Senior citizen Rock Stars try to get their way again

<p><a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/steven-tyler-privacy-law-hearing-hawaii-article-1.1259155">http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/steven-tyler-privacy-law-hearing-hawaii-article-1.1259155</a> It's aggravating to me how sycophant politicians roll over for celebrities. How about working on how to generate more jobs and get people working? </p>

<p>But I don't take pictures of people when they don't want me to. </p>

<p>I think it would be wonderful to be rid of ALL the paparazzi. Everywhere. Period.</p>

<p>Even in small villages in third world countries I have the decency to seek permission to take personal photographs. It seems such a fundamental courtesy.</p>

<p>But then I'm pretty much a senior citizen.</p>

<p>I think it would be wonderful to be rid of all people who disagree with me about issues of free speech and expression. But then I'm pretty much an ironist.</p>

<p>LOL, Lex -- are you objecting to my opinion? Does that not in fact make your comment oxymoronic rather than ironic? Your premise disappears in the mind as soon as you read it: try it. It's delightfully startling!</p>

<p>I object to the egregious invasion of personal privacy -- not to free speech. A discerning intellect might differentiate the two.</p>

 

<p>"I think it would be wonderful to be rid of ALL the paparazzi. Everywhere. Period." Wouldn't want the truth getting out. </p>

<p>The problem is that individuals such as the paparazzi in question over-do their welcome, which in turn creates this type of attempt to curb the most egregious behaviour, which then creates the "thin-edge-of-the-wedge" argument. Perhaps it gets turned over in some higher court, but the notion that you can take photos like these in question is repellent to me, personally. I understand that's not necessarily in line with constitutional law, but I don't have to like it. I really would like to see some of the paparazzi in question, and the magazines that enable them lose some big dollars in a couple of court cases. It's only when it's no longer profitable that the behaviour changes.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Lex -- are you objecting to my opinion?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Certainly not. I wrote "all people" in the contemporary Constitutional sense of the term. As such, you have no individual right to an opinion, so it is not possible to object to your opinion. Just as "the people" in the 2nd Amendment does not convey any individual right to keep and bear arms, but, rather, a right reserved to a well regulated militia; it is only sensible to interpret the 1st Amendment as a collective right of "the people" - meaning, a government authorized, well regulated militia of the press. Since we are a representative republic, that naturally means we must elect or appoint officially approved photographers to the serious task of taking responsible photographs of our only form of royalty, the celebrity, so that they may enjoy the same luxury of government authorized privacy afforded to subjects of our drone strikes.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Does that not in fact make your comment oxymoronic rather than ironic?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Certainly not because, as I have proven, there is no individual right to an opinion. If by "proven" I mean, I made it up on the spot to support my right to be royally miffed that two or more celebrities are inconvenienced by publicity that didn't meet with their approval. Which I do.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Your premise disappears in the mind as soon as you read it: try it. It's delightfully startling!"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Then I have succeeded in my life's ambition to invent the Möbius Strip equivalent to logic. Actually, I didn't invent it. I merely discovered it. Actually, I didn't discover it. I merely claimed I did for purposes of delighting and startling people. I shall call it the Pleiades Effect, because it disappears when you try to read it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I object to the egregious invasion of personal privacy -- not to free speech."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Implying there is such as thing as a <a href="http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html">Constitutional right to personal privacy</a>. It is as real as your concept of free speech - meaning, your right to an officially sanctioned interpretation of free speech.</p>

<p>Clearly this sort of widespread problem affecting two or more celebrity royals couldn't possibly be resolved by existing laws regarding trespassing and harassment that apply to us commoners. Our celebrities deserve a special class of law, unsullied by application to lesser people, disgraced former CEOs and Kathy Griffin.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"A discerning intellect might differentiate the two."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And "might" is right.</p>

<p>On a somewhat lighter note but still apropos:</p>

<p><a href="http://comics.washingtonpost.com/11_comics_the-other-coast.html">http://comics.washingtonpost.com/11_comics_the-other-coast.html</a></p>

<p>What else can two silly old geezers who might have issues remembering their musical careers do to attract attention? With so much else to see in Hawaii, who'd want pix of Tyler looking like Ramesses II's mummy wearing Beyonce's wig?</p>

<p>FWIW, princess Diana's death should more be blamed on her drunk chauffeur, than on paparazzi's.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>FWIW, princess Diana's death should more be blamed on her drunk chauffeur, than on paparazzi's.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've never bought into that argument, Steve. Take away the crazed paparazzi's and there is no accident, I believe. I go back to my "revulsion" comment about the parasitic behaviour, and I wish that it wasn't profitable.</p>

<p>"<em>FWIW, princess Diana's death should more be blamed on her drunk chauffeur, than on paparazzi's</em>."</p>

 

Actually if the Paparazzi were not chasing them, they would not have been an accident. In my opinion Steve why don't you place yourself, your spouse and your kids in his position and tell me how you like it. See you in the copy of The Enquirer...

<p>If only the law had gone far enough to prevent any pictures of ancient rock stars from ever appearing in print again.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"...parasitic behaviour..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's debatable whether the relationship between celebrities and paparazzi is parasitic, symbiotic or, more likely, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cymothoa_exigua">a little of both</a>.</p>

<p>Celebrity by its very nature cannot exist without media coverage. Celebrities and publicists would prefer to manage all media coverage (consider the recent request by Beyonce's publicist that entertainment publications withdraw photos they consider unflattering). In exchange for their cooperation celebrity photographers are tipped in advance to photo ops, including those staged "candid sightings" of celebs frolicking on the beach in their newly buff bodies, just in time for said celeb's latest album/movie release.</p>

<p>That's why there's a blurry line between celebrity photographers and paparazzi. Celebrity photographers are like wildlife photographers who photograph "wildlife" in zoos, then Photoshop out the bars and distractions to give the illusion that they've photographed something in the wild.</p>

<p>Paparazzi disdain zoos and managed safari tours. They want to photograph their quarry in the wild. They document the courting, nesting and mating rituals of a perpetually endangered species: the non-productive celebrity, the celebrity who is famous for being famous rather than for producing any creative output, whose fame is fleeting and exists only so long as they have our attention. Take the Kardashians. Please. Without the paparazzi, how else would a family of moderately attractive but otherwise unremarkable specimens attain profitable celebrity through the sheer virtue of the sizes and shapes of their buttocks and their mating rituals?</p>

<p>Other than exporting war, the U.S. has almost no industry other than celebrity. Entire media empires and untold thousands of employees depend directly on the industry of celebrity. Indirectly, the celebrity industry provides tens of thousands of jobs related to sponsors of celebrity media TV programs, tabloids and websites.</p>

<p>It's about the jobs. Surely you can't be against that.</p>

<p>It is unfortunate that Steven Tyler can no longer buff up or plasticize his body enough to appear as he'd wish for the celebrity wildlife photographers who for inexplicable reasons are still interested in a preening fellow who's mostly known for his mating songs about seducing females of the species in elevators and impregnating them while not getting caught. But these photographs will help protect an endangered species - the aging, irrelevant rock star - whose plight might otherwise go unnoticed, the result of which would be a refocusing of attention on pretty blonde pop-country singers and their warbling laments about their latest break-ups with other celebrities.<br>

<br>

However, there is an opportunity here for Hawaii to create a new industry, centered around a wildlife sanctuary for celebrities who cannot seem to adequately manage their publicity in the real world. While I wouldn't want to see any new federal laws applying to the contiguous 48 states, believe we can make an exception for Hawaii if they wish to apply for status as a federally protected celebrity-safe zone.</p>

<p>The last comment is perhaps the most germane!</p>

<p>But, Tim -- you must live an oddly-informed life if the prohibition of photos of royal titties would deprive you of "truth." You make the notion of the fourth estate kinda creepy.</p>

<p>Finally, Lex, if I visit the USA, I will be careful to keep my blinds closed. Thanks for the heads-up. I wouldn't want any paparazzi getting a shot of MY saggy bottom.</p>

<p>This is a lot more fun than talking about f/stops.</p>

<p>@Lex<br>

Very humorous and enjoyable. </p>

<p>I am really find it difficult to muster any sympathy or concern here given the 500 other real tragedies of fairness competing for my attention. "Oh, that poor Steven Tyler," is just hard to say with a straight face.</p>

 

<p>I'm not kidding I don't know any celebrities at all, just the very famous one's from the 80's like Tom Hanks and a few more, couldn't care less.</p>

<p>Not to condone the paparazzi behavior that day.</p>

<p>With all due respects. Monsieur Henri Paul, Diana's driver had more than double the blood alcohol considered to be "drunk" driving. Add to this the presence of antidepressant tranquilizers in his blood stream, and I find it hard to blame the pursuing photogs.<br /> Would any of you ride with with a driver so impaired?</p>

<p>"<em>With all due respects. Monsieur Henri Paul, Diana's driver had more than double the blood alcohol considered to be "drunk" driving</em>"</p>

<p>There is a famous picture that was taken right before the crash in the tunnel in France it shows both the driver Mr Heny-Paul and the Security guard with what looks like the Red-Eye effect. As photographers we all should know what causes red-eye. The driver also seems to be shileding his eyes which is a normal reaction when someone fires a flash dead on right in your face. Now i'm not sure how this picture was taken mybe the French installed Flash units inside the tunel for some crazy reason ? </p>

<p>Princess Diana is seen nervously looking out of the back window of the Mercedez as if the car was being chased by someone, could it be the paparazzi ? Her companion Dodi seems to be urging the driver to drive faster. Now we all know that Dodi was a big fan of Sports cars, maybe that is why he was urging the driver to drive faster. Why drive so fas,t maybe they were being chased by someone maybe the papaprazzi ?</p>

<p>I have that picture saved somewhere on my computer and if I find it I will post it. In any case we will never know what the drivers alcohol level really was. That is what the French coroner said but who really knows ?</p>

<p>Tell you the truth for a Professional driver, someone who drives for a living in all types of situations a blood alcohol level of double the limit is nothing. Plenty of people are on the road after a weekend of partying. Even if they sleep it off it does not help because it takes at least 24 hours for alcohol to exit your system So if a person had 3 or 4 + drinks the night before, slept it off drank coffe and brushed their teeth they could easily still clock at double the alcohol limit(beware monday morning drivers).</p>

<p>Now what was all this driven by Greed of course as if those people owe us a living because they are rich and famous. Who made up that rule that if you are in the public eye you are fair game ? Of course the greedy and unethical people who profit from those gossip maazines. It certainly is not written in the Constitution...</p>

<p><<<<em>Tell you the truth for a Professional driver, someone who drives for a living in all types of situations a blood alcohol level of double the limit is nothing.</em>>>></p>

<p>I hope the professional who thinks like this and acts on it finds himself locked up for a long time before he gets to kill someone with his so-called nothing double the legal alcohol limit.</p>

<p><<<<em>if you are in the public eye you are fair game . . . It certainly is not written in the Constitution...</em>>>></p>

<p>It's pretty settled law that you have few legal rights to privacy when you're in public, and it stands to reason the more famous you are the more interest you will generate. Not everything we live by is specifically stated in the Constitution. There are many derived laws and precedents.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>C Watson said: "What else can two silly old geezers who might have issues remembering their musical careers do to attract attention? With so much else to see in Hawaii, who'd want pix of Tyler looking like Ramesses II's mummy wearing Beyonce's wig?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Do you have problems with people being old? Think this is cute?</p>

 

<p>I wouldn't mind the celebrity-chasing photographers (hey, there's a market and it's a job) if even one of them had 10% of the talent Weegee had. Maybe it's because everything is digital and in color these days, or it's the result of the telephoto lenses everyone uses, but it all looks like badly composed snapshots to me. </p>

<p>"<em>It's pretty settled law that you have few legal rights to privacy when you're in public, and it stands to reason the more famous you are the more interest you will generate. Not everything we live by is specifically stated in the Constitution. There are many derived laws and precedents."</em></p>

<p>Before we started talking about legality I suppose the paparazzi including chief paparazzi John Murdoch play by the law... </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Lex Jenkins: "<em>Certainly not. I wrote "all people" in the contemporary Constitutional sense of the term. As such, you have no individual right to an opinion, so it is not possible to object to your opinion. Just as "the people" in the 2nd Amendment does not convey any individual right to keep and bear arms, but, rather, a right reserved to a well regulated militia; it is only sensible to interpret the 1st Amendment as a collective right of "the people" - meaning, a government authorized, well regulated militia of the press. Since we are a representative republic, that naturally means we must elect or appoint officially approved photographers to the serious task of taking responsible photographs of our only form of royalty, the celebrity, so that they may enjoy the same luxury of government authorized privacy afforded to subjects of our drone strikes.</em></p>

<p><em>,… there is no individual right to an opinion."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Lex – Excellent points. Glad to see that you’re on the right track here. To earn the respect and approval of the civilized countries of Europe and the United Nations, we need to take serious action to stop illegal candid photography. We must stop the spread of the sick photo-culture that makes us appear so barbaric to the rest of the world. We can start by immediately banning the private ownership of certain types of cameras. There is no reason for a private citizen to own anything other than a wide angle point and shoot (and those who do own cameras should be trained and their names and addresses entered into a public registry so we know who, and where, they are). I don’t want John Smith from down the block running around my neighborhood willy-nilly, irresponsibly pointing his 10 fps DSLR and 300mm lens at everything he deems “interesting”. Lord knows, we have more than enough tack sharp photos of ospreys with fish in their talons. Cameras like that should only be used by the military, or by the authorized government photographers you so wisely reference in your post. Public discomfort with private citizen use of telephoto lenses trumps any selfish thoughts of “individual” rights to such things. We must act for the collective good of all. The framers of the constitution never intended to allow private citizens to run around taking photos of anything they damn well please. (Not that we, in this enlightened and vastly superior age, should even concern ourselves with the intentions of a group of materialistic slave owners who died centuries ago.)</p>