February 12, 2008

‘Britney Law’ targets the paparazzi

Posted: 11:00 AM ET

NEW YORK – The paparazzi covering the spectacle that is Britney Spears in Los Angeles are now the target of a proposed new law. The measure introduced by Los Angeles City Councilman Dennis Zine calls for a personal safety zone around individuals targeted by the media.


Britney Spears is swarmed by media.

The so-called "Britney Law" is said to be aimed at protecting celebrities, as well as pedestrians and drivers, who may be put in danger by a horde of photographers. It comes in the wake of Spears' recent trip to a psychiatric hospital in which police enlisted several vehicles and a helicopter to escort her ambulance and shield her from a crowd of photographers. It ended up costing taxpayers some $25,000.

While supported by the Screen Actor's Guild, many in the press including The Greater Los Angeles Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists are concerned about their First Amendment rights and believe it could lead to abuses involving legitimate access to newsmakers.

Police Chief William J. Bratton believes the laws already on the books are enough. California has had an "anti-stalkerazzi" law since 1998 that allows celebrities to sue anyone who invades their privacy. And two years ago the state created a law that imposed increased liability penalties on photographers who impede celebrities or are responsible for car accidents.

While it's highly unlikely many will shed tears for the fate of the paparazzi, who along with magazine publishers and lawyers are raking in millions on the Britney story, more debate is necessary as to whether this proposed measure is necessary.

Bob Regan, In Session senior executive producer

Filed under: First Amendment

Share this on:
Erica   February 12th, 2008 11:15 am ET

Its about time.!!!! No wonder she has gone crazy, I would go crazy to if I had 100 paparazzi following me........... Something has to be done or people are going to get hurt or even killed.

carol mac   February 12th, 2008 11:19 am ET

This law is a GREAT idea. Even famous people deserve a ring of space aound them. The photographers have such powerful lenses they do not need to be right in the face of a famous person to get a photo. I think that photographers need to back off and do their job from a safe and respectful distance. I hope the legislators pass this one through.

AKKanga   February 12th, 2008 11:20 am ET

The paparazzi have violated personal space, caused so much fear and the list goes on........ Paparazzi need to look how much damage they have caused. I feel sorry for the celebrities.

Mike   February 12th, 2008 11:21 am ET

Of course this law is necessary. Do we really think we can leave it to the paparazzi to voluntarily show some restraint? We all like a little gossip to a degree, but recent event show us that this has gotten past the point of control and I think the law can do nothing but a little good. I certainly won't be losing any sleep over a dispersed crowd of paparazzi.

Roni   February 12th, 2008 11:22 am ET

The solution to the papparazzi problem is to make photographs of these celebs worthless. Laws should be in place- and the whole hord of photographers should be hauled in to jail and fined every time they get within 25 feet of Britney Spears, or her car, or her house. These papparazi do not care about anyone's rights or safety. They are vultures- I think people should be allowed to shoot to kill.

Beth M, Baltimore   February 12th, 2008 11:30 am ET

Too bad we can't make the photographers and their companies pay for the $25,000 escort tab to the hospital!

philip w   February 12th, 2008 11:31 am ET

Fame works 2 ways. your "celeb" is only as big as your exposure, and your exposure is only as big as your "celeb" , i think its necessary to also treat a person, as a person, and personal space as thus. In this day an age people buy into paris hilton and britney more than they do the politics in their own country.

RBG   February 12th, 2008 11:34 am ET

I believe the media is 100% to blame for everything going on with Britney. Everyone has problems, but only hers are under a microscope and blown up for the whole world to "ooo" and "ahhh" about. Sure, it was her choice to be in the public eye, but that doesn't mean the media should be allowed to ruin her life–and that's exactly what they have done. There is no one else to blame. Problems she never had actually turned into legit's like when someone tells you " look like you aren't feeling well today...are you sick?"....Sometimes you will subconsciously start to feel ill.

The media shoves Britney news down our throats, but we also jump to buy the latest magazine with her on the cover. Consumers need to do their part by refusing to buy these magazines that exploit Britney, so that the media will back off and see that's not what we want.

Kim   February 12th, 2008 11:35 am ET

I say "pass this law" These people are a danger to the celebrities and other people around them. They are relentless and need to be stopped.

Alicia Saracino   February 12th, 2008 11:49 am ET

This law should have gone into effect a long time ago. Didnt we learn anything from Princess Diana's death. The Paparrazi are scum, they are no legitimate news photographers and should not be allowed to wreck havoc in people's lives or put anyones life in danger just so they can make a buck.

Tim   February 12th, 2008 11:49 am ET

The paparazzi will stop when we stop payting attention. Our appitite for celebrity has become voracious, and in turn, the paparazzi has accordingly responded. The law is a good idea because the paparazzi are smarmy at best and should have restrictions but all in all...Britney, or any other celebrity hanging out at a burger joint, is really just someone else hanging out at a burger joint. If we look hard enough, and pay enough attention, we may find that even our own families are just as interesting.

Michael   February 12th, 2008 11:49 am ET

Anyone else angry that the LAPD used 25000 taxpayers dollars to escort her?? Anyone? Outrage? "Britney Law"!!!!! Please tell me that is a tentative title!!!! What about the "Diana Law", seems for fitting seeing as how she actually did die.

Ed   February 12th, 2008 11:50 am ET

I agree but it goes far beyond Britney Spears. It's time to put some controls on the paparazzi. There have been several cases of their actions either directly or indirectly resulting in injuries. If an ordinary person was "attacked" in the same manner they approach celebrities, the majority of individuals would react violently, so why does society allow it and expect celebrities to sit back and accept that level of violence or behavior. Society needs to step forward and declare this type of "close" behavior as unacceptable.

Danny Caffey   February 12th, 2008 11:54 am ET

Is it possible that I hate paparazzi more than I hate lawyers? And we bash someone like Madonna for moving to Europe.....

Kristy   February 12th, 2008 11:55 am ET

For the longest time, I assumed that it was illegal for these people to be stalking celebs like Britney or Lindsay in the fashion they do, and I thought we should fine them for doing so. However, apparently celebrities are considered "news," so photographing Britney buying a pack of cigarettes is technically legal because journalists have a right to "inform the public."

I see no constriction on freedoms of press or speech through this bill. Though the stalkerazzi are allowed to photograph without the subject's consent, there still should be some illegalities if a person can't even maneuver through his or her daily routines. People need their space; that's why Britney, Lindsay, and Paris keep driving over paparazzi's feet. If they're desperate, photographers can always use the "zoom" function on their cameras.

Lauren M   February 12th, 2008 11:57 am ET

Last time I checked there is this thing you can buy in camera stores called a zoom lens. They let you stand far away from something and make it look like its close up. I know it sounds crazy but it just might work. The paparazzi should look into these before one of them gets shot by a celeb gone nuts. Its bound to happen so I maybe the new law might be a good idea, yes?

Candace   February 12th, 2008 11:58 am ET

This has been a long time coming! As for the rights of the journalists, let's not forget the rights of the individual - public figure or no. How about these public figures earning a percentage of the money these vultures make off of them???

Michael   February 12th, 2008 11:59 am ET

by all means, Pass the law. But for the love of everything good in this country, Do not name it "Britney Law"

Dave   February 12th, 2008 12:00 pm ET

Why do people care so much about celebs anyway. What's so special about them, seriously, just because you see them on T.V., our society makes them out to be magical beings greater than everyone else – I say – big deal!!! Who cares about Britneys personal life. Leave her alone and stop obsessing over nothing.

Bob   February 12th, 2008 12:03 pm ET

It's the people that have no life, those who buy the tabloids and watch the TV coverage that support this kind of activity.

If these losers stop patronizing the tabloids and TV, the money these guys make dries up. They go away. Problem solved.

Mick   February 12th, 2008 12:04 pm ET

Paparazzis get away with murder and there's nothing anyone can do to stop them.

When a celeb tries to leave in a car, they place themselves in front of the vehicles so the celeb must either mow them down–and face manslaughter charges–or wait until they're done (which may take hours).

Granted, they're celebs and lack of privacy is the price they pay for fame. But to a point. Because they shouldn't be impeded, manhandled, crowded or abused as they are now.

There ought to be a law ordering paparazzis to stay at least 25 feet away from their subject and any rolled over by a car when preventing its free movement should be fined.

WIGATOR   February 12th, 2008 12:05 pm ET

I am a member of the media and this will not cause ANY problems with the laws we currently work under. We DON'T follow people/stories at high rates of speed through crowded city streets.

This law should have been in place years ago. It's caused too many accidents and highly publicised deaths including Princess Diana. Yes, the driver was drunk, but he probably wouldn't have been driving so fast to get away from the "insects" – that are the paparazzii.

Also, please do not call the Paparazzi, "Photographers". Photographers, are artists... Paparazzi are insects that feed on the slime of other people's misery.

kim   February 12th, 2008 12:05 pm ET

If the paparazzi disregard the current laws what will stop them from disregarding the new one. It may even increase the so called worth of the photo's because there will be less out there. With so much money to be made I think the paparazzi have already determined that the risk is worth it. If we throw them in jail rather than fine them it still equates to more cost to the taxpayers
I can't agree that it's entirely their fault....If Brittany stopped acting the way she does there would be less to cover.

Bill B, Toledo OH   February 12th, 2008 12:06 pm ET

What took so long? It's always bothered me that today's entertainers/athletes that are lucky enough (or unlucky) to be famous have most of their "freedom" rights – that this country stands for – taken away. The papparazi are like vultures looking to get a quick meal – there needs to be laws put in place for everyone's safety and strict penalties if they don't comply!

jay   February 12th, 2008 12:06 pm ET

This law is long over due. I couldn't imagine hundreds of people blocking my car from leaving. I probably would have assaulted one of them myself.
I mean no man has the right to invade your personal space.
I rather them hound these politician, lets get the truth from them.

Shannon   February 12th, 2008 1:09 pm ET

Paps put everyone in danger. Your first amendment rights do not allow you to violate other people's rights or to put them in needless danger. Media is the problem, and this law should help if passed and enforced. I agree that it's past due and that thislaw should have been on the books long ago. Shame on the media for even making this an issue. They have proven they do not restrain themselves and all that matters to them is the all mighty dollar.

Joe Black   February 12th, 2008 1:29 pm ET

Of all the people to name a law after. She eats this kind of stuff up. $25.000 I think she can pay for that. If she keeps acting like that its going to cost a lot more.

Carol   February 12th, 2008 1:32 pm ET

I would like to see this new proposed law passed, but don't fine the paparazzi nor make it a misdeanor. I think the charge should be a felony of "stalking"!

Leha   February 12th, 2008 1:33 pm ET

Wait! We are all forgetting! Britney calls the media and tells them where she is! Britney is addicted to the media! Her dad may be in charge now, but Britney still has to make public stops in public spots! She is bringing this upon herself!

And the public, they want the pics and media coverage. It will only stop if the public stops wanting it!

Roy M   February 12th, 2008 1:36 pm ET

Censorship at its finest

MG   February 12th, 2008 1:47 pm ET

If she doesn't want the paparazzi to follow her around, why does she live in Hollywood?

kel   February 12th, 2008 1:48 pm ET

I am completely against this law. When people become celebrities, they have to understand that from that point on they will have no personal life and everything they do will be scrutinized and publicized. If they didn't want their life to be public, they should have second guessed their career choices. In the movies, some actors aren't very discrete about showing off their body, but the second a paparazzi snaps a photo of a "wardrobe malfunction" all of a sudden its an invasion of personal space. Give me a break.
And if this does pass, I agree with Michael, do NOT name it the "Britney Law."

Nicole   February 12th, 2008 1:48 pm ET

Or the public could just stop buying/watching celebrity mags/shows and then we wouldn't even need a law because the pictures/videos would be worthless.

hilary   February 12th, 2008 1:50 pm ET

Please pass this law...the papparazi is totally out of control. I think i'd go crazy too if every move i made was front page news. this has gone on for way too long.

FRANCINE   February 12th, 2008 1:53 pm ET


tvguyjohn   February 12th, 2008 1:56 pm ET

What happened to personal responsibility? Everyone on this board is blaming the paparazzi – and NOT the consumers.

I am a journalist, and while I hate the paparazzi, there are VERY SERIOUS legal issues with limiting someone's ability to take pictures in public places.

In short – Government Involvement = BAD. Turning off the TV and boycotting magazines = GOOD.

It's the idiotic public that fuels the engine. Start writing magazines and letting them know that every issue with something about Britney is an issue you won't purchase. Every TV episode with her is one you won't watch.

But wait. That requires work.

And we're too lazy.

Better let the government solve our problems. They seem really good at doing it.

jonny g   February 12th, 2008 2:18 pm ET

Reading the comments is quite depressing as so few Americans seem to get it. The paparazzi do it to sell magazines which the American public buys, if there is no demand for their services they will go away.

Wake up America – take responsibility for your actions!! Don't blame a group for providing services you buy at the grocery check out line......

Carole Clarke   February 12th, 2008 2:18 pm ET

Since the paparrazi refuse to control themselves this "Britney Law" should be passed to control them. Princess Diana was not an American so the law will not be named after her.

Conversely, when celebrities and their agents slyly contact the media behind the scenes to get publicity for their "stars" during private moments in public, that too should be revealed. The celebrities can't have it both ways. If legitimate photographers happen across a celebrity who is driving or out with their family or keeping appointments, a courteous request for a photo can be made and if refused, accepted. There are alot of crazies out there so a celebrity may have good reason to keep their spouse and children's face out of the media. The Golden Rule applies.

Johnny D'Ville   February 12th, 2008 2:25 pm ET

One Word: Diana

cheryl   February 12th, 2008 2:51 pm ET

That law is a great idea. These photographers have the ability to photograph from a distance, make them use it. There should be a 50 foot buffer zone. They probably would get better pictures not the ones where you just see a face and a million photographers milling around. I bet though, it will only go into effect when a person other than a celebrity gets killed

Kevin P.   February 12th, 2008 2:55 pm ET

Thank goodness for the paparazzi and Britney Spears. Without them, I might have to click on links to actual news like the war in Iraq or something, gawd!

Erika   February 12th, 2008 2:57 pm ET

I have zero sympathy for celebrities. They are paid astronomical amounts to entertain and have voluntarily given up their private lives as a result.

nancy   February 12th, 2008 3:04 pm ET

Erica, a high profile personality, a Princess was killed, alledgedly due to an abundance of photographers giving chase.

Southern Mom   February 12th, 2008 3:04 pm ET

It's about time. They are always talking about the way she drives, but who can drive or see with flashbulbs going off in your face everytime you go outside.

She can't even go to the bathroom without someone wanting to take a picture of it.

This is the sort of thing that caused the death of Diana and regardless of your celebrity status, you shouldn't have to deal with it.

Kay   February 12th, 2008 3:07 pm ET

Obviously the appetite for celebrity news fuels the intrusive behavior of the paparazzi. It is like seeing an accident on the highway. Everyone looks at the wreck on the other side of the road and you curse those in front of you that slow down, but then when you get in sight, you look. Lets be honest, the laws on the books are not doing enough to protect celebrities and just as important (not more or less) the citizens.

I do not buy the magazines, but I must admit I have watched tabloid TV. Anyone denouncing the media and the losers watching/reading this stuff. You do realize that CNN is the media too, and YOU just left a comment on a media outlet, AFTER reading an article about a CELEBRITY. Every media outlet, not just the sleazy ones are reporting on this. The paparazzi in question are taking it to an intrusive, costly and dangerous level and they rightly need to be stopped. This isn't about Britney, its about freedom for anyone to come and go without their personal space and the public saftey being violated.

Thena   February 12th, 2008 3:08 pm ET

Does the "Britney Law" also require the celebrity in question to stop calling the paparazzi beforehand to alert them of her whereabouts? Does it require the celebrity to visit lower-profile shops and restaurants instead of visiting known paparazzi stake-out locations?

isthisimportant?   February 12th, 2008 3:13 pm ET


champhf   February 12th, 2008 3:20 pm ET

they follow her because she makes dumb choices but that does not mean she should not be protected.

Jim   February 12th, 2008 3:25 pm ET

I have never understood the need to be in anyone's face to take a picture, celebrity or not. With the use of telephoto lenses, paparazzi are not likely to invade anybody's space , and further, they get a better picture– no elbows/body parts of other photogs. It is a shame that a celebrtity can't walk the street w/o a lense in their face.

Harvey Levin   February 12th, 2008 3:50 pm ET

Great, another law for people who should already have common sense and I mean the celebrities who put themselves in that path and the morons who impede them.

Marianne   February 12th, 2008 3:54 pm ET

Why isn't Britney paying the $25,000 for the escort? As a taxpayer, I am outraged. When is the last time you got an escort to the hospital? My son's a police officer and I can't get an escort when he is flown out because he has been injured, but this little pip can get an escort. Boy, does this country have its priorities screwed up.

KAREN   February 12th, 2008 3:54 pm ET

I honestly think that Britney Spears enjoys the attention, she thrives on it.....Also I think that is BS that the tax payers had to pay for that trip, if it was a normal person we would of had to pay for it ourselves...Make her pay for it!

sick of it   February 12th, 2008 3:55 pm ET

Britney panders to the paparazzi. She has the resources to avoid the daily run ins with the paparazzi, yet there she is in the midst of them every day. Lately, it's the only way she can get the attention she so desperately needs, so that's what she does. The media perpetuates the whole scene, which is why we continue to see this crap every day. If she needs the cup o joe so badly, she could send a lackey to get that or anything else she needs; but how would she stay in the limelight that way? Certainly not with her singing and dancing skills...

Angie   February 12th, 2008 3:59 pm ET

Someone did get killed...Princess Di...

Bentlley   February 12th, 2008 4:02 pm ET

Who named the photographers such a "polite " name anyway? Let's just call them what they are....... greedy, vulturous, parasites-maggots of the photographic profession. They are guilty of assault and should be arrested in droves. She deserves decency. We protect animals and criminals in transport more carefully.

Robotman   February 12th, 2008 4:09 pm ET

I have an idea.

Get the biggest names in showbiz together and establish a 'paparazzi pool' that would pay these very same photographers a better rate to take pictures of the CEOs and their families that have been their sugar daddies for so long.

Fight fire with fire.


Chris   February 12th, 2008 4:09 pm ET

The current anti-stalkerazzi law puts the burden on the plantiff to prove their privacy has been invaded. I'd imagine that's why celebs don't even bother with this nonsense at the advice of their counsel.

Imposing a strict ring of space around a celeb is a great idea. I only hope it doesn't end up protecting legit newsmakers.

Devin DeBacker   February 12th, 2008 4:12 pm ET

There's no First Amendment problem. The Court has long held that freedoms of the press, speech, and assembly are subject to reasonable restrictions on time, place, and manner as long as the restrictions are content-neutral. Assuming the laws applied to all journalists, and not merely papparazzi, I see no conflict (whether or not you don't read a right to privacy in the Constitution).

Tere   February 12th, 2008 4:16 pm ET

To make the pictures worthless, could the celebrities become registered trademarks to whom the Paparazzi would have to pay to use their likeness? Imagine that, celebrities deciding who and which pictures get published and setting the price. I thint the Paparazzi would be less likely to be such pest to their victims and to the public.

David   February 12th, 2008 4:17 pm ET

Maybe all celebrities should move to Texas. There it's lawful to use deadly force if you feel your life is even threatened by anyone approaching you.

Vlove   February 12th, 2008 4:18 pm ET

As it was stated earlier, the celebs need the media just as much as the media needs the celebs. The paparazzi cannot be blamed completely. There are celebs that actually let the paparazzi know that they'll be at Location X at a specific time so that they can have pictures taken of them. They fuel the frenzy just as much as the paparazzi, the media, and the general public does!

Brock   February 12th, 2008 4:25 pm ET

I hope the pap scum see all these posts and see that they are the most despised of all "professions". They are the cockroaches of the human race and should be systematically squashed by the non-celeb public.

Dan   February 12th, 2008 4:25 pm ET

it is ludicrous that we are forced to come up with these laws to prevent paparazzi from messing with people's personal lives. and lets face it, the magazines and websites that pay these morons hundreds of thousands of dollars for pictures are the real villains that created this mess. its simple demand and supply: no demand for pictures = no supply. instead of keeping quiet and letting the paparazzi take the heat, the big wigs in these shallow, superficial magazines should take much of the blame. wonder how much they would enjoy having a crowd of camera-wielding men engulfing them everywhere they go.

Jay G   February 12th, 2008 4:27 pm ET

No, more debate is not necessary. I believe in a very strong First Amendment, but that has nothing to do with access to other private individuals. That's an attempt to expand constitutional rights. The media here is completely in the wrong and it's about time leashes were put on the paparazzi.

Dennis   February 12th, 2008 4:29 pm ET

You merely put the same tax on these tabloids as you do cigarettes. If people can't afford to buy the tabloids, there is no need for the papparazi. And don't call this type of law as limiting first amendment rights. Even celebrities are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Lisa   February 12th, 2008 4:29 pm ET

The First Amendment. All for it. Knowledge is power and without those people collecting the information we would never learn a thing. However, when you encroach on other people such as the instances with Miss Spears, I am appalled.

They are not only endangering her space, but the space of others. These celebrities are normal people who chose a profession that is highly in view of the world. They are normal people who are raising families, grocery shop etc...and they cannot live a normal life as they are constantly bombarded by paparazzi. Who can get the best photo and get the most dollar. It is very sad that they hounded Diana and Britany like they did. They both had enough going on and needed time to heal and find themselves again without the retards in their faces taking pictures of everything they do, or even following them in cars! Unacceptable behavior that should not be tolerated any longer.

Pass the it what you will. Atleast the citizens will remember why it was put in place.

jim   February 12th, 2008 4:29 pm ET

I think it's pretty obvious that these folks push the limits of "news gathering". However, we do live in a supply/demand economy. We are getting what we pay for-literally. If we, the media buying public refuse to a: subscribe or buy magazines like "OK", "People" etc or b: watch ETV, and clones, the word will get out fast. This stuff doesn't make money.

I also think one needs to blame the celebs themselves: since the CELEBRITY's publicists tell the mags/TV where and when the star will be. This is a symbiotic relationship that's been going on since the 1930's-though the press showed much more discretion then than now.

Helen   February 12th, 2008 4:35 pm ET

Granted things do get out of control. But when you get into the business, you already know you put yourself out there, and let's face it, people love drama, and Lord knows she has drama!!!

Tony   February 12th, 2008 4:43 pm ET

It is about time. Part of Britney's poor driving had a lot to do with all the camera flashes and trying to get away from them.

Cristine   February 12th, 2008 4:45 pm ET

Replying to "Bob":

YOU read this story, didn't you? How's YOUR life?

Janitor   February 12th, 2008 4:45 pm ET

Paparazzi aren't really all that different than drug dealers, and laws haven't helped enough on their own.

The real solution is to stop buying their work. If there's no income to be made, then they'll find something else to do. But as long as folks are buying the tabloids, and as long as the normal papers see spikes in purchasing when they run this tripe then there will be Paparazzi.

Suzanne   February 12th, 2008 5:04 pm ET

I think the need for a law like this is our fault for giving the paparazzi reason to be so agressive. If we didn't provide them with a market for this garbage, there would be no need to create a public nussiance every time someone like Brittney steps foot outside.

Gloria   February 12th, 2008 5:05 pm ET

I agree with ALL of you! Great comments.

Beakt   February 12th, 2008 5:10 pm ET

"More debate is necessary," sounds like a code phrase for "I agree with the First Amendment argument." Malarkey, Bob. The First Amendment was designed to prevent people from being punished by government for expressing an opinion, not to paralyze government from maintaining order.

Patti   February 12th, 2008 5:31 pm ET

The last couple of weeks have been wonderful without Britney in the news. Lets all leave her alone to heal and find herself. Putting her in the news only adds fuel to the fire. The news is just as bad as the paparazzi. STOP putting her life in the news.

dianne   February 12th, 2008 5:32 pm ET

I think you are missing the point. Passing the law does not make sense, there are already laws in place that should take care of this problem and like was mentioned in the story, it would prevent real press from getting close to real newsworthy people. What should be done is like someone mentioned earlier, is make these photographs worthless. Make unsolicited photographs of celebrities (anyone represented by a movie studio or music label) illegal to print without written permission from their studios or themselves instead.

Caitlin   February 12th, 2008 5:38 pm ET

I happen to be a personal fan of Britney Spears, thus, I find this law to be a great idea. However, even if you don't carry compassion for celebrities, think of it this way- the Paparazzi can earn their title by simply choosing to become involved in this dangerous profession- there are no tests to be had, no permits needed, no ANYTHING. Anyone can simply decide to become one. If the Paparazzi profession was more organized, i.e. if they had to be licensed or something, then they would be required to follow a code of ethics and a code of conduct – this could include staying a certain amount of feet away or the sheer manner in which they try to get a picture. If they were to violate these codes, their license would be revoked. Without some type of structure to this "profession" we can and do have potentially dangerous people shooting a camera and swarming a person to a horrible extent. Something needs to be done.

Khepura   February 12th, 2008 5:57 pm ET

I agree! The photographers go way to far...and it should be considered criminal. I believe in Freedom of the Press but I also believe in an individuals right to go to the store or go shopping or have a nervous breakdown in relative privacy. The magazines and newspapers are worried about their constitutional rights to Freedom of speach and the press. Has anybody stopped and thought about an individual's rights as well?

Barbara Boelk   February 13th, 2008 12:24 pm ET

If you notice, there are already two laws on the books that are well known to celebs. Ms. Spears and many other celebs put themselves in situations by working in conjunction with the paparazzi to make money. I have little sympathy for a woman who continually puts herself, her children and her family in harm's way for attention. It's sad, yes, but I have little pity.

Jacquie Rogers   March 13th, 2008 8:30 pm ET

What happened to Vinnie Politan? I noticed that Lisa Bloom is anchoring "Lisa Bloom: Open Court:" solo. Is this a permanent change?

Thank you.

eskey mair   August 4th, 2008 11:04 pm ET

I'd vote for the law which would restrict the photographers and other media to a much greater degree from invading people's personal space. Those who don't have sympathy, you just don't understand how rude and aggressive those guys are, they are a real mob, who would knock you down and step all over you just to make their dirty bucks! Yes, it's the celebrities most of the time, but it could be you and your family if it so happens that you get involved into some hot news of the day. Also, think that police won't spend 25K on escorting you, you would have to deal with that on your own! This craziness has to stop! Remember Diana, she died because of this!

subscribe RSS Icon
About this blog

 This is your online home for In Session on truTV’s up-to-the minute, comprehensive coverage of legal issues, trials and news from America’s courtrooms.  Our anchors, analysts and producers are teaming up here to give you updates on the stories that matter to you.

Be sure to tune in to In Session on truTV from 9 a.m. – 3 p.m. ET.

On Twitter
Rush vs. the Rock n' Roll Hall of Fame, in (just) under 1,200 words: #HiCanada #Rush via @JonFromHLN
Twitter icon HLNTV 4:32 pm ET October 4, 2012 RETWEET
RT @hlnmakingit: We're talking about last night's #debate and tomorrow's jobs report! Tune in to @HLNTV now
Twitter icon HLNTV 4:14 pm ET October 4, 2012 RETWEET
Now on #HLN: RT @hlnmakingit: Having fun today w our #Obama & #Romney cut-outs. Play our game 'who said that' at 4p
Twitter icon HLNTV 4:00 pm ET October 4, 2012 RETWEET
RT @DarrenKavinoky: RT @DarrenKavinoky: Getting ready to dig into the toxicology issues in the #MillionaireDUI Case. Join us at @InSession on @truTV!
Twitter icon InSession 1:36 pm ET October 4, 2012 RETWEET
Philadelphia top cop says he plans to fire officer who struck parade-goer. READ MORE:
Twitter icon InSession 1:27 pm ET October 4, 2012 RETWEET
Contact us