A cat may look at a king, especially if that king is on public property.

When clueless security workers hassle photographers on the street, our sympathies usually go to the photographer. This beach incident is really the same scenario, only the photographers are loathsome and the ones hassling them have our sympathies. It's still wrong, though. (Especially if they destroyed a guy's camera, which crosses the line from "wrong" to "criminal.")

I don't see it as a first amendment issue - just a bunch of guys that decided that they controlled "their" beach. If they start passing laws preventing pictures from "outsiders" on the beach it could get into first amendment issues. I understand the surfers being protective and part of me applauds them and their camaraderie, but then part of me has a problem with vigilante justice.

While agree that when you sign on as a celebrity the photographers are part of the deal, I'm always amazed at how intrusive they can be. I'm a huge surf fan (as a spectator only) and envious of surfers and surf culture, and I'd like to side with them knowing that they're in the right, but they did cross a legal line. It would be so much easier if I didn't have such a preconceived notion of most paparazzi being douchebags.

But if you are in that business, is it part of the agreement that you have no privacy unless you are in your walled compound? Would you like it if your every move, utterance, and activity once you leave your house was filmed, or recorded, in some way?

I mean, I'll go to movies, listen to music, and consume art and entertainment in a number of ways but I care not one whit (mostly) about what those people do on a day-to-day basis.

My brother has worked in that industry, on the fringes, and was once offered a job as one of Michael Jackson's security people. He is totally disinterested in any celebs, so I think I get that from him.

But if you are in that business, is it part of the agreement that you have no privacy unless you are in your walled compound?

Actually, that's true for everyone, but it just doesn't become an issue for most of us. If you're out in public, you can legally be photographed. It is a shame that some entertainers attract more attention than they want, but at the same time I don't think anybody should have an exemption from what it means to be out in public just because they have money or whatever.

Not saying that's what you meant, danf... but I think that's what it would take to give famous people "privacy in public."

I think there's a difference between "being photographed in public" and "being harassed." And I think we (as a culture, I mean) could be smart enough to start drawing some lines between those things.

Harassing people to the extent of causing high-speed car chases is dangerous, not only to the celebrity but to the entire community. I think the whole "Well, they signed up for that" is a cop-out.

danf:

is it part of the agreement that you have no privacy unless you are in your walled compound

It's a shitty trade off, but in today's celebrity fixated world, I think the answer is yes.

Would you like it if your every move, utterance...

No, I'd fucking hate it. I couldn't imagine living a world where I know that wherever I went somebody is watching me. Even the most trivial thing is something to be talked about - you throw away a half finished Starbucks and I'm sure a few people tell their friends "he's wasteful and doesn't recycle!!!". God forbid you get bad service and complain - suddenly you're a raging asshole.

But fame isn't a faucet that can be turned on and off. You don't get to be famous when you want/need the attention and then get quiet time as a regular joe. I'm not saying it's right, but it's become a fact of modern life. Some celebrities seem to live a life style or have a demeanor that somehow allows them a little more latitude in regards to privacy, while others just become magnets for the paparazzi. But once you hit a certain stage (ie - a huge movie star), all best are off and you're in the spotlight anytime you're in public.

I keep hoping that the celebrity worship pendulum starts to sway back to the middle a bit, because it's ridiculous now. It's gone from looking afar at famous people to incredibly intrusive and dangerous levels. But as long as gossip mags, tv shows, and websites flourish it will only get worse.

I think there's a difference between "being photographed in public" and "being harassed." And I think we (as a culture, I mean) could be smart enough to start drawing some lines between those things.

Oh yeah, definitely. Blocking people's cars into parking lots, chasing them in traffic, etc etc aren't at all what I'm talking about. Like I said, the paparazzi ARE loathsome, and I don't defend them except as far as I defend all photographers.

Blocking people's cars into parking lots, chasing them in traffic, etc etc aren't at all what I'm talking about.

But, in reality, that's what's going on here:

Malibu officials and residents have struggled with an apparently increasing paparazzi presence throughout the area.

They say members of the celebrity media camp out at movie theaters and shopping centers and wait for stars to show up.

Some merchants in the last few years have complained about paparazzi blocking store entrances, and residents have complained of high-speed chases by paparazzi following celebrities on Pacific Coast Highway.

I don't think one can argue that people have the right to take photos in public without paying attention to the reality of what that means. And I think the "That's what they signed up for" concept throws the responsibility for this shit on individual celebrities, when it's actually more of a cultural/societal problem (in that it's affecting more than just individual celebrities).

I'm with those who say the photographers are within their rights. Anyone - including one of us - can be photographed when we're in a public place. Any point at which the behavior becomes harrassing is actually covered by other areas of law, areas which directly address harassing behavior, terroristic threats, and so on - so I don't think there's any need for a law specific to paparazzi or for a tax (yeesh) on paparazzi photographs. The lines about public behavior are already drawn. The involvement of a celebrity figure provides neither justification nor defense - the photographers are within their rights, and we all share the public sphere. Until they break a law, I wouldn't support banning them.

I also wonder why the surfers felt the need to get into it - presumably, if you're in the water, the photogs can't really ruin your experience. It sounds like an alpha dog pissing contest, in the end.

it's actually more of a cultural/societal problem (in that it's affecting more than just individual celebrities).

I agree, but since it is a societal problem, then why aren't they just prosecuted under loitering and private-property laws (n the case of blocking a business entrance) or speeding laws (in the case of high-speed chases)? If people start involving the police and bringing charges, I imagine that would go a long way to curtailing the behavior. It's not the photographing or the celebrity that's the problem here, it's the illegal behavior.

What Miko said about harassing behavior already being covered under existing laws.

And I think the 'well, they signed up for it' thing is simultaneously a cop-out (because, yeah, no matter how we got to this point, here we are) and something that has some truth to it (because, simply stated, I don't think the celebrities are blameless in this thing).

And yeah, I think the surfers sound like dicks. Let's say that instead of Matthew McConaughey's surfer buddies, it was Snoop Dogg's friends from the old neighborhood, or Tom Cruise's Scientology study group--would the reaction, and the reporting, be the same?

I think it's important to remember just how much has been extrajudicially chipped away from the rights of photographers lately, though. It doesn't really matter to me that a celebrity is mildly annoyed; if people begin to believe that certain personalities deserve a shield around them in public places, then it's really hard to argue that other reasons for blocking one's right to photograph are somehow illegitimate.

Last summer, I saw some little kids and their parents harassed by the police/rent-a-cops at my local Amtrak station because they were taking pictures under the signboard indicating where they were. The cop on the pedestrian bridge over the tracks basically barked "NO PHOTOGRAPHY!" over the PA system, at which point they put away their cameras.

On boarding the train, I asked the conductor why we had been told that photography was not permitted when it obviously was, the train station being a public place and all, and she replied that "new regulations", which she left unspecified when I asked her for details, "prohibited photography of anything related to Amtrak", and even added, "I'm surprised you don't think security is important after 9/11." It was chilling that a) no other passengers complained, and b) the conductor felt that a blanket ban on photography was a good idea. Amtrak doesn't even seem to know the rules itself.

As someone who doesn't have a lot of money, I love that beaches in California are public property, despite what those who live close to them seem to believe. The California Coastal Commission lets homeowners know what access to the beaches and coastal land in front of their property is allowed when homes are built or purchased. I don't care how famous you are - if you want to benefit from the public commons (and they are public: I pay taxes and parking fees to maintain the beaches just like celebrities do), you have to accept that you don't get to limit access to a historically-accessed public beach, let alone an otherwise-public beach that should somehow be under some photography ban because a celebrity has arrived.

It's the same as the wealthy residents of Malibu who have tried to prevent public access to the beaches in front of their houses by putting up misleading signs, erecting gates and fences, and even bulldozing the beach itself.

I have no tolerance for this vigilante-style abuse of one of the best things about living in California. No one should worry about being attacked on a public beach for taking a photo of anything, no matter how important/famous/whatever it is. All beaches here, between the mean high-tide line and the water, are public.

mdonley - I totally agree. I grew up next to the beach and there is nothing that makes me more angry than some rich person trying to grab public beachfront for their own. Also, the demand for beachfront property makes it so I would never come close to be able to afford to buy the house I grew up in. There is a huge gulf between people like my mom, and the new people who come in and tear down the old bungalows and put up these monstrous faux villas. The two groups never talk to one another.

derail: When I was a kid, on summer mornings we used to go down to the beach and lay out a baseball field. A home run was over the Stand wall. If we really hit it hard, it maybe broke a window across the Strand. As people came down to the beach, they set up their umbrellas and towels in our outfield. So we felt that it was their fault if someone got hit by the hardball. It usually took one of our parents to come down and end the game but we were very adamant about "tourists" and their poor judgment in plopping down on our field.

/derail

Anyway, I am seeing the other side that the paparazzis have a first amendment right to do what they do, as distasteful as it is to many people. I suspect that with the 24-hour news cycle and bazillions of print inches to fill, it'll get worse.

a first amendment right to do what they do, as distasteful as it is to many people

The same could be said about Britney Spears albums, Paris Hilton television shows and Lindsay Lohan movies.

Rights or none, I sure do enjoy punching photographers. Amateur or professional. They don't even have to be holding a camera.

Maybe one day, I'll be famous.

If people start involving the police and bringing charges, I imagine that would go a long way to curtailing the behavior.

Which is why the "They brought it on themselves" thing annoys me -- it keeps people from doing just that by saying that it's somehow normal for people to harass celebrities and that it's ungracious for celebrities to complain about it.

Well, there is the difficulty that celebrities depend on the same systems that they decry to keep their names in the news and to publicize their activities and projects. They benefit directly from this sort of attention even as they suffer from it. Nothing seems to worry celebrities more than when they are no longer of interest to the mass media.

I wouldn't go so far as to say "they brought it on themselves," but it's true that in the eyes of the law, politicians and celebrities do not have as strong a case for personal privacy in, say, libel suits, because they have accepted the role of public figure. There are real costs to being famous and to living a public life, and I wouldn't say it's outrageous that choosing to become a film actor carries with it a decision to live more publicly than had you chosen to be an actuary. Being a teacher is more public than being a data entry clerk. And such.