Legislation to Control Paparazzi

Your Feb. 19 editorial, “How Not to Control Paparazzi,” describes the Personal Privacy Protection Act as unnecessary and unconstitutional. You’re wrong on both counts. Although other laws certainly can be used when the so-called stalkarazzi engage in illegal conduct, this would be the first statute specifically directed at controlling harassment and trespass by them.

Unfortunately, the problems associated with the stalkarazzi are not limited to California; these predatory journalists often cross state lines to gain pictures and recordings. Laws vary from state to state. That’s why we need a uniform national standard to control abusive, illegal behavior.

Traditional trespass laws have not kept pace with the revolutions in image and sound-capturing devices. This legislation would protect us from the high-powered lenses and parabolic microphones that make it possible for the stalkarazzi to peer into our living rooms without stepping foot on our property.

Just what do you find unconstitutional about this legislation? It contains no prohibitions against speech. It does not prevent a news outlet from printing any image or article, even if it was obtained in violation of the act. Nor does it hold a news outlet liable for the act of its employees. In fact, the Personal Privacy Protection Act was developed in consultation with leading constitutional scholars, like USC’s Erwin Chemerinsky, to avoid any infringement on our cherished 1st Amendment liberties.

By protecting the privacy of the most visible Americans, we ensure the privacy rights of every American--famous or not.

RICHARD MASUR

President, Screen Actors Guild

Los Angeles