Anti-Paparazzi Legislation

[Surote]

Do you believe that there should be restrictions or laws on the Paparazzi

I do cause the paparazzi does too much shit to celebrities. I don't care if it's againist the constitution It has to be done for there protection and sanity.

Anti-Paparazzi Legislation

Redefining Privacy? Anti-Paparazzi Legislation and Freedom of the Press

[Conservative Ad Droid]

Bah, a .44 works well for them

[Galloism]

Do you believe that there should be restrictions or laws on the Paparazzi

I do cause the paparazzi does too much shit to celebrities I don't care if it's againist the constitution It has to be done for there protection and sanity.

Anti-Paparazzi Legislation

Redefining Privacy? Anti-Paparazzi Legislation and Freedom of the Press

That portion of that run-on sentence is frightening.

Do people really think this way?

[DrunkenDove]

Do you believe that there should be restrictions or laws on the Paparazzi

I do cause the paparazzi does too much shit to celebrities I don't care if it's againist the constitution It has to be done for there protection and sanity.

Anti-Paparazzi Legislation

Redefining Privacy? Anti-Paparazzi Legislation and Freedom of the Press

That portion of that run-on sentence is frightening.

Do people really think this way?

Screw the constitution, Britney is hurting!

[Mikertaz Kein]

LEAVE PAPARAZZI ALONE!!!

Wait...huh?

[Kashindahar]

I wasn't aware that laws protecting the privacy of the individual were against the constitution.

[Buffett and Colbert]

I find freedom of the press to be a relatively important thing.

[Antilon]

It's certainly not unreasonable, but cry "1st Amendment" and let slip the dogs of war gossip.\

Edited for correctness.

[Conservative Ad Droid]

I find freedom of the press to be a relatively important thing.

Yes, after all;

CAMERAS NOT GUNS!!!!!

[Treznor]

I find freedom of the press to be a relatively important thing.

There's something to be said for encouraging moderation when the press is likely to engage you in a high speed chase to get their "story." As Justice Holmes famously put it, "your freedom to move your fist is limited by the proximity of my face."

[Takaram]

I find freedom of the press to be a relatively important thing.

I agree, but calling paparazzi following around John and Kate and photographing their every move press is a bit of a stretch in my mind.

[Buffett and Colbert]

I find freedom of the press to be a relatively important thing.

There's something to be said for encouraging moderation when the press is likely to engage you in a high speed chase to get their "story." As Justice Holmes famously put it, "your freedom to move your fist is limited by the proximity of my face."

This is unbelievably true. But it isn't the government's place to restrict what the press can and cannot publish. It leads to a bunch of trouble...

[Treznor]

I find freedom of the press to be a relatively important thing.

There's something to be said for encouraging moderation when the press is likely to engage you in a high speed chase to get their "story." As Justice Holmes famously put it, "your freedom to move your fist is limited by the proximity of my face."

This is unbelievably true. But it isn't the government's place to restrict what the press can and cannot publish. It leads to a bunch of trouble...

True, but it is the government's place to restrict how the press goes about getting its stories, particularly if the press demonstrates itself unwilling to regulate itself. That's the big problem with the paparazzi. It's not what they publish, but how they gather their information.

[Buffett and Colbert]

I find freedom of the press to be a relatively important thing.

There's something to be said for encouraging moderation when the press is likely to engage you in a high speed chase to get their "story." As Justice Holmes famously put it, "your freedom to move your fist is limited by the proximity of my face."

This is unbelievably true. But it isn't the government's place to restrict what the press can and cannot publish. It leads to a bunch of trouble...

True, but it is the government's place to restrict how the press goes about getting its stories, particularly if the press demonstrates itself unwilling to regulate itself. That's the big problem with the paparazzi. It's not what they publish, but how they gather their information.

In which case that doesn't fall under the scope of "freedom of the press." Restraining orders and lawsuits come in handy in these situations.

[Conservative Ad Droid]

I find freedom of the press to be a relatively important thing.

There's something to be said for encouraging moderation when the press is likely to engage you in a high speed chase to get their "story." As Justice Holmes famously put it, "your freedom to move your fist is limited by the proximity of my face."

This is unbelievably true. But it isn't the government's place to restrict what the press can and cannot publish. It leads to a bunch of trouble...

True, but it is the government's place to restrict how the press goes about getting its stories, particularly if the press demonstrates itself unwilling to regulate itself. That's the big problem with the paparazzi. It's not what they publish, but how they gather their information.

In which case that doesn't fall under the scope of "freedom of the press." Restraining orders and lawsuits come in handy in these situations.

And tanks.... .44s........ missiles, er *cough* ehem, I mean , other legal methods

[New Ziedrich]

The paparazzi could always use a good asskicking.

[Gauthier]

Evolution is taking a nap here. There needs to be papparazzi that stalk other papparazzi for a living.

[Soratsin]

Evolution is taking a nap here. There needs to be papparazzi that stalk other papparazzi for a living.

Won't that rip a whole in reality or someshit?

[Katganistan]

I don't care if it's againist the constitution

Fortunately, the Supreme Court does care about its constitutionality, and so do many, many educated Americans.

The rest of the world, not so much.

[Kashindahar]

I don't care if it's againist the constitution

Fortunately, the Supreme Court does care about its constitutionality, and so do many, many educated Americans.

The rest of the world, not so much.

Yeah, but is it against the constitution? A law which had at its core the banning of the basically stalkerish behaviour patterns that papparazzi get up to, except dressed up pretty-like so that it only screws the papparazzi, wouldn't be against the first amendment; it wouldn't be restricting the freedom of the press to print what they want, it would be stopping them from getting it in the first place.