California Senate Bill 606: No more photographing children W/O written permission

[noisycheese]

At the risk of starting a bloodbath, I am going to post the following article which was posted @ Peta Pixel. If passed and signed into law, California Senate Bill 606 will outlaw photographing children without the prior written consent of the parents or guardians.

Please cast your vote(s) for whichever option(s) in this multiple choice poll most closely matches your worldview on California Senate Bill 606.

And please try to be nice [AKA civil] to your fellow forum members in the discussions that will inevitably ensue. 😉

Hollywood Actresses Speak Out In Favor of Anti-Paparazzi Child Protection Law

David Becker · Aug 14, 2013


Actresses Halle Berry and Jennifer Garner testified before the California Legislature on Tuesday in support of an anti-paparazzi bill that would ban taking pictures of children without their parents’ written consent.

According to NBC, both actresses said their children had been repeatedly traumatized by herds of photographers looking for gossip fodder:

“I don’t want a gang of shouting, arguing, lawbreaking photographers who camp out everywhere we are all day, every day, to continue traumatizing my kids,” testified Garner, who has three children with husband and actor Ben Affleck. “They have a bounty on their heads every day.”

According to the Sacramento Bee, Berry said she has considered moving to France to protect her 5-year-old daughter, Nahla, from the press.

“They are allowed to be so close to her that they can shout obscenities to me and ask her questions that are inappropriate for a 5-year-old to have to answer,” testified Berry, explaining that her daughter is afraid to go to preschool because of the paparazzi horde.

California Senate Bill 606 would expand the state’s definition of “harassment” to include photographing, following or lying in wait for a child without the written consent of a parent or guardian — provided such behavior “seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the child or ward, and … serves no legitimate purpose.”

The bill, which passed the state Senate unanimously and is now headed for a vote in the Assembly, threatens non-abiding paparazzi with fines of up to $30,000 and a year in prison.

Representatives for the Motion Picture Association of America, the California Newspaper Publishers Association and other groups have opposed the bill, saying it could hinder news-gathering and other legitimate activities.

Link: http://petapixel.com/2013/08/14/pap...PetaPixel+(PetaPixel)&utm_content=Yahoo!+Mail

 

[35mmdelux]

If passed and signed into law, California Senate Bill 606 will outlaw photographing children without the prior written consent of the parents or guardians.

I'm good with this in principle to protect children; however the law needs to better vetted to avoid a blanket censure and violation of 1st Amendment rights.

 

[daveleo]

Fascinating. In NYC you can secretly photograph anyone even inside their
homes (through windows).
In California you can't even photograph children out on the street.
Must be different countries, or maybe live under different Constitutions.
Hey, wait . . . did California ever actually sign the Constitution ? 😀

 

[f16sunshine]

If passed next you will not be allowed to look at children without permission.
Know why? Because this sort of stupidity knows no end and is never satisfied.
The more something is forbiden the worse things become for those that these types of laws are intended to protect.
It is a fools folly.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

It's not the fault of the politicians. It's the people of the United States of America. If the voting constituency lets the politicians run over their rights, then the constituency has been complicit through non-action.
We still have the power, as voters, to say what goes in this country.

Phil Forrest

 

[noisycheese]

If passed next you will not be allowed to look at children without permission.
Know why? Because this sort of stupidity knows no end and is never satisfied.
The more something is forbiden the worse things become for those that these types of laws are intended to protect.
It is a fools folly.

What he said. And what William Pitt the younger said:

Necessity is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.

 

[back alley]

soon, all the celebrities with kids will move to california...no more paparazzi...

 

[MIkhail]

If passed and signed into law, California Senate Bill 606 will outlaw photographing children without the prior written consent of the parents or guardians.

I'm good with this in principle to protect children; however the law needs to better vetted to avoid a blanket censure and violation of 1st Amendment rights.

What are you protecting children from, I am just curious?
Let's say I spotted a child in a park and viciously took picture of him.
What is next? What is that dangerous to this child things that one CAN do with this photograph?
God damn ridiculous...

 

[rscheffler]

Maybe if people would stop reading the gossip publications the market for this kind of celebrity photography would diminish?

While the actions of some photographers, as cited in the testimony, are questionable, they're competing in a market demanding such images, thanks to the public's lust for such details. And to a degree, the celebrities need this market to exist. Just that it's difficult for them to control how far reaching the consequences of people's desires to know the intimacies of their lives will be. A price of fame?

While the proposal includes definitions as to what defines 'harassment' you know it will be twisted and abused. Some will misinterpret it to mean any and all photography of children without permission is banned. Definitely a bad idea to leave it up to law enforcement to determine what legitimate purposes are.

 

[YYV_146]

Why don't just pass a law banning the use of photo of children w/o permission for commercial applications of any kind?

This is about as stupid as banning motorcycles because they tend to run people over.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

It's not the fault of the politicians. It's the people of the United States of America. If the voting constituency lets the politicians run over their rights, then the constituency has been complicit through non-action.
We still have the power, as voters, to say what goes in this country.

Phil Forrest

Its not just that people let politicians get away with it; often the people DEMAND that their elected officials do so!

 

[randolph45]

Still waiting

Still waiting

Fascinating. In NYC you can secretly photograph anyone even inside their
homes (through windows).
In California you can't even photograph children out on the street.
Must be different countries, or maybe live under different Constitutions.
Hey, wait . . . did California ever actually sign the Constitution ? 😀

The Pony Express hasn't delivered our copy of the Constitution yet🙂

 

[daveleo]

Its not just that people let politicians get away with it; often the people DEMAND that their elected officials do so!

This is true. A lot of people are going to think this is a great law.

We have to keep in mind that most people are incredibly stupid.
I am not being mean to say that. It's merely a fact that I (we) have to live with.

EDIT: not picking on our Californian buddies. Here in Massachusetts we have some of the most educated and well-informed stupid people in the country 😀😀

 

[randolph45]

Grandpa Arrested

Grandpa Arrested

Grandpa will be arrested for taking pictures of his Grand-kids because his Son or Daughter didn't give permission first🙄

 

[troym]

Don't rely on news articles to give complete and accurate descriptions of legal issues. Whether or not the proposal is a good idea, you should read the bill yourself. Here is the key definition:

"Harasses” means knowing and willful conduct directed at a specific child or ward that seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the child or ward, and that serves no legitimate purpose, including, but not limited to, that conduct occurring during the course of any actual or attempted recording of the child’s or ward’s image or voice, or both, without the written consent of the parent or legal guardian of the child or ward, by following the child’s or ward’s activities or by lying in wait. The conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable child to suffer substantial emotional distress, and actually cause the victim to suffer substantial emotional distress.

 

[Frontman]

Don't rely on news articles to give complete and accurate descriptions of legal issues. Whether or not the proposal is a good idea, you should read the bill yourself. Here is the key definition:
Quote:

"Harasses” means knowing and willful conduct directed at a specific child or ward that seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the child or ward, and that serves no legitimate purpose, including, but not limited to, that conduct occurring during the course of any actual or attempted recording of the child’s or ward’s image or voice, or both, without the written consent of the parent or legal guardian of the child or ward, by following the child’s or ward’s activities or by lying in wait. The conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable child to suffer substantial emotional distress, and actually cause the victim to suffer substantial emotional distress."

The problem is that there is no specific definition for "seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes" nor is the term "no legitimate purpose" very specific. And exactly how does one measure "substantial emotional distress"? Children suffer "substantial emotional distress" if the ice cream truck fails to stop when they wave; should the ice cream man be charged for causing a child emotional distress if he fails to stop? I suffered substantial emotional distress when I was a child whenever Santa didn't bring the gift I wanted, should my parents have been charged with a crime?

It seems we are becoming a nation of weak and silly fools.

 

[charjohncarter]

I've complied. I had the children move out of the frame so I could legally take this picture in Long Beach:

 

[Keith]

While I accept that children are a very tricky area for photographers this is crazy.

What a strange society we're becoming ... we over think everything!

 

[clayne]

Not quite sure how they're going to have a state law trump a federal level constitutional amendment without challenge. But this is just the beginning (it ain't about the kids, folks).

 

[Jamie Pillers]

Celebrities should not be allowed in public. They cause more damage to our culture than just about anyone else I can think of. Celebrities are more than willing to let public adoration pump up their egos and pay checks. So I say they d**n well deserve the papparazi. Oops... sorry... late night... rant shields are down!