Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Abstract
Paparazzi is a term used to describe photographers whose area of interest is taking pictures and videos of key figures in the public including entertainers, celebrities, politicians, athletes, and religious leaders among others. One of the most obvious characteristics of paparazzi is that unlike most other photographers in the media industry, paparazzi lack affiliation to any mainstream media organizations.
As a way to differentiate themselves from other freelance photographer, paparazzi focus on both the professional and personal undertakings of important figures in society and pride themselves in taking pictures and videos of such people doing things that most other photographers would not consider taking. This aspect has generated much controversy over the years with paparazzi claiming protection of their activities by the freedom of the press clause of the constitution.
However, some people disagree with this notion by stating that some of paparazzi’s activities infringe on the rights and freedoms of other members of society, and thus warrant no protection by the constitution. Others argue that lack of affiliation with any mainstream media negates the paparazzi’s claim for protection by the constitution. This paper presents an objective analysis of both sides of the argument.
Argument for
The First Amendment of the American constitution protects the paparazzi individually as American citizens through the protection of their freedom of speech and expression and professionally through the freedom of the press clause. Although some people often present the argument that paparazzi activities amount to harassment and that their protection by the law goes against basic rights, it is noteworthy that the law protects every person in equal measure.
The law considers paparazzi activities legal as long as they do not infringe on any individual’s rights and freedoms. For instance, in the case of the New York Times v United States in 1971, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protects against restraints that prevent distribution of information prior to publication.
This aspect means that the law protects that content that the paparazzi gather for publication before they publish the same, regardless of their method of collection. However, in most cases, people focus so much on the ‘how’ regarding paparazzi activity and ignore the ‘why’. Additionally, although society benefits from paparazzi activities indirectly, subjects of paparazzi activities divert attention to the methods that paparazzi use, thus making them seem like villains and a nuisance to society even when they are not.
One of the arguments that people have presented over the years in support of the law’s protection of paparazzi activities is that the paparazzi indirectly protect the society’s moral fiber. The paparazzi, in their own way, serve the society’s interest by reporting matters that require key individuals in society to re-evaluate their activities with regard to their overall effect to society.
The argument is that if certain people put themselves in the limelight and present themselves as role models to the society’s younger individuals, society has the right to criticize their actions as part of the process of determining whether they deserve to be role models. It is possible for such individuals to present an act in public and behave differently away from the public eye.
Paparazzi make the private behavior of such individuals a matter of public notice and present society with an opportunity to make objective judgments (Fareed, 2009). For instance, in 2006, Daniella Cicarelli Lemos was the subject of a scandal involving the paparazzi.
The thirty five year old former television show presenter for MTV Brazil and fashion model was twenty-eight years old at the time. A paparazzo recorded video footage of Cicarelli sharing some intimacy moments on a beach and posted the same on YouTube. Cicarelli sought legal redress and the court held in her favor, thus blocking YouTube in Brazil.
The block caused a public uproar in Brazil and threats of boycotting MTV. Later, the court lifted the block on YouTube. In essence, this argument posits that protection of the society’s version of morality is an important element in any society and that every member of society should strive to protect the same for the sake of the younger generation, whether in public or in private.
The paparazzi thus act as guardians of society’s moral code by exposing immoral behavior by members of the society that younger generations look up to as role models. The courts strike a balance between every individual’s rights through individual analysis of each case. Unlike most members of society, courts are impartial and do not apply stereotypes as the basis for their decisions.
Another plausible argument is that paparazzi enjoy the same protections as every other American individual by the Bill of Rights. Therefore, they have the right to exercise freedom of expression. Every American has the right to express his or her opinion regarding any issue of his or her choice. Most paparazzi just ensure that they present evidence to back up their opinions, regardless of the people they choose to target as their area of interest.
The main reason that most people who form the subject of paparazzi activities are unable to get legal redress is because paparazzi reports are usually factual and devoid of libel. It is thus difficult to establish solid cases in their own defense. However, some paparazzi prefer to remain anonymous, thus making it difficult to establish the right party for the suit in cases where their images end up in tabloids.
The increased use of social media has also made it harder to establish the source of information and subsequent person to blame, even in instances where such reports lack truth. Sometimes, the paparazzi become the subject of victimization by people who regard themselves as victims.
For example, in the case of Galella v Onassis in 1973 (2nd Cir. 1973), paparazzo, Ron Galella, sued Jacquline Kennedy Onassis after she ordered her secret service agents to destroy Galella’s camera and film. Kennedy, a former first lady, ordered the destruction of the camera claiming harassment by Galella at the incident at Central Park in New York City. Such incidents exhibit double standards that most societies subscribe to, with most people regarding their actions as just while vulcanizing those of others in the same situation.
It is arguable that the paparazzi form part of the media fraternity considering the fact that most of the material from paparazzi ends up in the mainstream media. Secondly, paparazzi activities bear a striking resemblance to those of media representatives in the field, except that paparazzi utilize every opportunity they get. For instance, the TMZ Company is a media house that uses material by paparazzi as its main area of interest.
Overall, several factors warrant consideration before the vilification of paparazzi activities. It is also important to remember that the Bill of Rights is impartial in its protection of society. In the light of the above arguments, there is no need to malign and condemn paparazzi activities as paparazzos are protected by the constitution just like any other American citizen.
Moreover, paparazzo only exposes the truth, which the mainstream media would rather not expose due to fear of consequences such as tarnishing the name of the media houses they work for; however, paparazzo has nothing to lose in terms of business and reputation.
Human impact statement
The constitution’s protection of the paparazzi activities indirectly benefits the society in a way that most people would not care to admit. The society’s stereotype of the paparazzi prevents most people from realizing their positive effect on society by choosing to focus on the negatives. Although the methods through which some paparazzi obtain their information are sometimes questionable, the results of their activities benefit the society by providing information that people in the limelight would prefer to hide.
In most cases, arguments that form the basis of lawsuits revolve around the methods through which paparazzi get their material, although the truth of their information sometimes comes into question. Information presented by the paparazzi enables the public make informed decisions on people they choose to allocate control in society or encourage as role models.
It is also important that people remember that paparazzi enjoy the same protection by the first ten amendments that make up the bill of rights as every other American citizen (Frederickson, 2005). Therefore, every person is prone to suffer the same fate his or her wish on the paparazzi in case his or her opinion hinges on unsubstantiated information. Society thus has to respect the rights that the constitution warrants paparazzi as members of society.
Additionally, every individual has the right to take advantage of constitutional rights and apply them to the furtherance of his/her professional endeavors. Apart from the constitution, the courts also enforce rights of the paparazzi. They ensure that their activities remain legal and comply with the legal requirements of the bill of rights. Courts have the mandate to ensure that individual rights and freedoms of individuals do not overlap or cause distress to other people.
Argument against
Some scholars argue that the constitution protects paparazzi activities; however, it is important to note that the constitution only protects their lawful activities in the furtherance of professional endeavors. Additionally, the constitution does not discriminate in terms of protection of basic rights and freedoms. It affords equal protection to the paparazzi and their ‘victims’.
The constitution limits freedom of the press in much the same way it does for freedom of speech. Courts also reinforce this position by evaluating situations and enforcing the rights of victims through restraining orders, although some states have laws that restrict activities by paparazzi to some of their laws, thus allowing courts to take full action and provide legal avenues for victims.
For instance, California state laws include trespass and harassment to crimes protected against by tort law. The laws thus make it possible for subjects of paparazzi activities to seek legal help from courts when they feel harassed (Frederickson, 2005).
Some states also restrict paparazzi activities by placing curfews and licensing events that do not allow paparazzi activities such as taking photographs and recording video footage or spinning information at such events to discredit the dignity of the apparent subjects. Such laws work well in preventing the nuisance, which paparazzi activities can sometimes present, and allow people to conduct their business without fear of scrutiny by unauthorized individuals.
Secondly, scholars argue that the freedom of the press clause only covers media organizations and their affiliates and does not apply to independent contractors. According to this argument, the freedom of the press clause does not cover paparazzi or their activities. Proponents of this argument suggest that business laws such as contract laws, rules of agency, and employment laws govern most of the paparazzi activities.
As such, paparazzi should comply with all other laws individually instead of suggesting a veil by the freedom of the press clause. In order to claim such a veil, it is possible for paparazzi to form a media organization, in which case, the organization would be liable for the activities that each conduct. It would also mean that the paparazzi would have to comply with boundaries regarding their methods of obtaining information.
Looking at the entire argument from this perspective presents the notion that the law does not support paparazzi activities that break the law, but rather it protects their professional interests and their rights as Americans. For instance, the TMZ is a media organization whose area of interest is mainly celebrity gossip and entertainment news and thus it enjoys protection by the freedom of the press clause owing to its presentation as a media organization.
In most cases, lawsuits against the paparazzi involve violation of privacy. The courts endeavor to correct any misgivings on protection by the freedom of the press clause through decisions that protect victims. For instance, in September 2012, a case ensued in which the Duchess of Cambridge sought redress from the courts against the French magazine, Closure, for taking pictures of her sunbathing naked at her cousin’s residence in France.
The Duchess argued that the pictures infringed her right to privacy as she was at a private residence when the paparazzi took the said pictures for use in the magazine. The court decided in the Duchess’s favor, thus blocking the pictures from circulation.
Sometimes, paparazzi activities present more serious problems than a mere nuisance through violation of privacy. For instance, on August 31, 1997, a road accident occurred in France that led to the death of the late Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed.
An inquest jury looking into the matter investigated the involvement of the paparazzi in the incident and deduced that the incident was the result of high-speed chance as the two tried to get away from paparazzi. The case was a clear indication of how some seemingly harmless activities by paparazzi in the pursuit of information can lead to life threatening situations.
Another argument that critics present against the paparazzi is that they have no sense of morality. They explain that paparazzi prey on vulnerable members of society such as minors. Unlike adults, minors lack the legal capacity to pursue justice from the courts for actions against them by paparazzi.
They also lack sufficient knowledge of the law to recognize activities that violate their rights (Kozol, 1996). Paparazzi also prey on individuals of legal age at their most vulnerable moments such as after the deaths of loved ones and during moments they least expect it. Such people argue that if paparazzi have society’s best interest at heart, they would present the whole picture surrounding the desired information.
The fourth argument presents paparazzi as opportunists who take advantage of situations and use the law as grounds to conduct the distribution of malicious information, regardless of the factual content behind such information.
One example of incidents in which paparazzi take advantage of their stereotype and the status of key individuals in society is one that occurred in 2008 involving actor Keanu Reeves and a paparazzo.
The paparazzo sued Reeves claiming that the actor had attacked him as he left his friend’s house. The paparazzo claimed that the actor hit him with a car, thus causing permanent injury to one of his hands, but Reeves objected these allegations.
Further investigations into the matter revealed that the photographer went on his activities using the same hand he claimed was no longer functional. Sometimes paparazzi exceed their legal restrictions and infringe on the rights of others without due consideration to the consequences. For instance, in 1999, an incident involving Oriental Daily News led the court to hold the newspaper guilty of scandalizing the court, which is a criminal charge rare to media houses.
The court explained that the newspaper was guilty of conduct that would undermine the court’s integrity and confidence in the administration of justice. The newspaper had contracted paparazzi to follow the judge and take photographs as he went on with his daily activities in order to let him experience what the paparazzi do.
An overall analysis of all these arguments reveals that the freedom of the press clause does not protect paparazzi unless they form part of a media organization, as is the case with TMZ. Furthermore, even in instances where the law seemingly protects activities by paparazzi, it restricts activities that infringe on the rights and freedoms of other individuals as part of the requirements of the Bill of Rights.
The courts enforce such laws through curfews, provision of restraining orders, and injunctions against publication and in extreme cases, conviction. In this light, the law’s main purpose is to protect American citizens and visitors against activities by paparazzi that constitute infringement on personal liberties.
Human impact statement
Protection of paparazzi activities and efforts by the constitution is likely to lead to increased victimization of key figures in society. It makes such members of society vulnerable to attacks on their privacy by paparazzi as they strive to obtain photographs and other information through any means necessary. Secondly, protecting paparazzi activity creates impediments for courts in their endeavor to ensure equal distribution of justice for all individuals regardless of their choice of profession.
This aspect makes it hard for victims to protect their individual rights and freedoms including the right to privacy. Although celebrities choose to share their professional lives with the society, most prefer to keep their personal lives private. It is possible that sometimes they intentionally make information of their private lives public, in instances such as weddings. However, this aspect does not give leeway for paparazzi to follow them and take photographs that may lead to scandals for financial gain.
Another possible outcome of paparazzi protection under the freedom of the press clause is that it may increase the number of opportunistic paparazzi in existence, thus increasing incidents involving celebrity figures who take matters into their own hands in self-defense.
Lastly, the support of protection for paparazzi activities that infringe basic rights and freedoms creates a likelihood of nullification of present laws on the matter. In most cases, courts rely on precedents in the determination of future decisions. Therefore, present decisions are likely to overturn past decisions and affect future decisions as well. Therefore, as Rhodes (2002) notes, it is crucial for courts to practice diligence in interpretation of laws including the freedom of the press clause in the first amendment.
Reference List
Fareed, Z. (2009).The Post-American World. New York, NY: W. W. Norton and Co.
Frederickson, G. (2005). Public Administration with an Attitude. Washington, DC: American Society of Public Administration.
Kozol, J. (1996). Amazing Grace: The Lives of Children and the Conscience of a Nation. New York, NY: Crown Publishers.
Rhodes, L. (2002). The Public Manager Case Book: Making Decisions in a Complex World. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.