Jaimie Franklin
Assistant Perspectives Editor
Malibu glitz and glamour are apparently too much for the town’s city council, which is considering five draft ordinances designed to curb paparazzi on public property in the city.
After several incidents in Malibu last spring and during the summer — one involving a small brawl that broke out on the beach between local residents and paparazzi trying to snap pictures of actor Matthew McConaughey — Mayor Pamela Conley Ulich wanted them gone.
Ulich contacted Pepperdine School of Law Dean Ken Starr in April and asked him to research ways to restrict the paparazzi while remaining within the bounds of the First Amendment.
Starr organized an unofficial Pepperdine legal team, which researched throughout the summer and recently submitted several draft ordinances to the mayor that would restrict the time, place and manner of celebrity photography.
Another draft ordinance, submitted by Los Angeles City Council member Dennis Zine, requires a buffer between celebrities and paparazzi, although it is unclear what the limits on such a buffer will be.
The problem is that the mayor appears to be on a power trip, blatantly disregarding First Amendment rights and the advice of others in the legal community, including Police Chief William Bratton of the Los Angeles Police Department.
Additionally, there are virtually no limits on what the city could restrict if such an ordinance were passed. Who will decide what constitutes a member of the paparazzi? Malibu police can’t fine tourists and locals who snap a picture of Britney on their camera phones.
And, who will decide what makes someone a “celebrity?” Will it one day be illegal to photograph child actor Gary Coleman when he cashes his paycheck in Malibu? God forbid. I don’t think I could live in such a lifeless world.
All five ordinances would put Malibu and other cities on a slippery slope towards KGB-style content censorship of the media. Once Malibu police can decide who is allowed to take pictures of what, it is a short skip to regulating content and violating the right to free press.
Starr described his role in the matter as “friends and neighbors coming together for informal advice,” according to an article in the Graphic earlier this month.
When your friends and neighbors are the Malibu elite, it may be easy to disregard the Constitution. And if Starr wanted to make a screenplay about the Clinton sex trial, we wouldn’t want the paparazzi to crowd their secret meetings.
Furthermore, the current problem with aggressive paparazzi is not due to the lack of legislation, but enforcement, according to Bratton. There are enough laws in the books to keep paparazzi under control, but law enforcement needs to regulate them.
For instance, trespassing, reckless driving, loitering, public disturbances and threatening harm are already legally restricted. Passing legislation that demands photographers to stay 30 feet away from celebrities is not only ridiculous, but unenforceable.
Police officers should be concerned with actual crime, rather than running around with measuring tapes to deter the paparazzi.
Perhaps the mayor should recruit Pepperdine Public Safety officers for paparazzi watch. After all, what are neighbors for?
09-25-2008