Steven Tyler Bill

[macuu222]

It just amazes me that our legislature is so gullable when it comes to celebrities. When was the last time the members of a committee stood up and applauded the sponsers of a bill. Then they pass it and take photo's of the celebs on their smart phones which some will no doubt go on facebook and other social media which is basically what the sponsers are trying to stop.



http://hawaiitribune-herald.com/sections...-bill.html

[Kapohocat]

You know if they donated the millions it will cost the state to prosecute any offenders of this new bill, I wouldnt care. But they create their razzle dazzle with our lawmakers and it is us who will be paying for the prosecution of any offenders.

You want anonymity Steve Tyler and Mick Fleetwood and Britney Spears, then maybe you should be a mechanic, or clerk at Walmart, or a farmer, not a celebrity that makes millions of dollars and behaves badly, and are/were poor role models.

[jlgerk]

Quote:
The bill would give people power to sue others who take photos or video of their private lives in an offensive way, such as using telephoto lenses or other advanced equipment to record them on their private properties.
.
the photo is in a public court room

http://www.icompositions.com/artists/jlgerk

[Greg]

Come on guys; Anyone who would want to take a picture of Steve Tyler SHOULD be prosecuted. He's like a deformed clone of Mick Jagger.[]

[csgray]

There is a big legal difference between posing for a cell phone picture with someone and having someone use a helicopter and telephoto lenses to take pictures of your wedding and honeymoon so they can sell them.

Even celebrities deserve some level of privacy in their homes. No one should have to put up with other people spying on their private lives in order to profit from selling the pictures. Out in public doing celebrity appearances is one thing, but even celebrities should be able to schlep around their pool without being photographed with a telephoto lens so someone can sell the picture to tabloids. I can't imagine how celebrity moms deal with raising kids under that level of scrutiny. I was able take my kids to school in sweatpants and unbrushed hair without having to worry about the picture being splashed across the supermarket newstands with headlines about how I had really let myself go. Even pop stars deserve that.

This law doesn't require the state of Hawaii to spend a penny, it just gives people whose privacy has been invaded a legal tool for recourse. It also would protect non celebrities who are dealing with stalker types, which happens more than most people would think.

Carol

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

When I lived on Maui years ago, my son was hanging out with a group of his friends in the K-Mart parking lot. They saw Steven Tyler walk into the store, and as a bunch of teenagers with time on their hands would do, they followed him in. After a little while Tyler noticed this not too subtle pack of kids, and introduced himself to them. He asked if they wanted a photo with him. They bought a disposible camera, and he let them shoot a roll of photos while he mugged for the camera with the boys. Everyone had a great time, and my son said he was "a cool dude" (as I recall). Tyler is not a primadonna, he just wants to be left alone on his own property. Look at how this forum lights up if someone thinks a helicopter is flying over THEIR property. Nobody likes it, even celebrities.

[kalakoa]

I find it shameful: how is "celebrity privacy" the most important legislation they can work on?

If "privacy" were really the end goal, the celebs have enough money to buy their own island and turn it into a completely private resort. But without paparazzi, where is the brand? (Note the MPAA objects to this bill, as it would reduce the "value" of their "property".)

[csgray]

I think the concept that people are not "property" is pretty well established law. Just because people work as public figures doesn't mean they should be forced to be on display 24/7, especially in their private space. Everyone deserves time off, even fading rock stars and bratty starlets with issues. The MPAA profits from the intrusion into these people's privacy, but the entertainment industry isn't well known for actually caring about the people who work in it, so I am not surprised they oppose the law.

Celebrities, politicians, and other famous people have the right to live normal day to day lives without being spied on for profit while enjoying their own homes. Nobody should be forced to live in gated ghettos just because a whole industry has grown up around photographing them without permission during their private moments. There isn't a wall high enough to keep helicopters or even little drones from photographing people in their houses or yards. It is pretty a limited law, photos in public spaces are still fair game, just not on their private properties. I'm pretty sure the politicians calculate that the law will make Hawaii more attractive to people with a lot of money to spend while they are here.


Carol

[mailes]

Steven Tyler is an awesome dude! I think, all things considered, he looks delish! Arny too!

[Kapohocat]

The point a commenter on this article made is that for years no one responds to their requests, like as an example the helicopter issue here on Punaweb, but Steven Tyler snaps his fingers and the legislature jumps... and takes pictures...