographers?
The actresses/actors might be fair game, but their kids?

Sienna Miller:

"You know, it's really terrifying. It's terrifying not only for the
person experiencing it but for friends who are with me, family members
who are with me, for the people driving the cars.

"I would often find myself -- I was 21 -- at midnight running down a
dark street on my own with ten big men chasing me and the fact that
they had cameras in their hands meant that that was legal, but if you
take away the cameras, what have you got? You've got a pack of men
chasing a woman and obviously that's a very intimidating situation to
be in."

Andrew.

On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 14:14:22 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Sunday, August 25, 2013 8:48:11 AM UTC-4, Andrew Haley wrote:
Savageduck wrote:

On 2013-08-15 17:08:52 -0700, RichA said:



Otherwise known as actors. Thin edge, of the leftist-totalitarian

wedge. Little by little, as new laws are constantly enacted to restrict

freedoms, Americans will feel it.



Why should anybody's kids have to be targeted by predatory photographers?

The actresses/actors might be fair game, but their kids?



Sienna Miller:



"You know, it's really terrifying. It's terrifying not only for the

person experiencing it but for friends who are with me, family members

who are with me, for the people driving the cars.



"I would often find myself -- I was 21 -- at midnight running down a

dark street on my own with ten big men chasing me and the fact that

they had cameras in their hands meant that that was legal, but if you

take away the cameras, what have you got? You've got a pack of men

chasing a woman and obviously that's a very intimidating situation to

be in."



Andrew.

The stupidest observation any diva could make, I'd say. It's like saying a doctor probed you, but if he wasn't a doctor, it wouldn't be ok. NO KIDDING!

She didn't say 'OK'. She said 'legal' and that's an entirely different
matter.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens