Quantcast

Saturday, July 26, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 46 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Steven Tyler bill stalls in House

By Anita Hofschneider

Associated Press

POSTED:
LAST UPDATED: 12:33 p.m. HST, Mar 21, 2013


The future is looking bleak for a celebrity privacy bill known as the Steven Tyler bill.

The proposal pushed by the Aerosmith lead singer would allow people to sue others who take photos or videos of their private moments. But after sailing through the Senate earlier this month following personal testimony from Tyler at a February hearing, the bill is missing deadlines in the state House, and key lawmakers say they won't push it through.

Rep. Angus McKelvey, of Maui, the chairman of the first of three House committees the bill needs to pass to get to the House floor, said he won't hold a hearing for the bill.

"There is zero support for that legislation in the House of Representatives," McKelvey, chairman of the consumer protection committee, told The Associated Press. "To say there is absolutely zero support would be an understatement."

The bill already has missed one internal House deadline to be considered. A second internal deadline to hear the bill is on Thursday.

House Chief Clerk Brian Takeshita said the leaders of the committees on consumer protection, judiciary and finance could get around the deadlines if all three agree to put in a joint request to House Speaker Joseph Souki.

But McKelvey said that's not going to happen.

"There is a better chance of people flapping their arms and flying from Lanai to Maui," he said.

If the committee leaders don't want to entertain the bill, the House speaker can decide to refer the bill to another committee, Takeshita said.

But Souki told the AP he doesn't plan to override McKelvey's decision.

Because of Hawaii's biennium Legislature, if the bill doesn't get a hearing this year it can still pick up where it left off in the session next year. The bill would be able to skip Senate proceedings and go straight to the House committees for consideration.

McKelvey said he has sympathy for Tyler and other celebrities whose privacy rights have been violated. But there are enough legal avenues available to them, including taking the issue to court because privacy is protected in the Hawaii constitution, he said.

Tyler, who owns a multimillion dollar home on Maui, earlier said he asked Sen. Kalani English, from Maui, to introduce the bill after someone photographed him with his girlfriend at his home in December.

Along with Tyler, rock legend Mick Fleetwood, who has restaurant in McKelvey's district, personally appeared to urge lawmakers to pass the bill. Their appearance generated buzz in the state Capitol, as staffers snapped cellphone pictures of the stars and compared them in the hallways after the hearing.

Britney Spears, Avril Lavigne and several other high-profile celebrities also submitted written testimony in favor of the bill.

National media organizations have staunchly opposed the proposal, saying it would limit freedom of the press.






More From The Star-Advertiser

'Dream on,' House says on Tyler bill




 Print   Email   Comment | View 46 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

COMMENTS
(46)
You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
Bdpapa wrote:
Terrific, that's good news!
on March 21,2013 | 05:56AM
serious wrote:
Agreed, we have enough laws--how does one enforce them?
on March 21,2013 | 06:12AM
loquaciousone wrote:
Let me flap my arms and fly to Maui to ask Stevie.
on March 21,2013 | 06:49AM
soundofreason wrote:
The very same say do we all our other ...........oh, nevermind.
on March 21,2013 | 06:57AM
allie wrote:
The ridiculous act should be turned down. It is not even constitutional as ACLU attorneys pointed out. Shame on the ludicrous Senate for boring us with this. As for Tyler, he of simian appearance, he needs all the celebrity attention to maintain his lifestyle.
on March 21,2013 | 07:37AM
Snator wrote:
"There is a better chance of people flapping their arms and flying from Lanai to Maui," Funny! Guess that means 'no'.
on March 21,2013 | 06:26AM
honokai wrote:
This was only about meeting the dude and hanging out with him. Like a free backstage pass. So nice to feel important. Now get back to work!
on March 21,2013 | 06:28AM
soundofreason wrote:
Exactly!
on March 21,2013 | 06:58AM
allie wrote:
yup!
on March 21,2013 | 07:37AM
bumba wrote:
" Their appearance generated buzz in the state Capitol, as staffers snapped cellphone pictures of the stars and compared them in the hallways after the hearing." = So I guess the new law won't apply to "staffers".
on March 21,2013 | 06:31AM
lamedeer2011 wrote:
Why are we catering to rights for these stars. We have more problems and more important matters for the people of Hawaii.that need to be addressed. We didn't vote these clowns into office to represent these out of state people. These people want to be stars and then want laws to keep people away from them. They wanted the fame and attention. Can't have it both ways! You asked for it-so take it.
on March 21,2013 | 06:32AM
serious wrote:
What makes him--I think it's a he--a STAR. I think my wife is a STAR and I want equal protection!!!
on March 21,2013 | 10:29AM
wiliki wrote:
Anyone can be victimized by having their nude photos posted on the internet. Politicians should be happy that they're not famous enough to be embarrassed or their careers threatened this way. Mr. Weiner-man wouldn't have to retire from politics if a paparazzi shot his pic-- now would he?
on March 21,2013 | 12:26PM
Publicbraddah wrote:
Last thing I want to see is a naked Steven Tyler. Talk about messing with the beauty of our islands.
on March 21,2013 | 06:37AM
soundofreason wrote:
That's just great pal ! I haven't eaten yet and now I have no appetite ;)
on March 21,2013 | 06:59AM
allie wrote:
He is appalling looking
on March 21,2013 | 07:38AM
wiliki wrote:
How do you know? Have you seen the paparazzi pics?
on March 21,2013 | 12:27PM
bekwell wrote:
So . . . who decides what a private moment is. Someone walking down the street daydreaming could be conceived as a private moment by that person.
on March 21,2013 | 06:41AM
loquaciousone wrote:
Unlike the Senate, the House has more important things to do, like forgetting to vote on their pay raises.
on March 21,2013 | 06:50AM
MakaniKai wrote:
Good News for the day!!!!! Aloha.
on March 21,2013 | 06:50AM
cojef wrote:
Made my day,, for once the legislators decided correctly, which is not often. Hurrah for freedom of the Press. To look at his mug, who would want to be caught in a private moment with him. Ha, ha ha.
on March 21,2013 | 07:44AM
livinginhawaii wrote:
To entertain this bill was a complete waste of taxpayer dollars. Some form of petition should be required.
on March 21,2013 | 07:35AM
allie wrote:
agree..total shibai and waste of time
on March 21,2013 | 07:38AM
wiliki wrote:
Disagree. Having a measure of privacy in our homes enhances the living experience in Hawaii.
on March 21,2013 | 12:28PM
Maneki_Neko wrote:
The House is looking more and more like the adult legislative body while senators run around looking foolish.
on March 21,2013 | 07:35AM
geralddeheer wrote:
Disagree. The House, in an effort to reform the process, elected a Speaker who was the target of reformers over ten years ago. In return, we have been "rewarded" with non-passage of a bill that would never have survived judicial review. And for a bonus, they have passed some 'reform' legislation that will surely be amended and weakened in the Senate. It's the same old game made-over with political lipstick. The most important responsibility of the Legislature is the budget. The House version of the budget is at best, confusing, at worst, an absolute disaster for education. There are no adults here, only politicians executing an old scam while they crow about the good job they are doing....to us. See you in 2014.
on March 21,2013 | 08:44AM
Maneki_Neko wrote:
So a pox on both their houses, eh Gerry?
on March 21,2013 | 09:15AM
geralddeheer wrote:
Not a pox, reform. The process is broken and it's time for change. Why do both houses organize? Think about it, only 76 people are elected to the Legislature. Then, in their first act, they disqualify about twenty five percent from ever being leaders. Then, in their second act, a select few take key positions. It is a honor to be elected to public office by the People. Unfortunately, the People are 'rewarded' by a system that creates elite power brokers. To begin with, after the elections, legislative bodies need to organize as a whole; not break down into parties and caucuses. In the private sector, organizations that fully utilize human resources have a far better chance of success. The Legislature follows an elitist model, funneling key decisions through a select few individuals. And we wonder why government in Hawaii doesn't work with greater creativity, efficiency, effectiveness, and democracy. See you in 2014.
on March 21,2013 | 09:32AM
Kalaheo1 wrote:
Nice job Hawaii Hawaii House of Representatives!

Thank you for for undoing the damage of those clowns in the Senate and keeping us from being a national laughing stack.
on March 21,2013 | 08:22AM
W_Williams wrote:
Ah, the cost of fame. If I'm not entitled to the same privacy, why should these guys be just because they're famous. Besides, we have bigger problems than worrying about spoiled, entitled big heads.
on March 21,2013 | 09:08AM
wiliki wrote:
Everyone should have a right to the same privacy.... Today there is opportunity to harass people on the internet by publishing these pictures.
on March 21,2013 | 12:31PM
soshaljustic wrote:
Why don't they just quit their jobs?
on March 21,2013 | 09:13AM
GorillaSmith wrote:
Maybe we could table this foolishness and enact a law that makes HPD officers flap their arms and ticket the miscreants who insist on death-defying lane changes and left turns without using a directional signal.
on March 21,2013 | 09:43AM
jyorck wrote:
How much do these people charge for admission to their concerts? Stop whining, the downfall of being famous!
on March 21,2013 | 10:49AM
Naloboy wrote:
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. Say it ain't soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. This means we'll have to look at even more pictures of this...well let's just say.....imperfect human specimen.
on March 21,2013 | 11:35AM
loquaciousone wrote:
Just say it. He looks like he belongs on the set of the Planet of the Apes.
on March 21,2013 | 02:03PM
loquaciousone wrote:
Price: $24.99 & FREE Shipping on orders over $25. Details
on March 21,2013 | 11:36AM
lowtone123 wrote:
Dream On.
on March 21,2013 | 11:43AM
juscasting wrote:
who cares. I just want FleetwoodMac to do a concert here with Stevie Nicks...
on March 21,2013 | 11:54AM
Maneki_Neko wrote:
Stevie is 64 and weighs about the same as a small sumo wrestler. Geezer rock is fun!
on March 21,2013 | 03:35PM
wiliki wrote:
Looks like it takes more than a nude shot of a celebrity at home to pass such a bill. Perhaps if someone snuck a shot of Souki or McKelvey in their bathrooms and published it, then they might decide to take action on the bill?
on March 21,2013 | 12:21PM
Iuki wrote:
Good! It seems as though the most outrageous celebs are the ones who want extra protection. Britney Spears "submitting written testimony" about it. Come on! She has exposed every part of her body to photographers, going out in public wearing no underwear, for example.
on March 21,2013 | 01:14PM
tiki886 wrote:
I agree. We don't need new laws. Just enforce the existing ones on the books but why is it if I took the same pictures as the paparazzi do to get my rocks off, I am labeled a peeping Tom and sexual pervert subject to sex crimes punishment, while the paparazzi gets away with it by charging money to see the same pictures in magazines? I think I better re-examine my business model.
on March 21,2013 | 01:15PM
tiki886 wrote:
Just to clarify before the mahu comments start piling up...I meant to refer to wahine celebrities. Dats wat daddy likes.
on March 21,2013 | 01:20PM
fiveo wrote:
Thank you, representative Angus McKelvey. Glad to know at least you are not in someones pocket, like it appears Senator English is. Mahalo.
on March 21,2013 | 01:16PM
NOTSHEEP wrote:
Maybe now we can focus on real problems rather than catering to narcissistic "STARS" that want to choose their privacy at certain times and then demand attention at others. I think they chose their life style and have become rich and famous doing it. I bear them no ill will but they also have to take the bad with the good. Something about a sword that cuts both ways, having your cake and eating too, yiin and yang, etc., etc. Why is our legislature wasting precious time and effort on this. don't we have much bigger and more significant issues to discuss?
on March 21,2013 | 02:03PM
IN OTHER NEWS
Breaking News
Blogs
Volley Shots
Fey, Enriques on MJNT

Political Radar
Wilhelmina Rise, et al.

Court Sense
Cold War

Political Radar
Climate change

Island Crafters
YouCanMakeThis.com

Warrior Beat
Empty pit

Political Radar
Switch

Political Radar
`Progressive hero’