Anti-paparazzi bill goes too far

A star-struck majority of the Hawaii Senate has pushed aside the First Amendment in its attempt to protect Maui-bound Aerosmith lead singer Steven Tyler from paparazzi. California’s paparazzi law is currently being challenged in court, a fate Hawaii faces if it pursues a bill to provide celebrities assurance of privacy in public areas.

Maui Democratic Sen. Kalani English is the main sponsor of the bill, which he calls the "Steven Tyler Act." English said Tyler, who recently bought a home on Maui, told him paparazzi in boats offshore often use telephoto lenses to take pictures inside his home.

"Steven stepped forward and said, ‘I can be the face of it.’" That must have been very exciting for English; in fact, the introduction to the bill says the bill is "in honor of Steven Tyler’s contribution to the arts in Hawaii and throughout the world."

English told the that he looked to California’s anti-paparazzi civil law and "copied it almost exactly."

Well, not exactly. California’s law makes it illegal for a commercial photographer to "trespass in order to physically invade the privacy" of celebrities if the celebrity "had a reasonable expectation of privacy." The ban does not require actual physical trespass if the goal "could not have been achieved without a trespass unless the visual or auditory enhancing device was used."

The word "trespass" is not mentioned in English’s bill, which was signed for introduction by 17 others of the 25-member Senate.

Could Tyler expect privacy from paparazzi shooting on beaches and in nearby waters under the Hawaii bill? After all, Hawaii’s beaches are public spaces, free and open to all.

"The beach is open ground" for photographers under the bill, English acknowledged to the Times. "This is delineating public and private spaces. The litmus test is if you have a reasonable expectation of privacy."

Well, not exactly. According to the bill, beaches would be open to members of the public but not to photographers who may be "engaging in constructive invasion of privacy" by taking shots of celebrities within "state marine waters," which extends from the upper reaches of the wash of waves to the U.S. territorial sea.

This legislation presumably would allow celebrities — or anyone else — to sue over unauthorized beach photos and other snapshots on the islands. It could also make lawbreakers out of anyone taking photographs in public places, be it an ordinary photojournalist or someone with a camera phone.

Despite the bill’s vagueness and unconstitutional underpinnings, it inexplicably has been scheduled for a Friday hearing before the Senate Judiciary and Labor Committee.

Celebrities are public figures because they choose to be in the limelight and, in fact, often court media attention to monetize their talents or image. It’s true that many of them enjoy the myriad charms of Hawaii, and we welcome them, Tyler included. However, the notion of conferring special-class status to assure them extraordinary solitude in public areas in violation of the First Amendment is simply absurd.

The stated purpose of the bill "is to encourage celebrities to visit and reside in our State." Lawmakers need to get the stars out of their eyes, nix this bill and turn their sights to more pressing issues.