Halle Berry's Paparazzi Bill

Avatar for cmkristy
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-05-2005
Halle Berry's Paparazzi Bill
10
Thu, 08-15-2013 - 9:35am

Halle Berry is continuing her legal battle to redefine the definition of harassment according to California State law. As of today, the bill passed and will now be passed on to the Appropriations Committee.

Yet, the win did not come without struggle. Fellow celeb mom Jennifer Garner joined the "Monster" actress in court this afternoon, where Berry testified that paparazzi taunted her five-year-old daughter Nahla, telling the young girl she might not see her father again.

Garner testimony was similarly heated, trumpeting that her kids had no say in her celebrity:

“I chose a public life … [but] my three children are private citizens. I love my kids. They’re beautiful and sweet and innocent, and I don’t want a gang of shouting, arguing, lawbreaking photographers who camp out everywhere we are all day every day to continue traumatizing my kids.”

Continue reading here- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/13/halle-berry-paparazzi_n_3750840.html?utm_hp_ref=parents&ir=Parents

I was pretty shocked to see the heated debate this bill brought about on social media.  Many people feel as if this is the life they chose and it comes with the territory.  Others are on the side of these two actresses and say that the children should be protected from the paparazzi.  Where do you stand on the issue?

 photo snowsiggy.png

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-11-2012
Thu, 08-15-2013 - 10:01am

Halle Berry brought children into this world knowing full well that she was a celebrity and paparazzi comes with the territory. She should have considered what her lifestyle would do to children before she had them. Even knowing what the paparazzi will do to her children, she still choses to continue with her profession. This is her fault and now she wants taxpayers to protect her. Anyone who choses to be a very public personality should not get the chance to cry foul when things get a little too close for comfort.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-03-2013
Thu, 08-15-2013 - 12:01pm
I saw a clip about this on TV yesterday. It made me a little sad to see Jennifer Garner choke up when talking about this. While I agree- they had to know to a certain extent what they were in for when they had kids, I think things have gotten out of hand. Is it just me or does it seem as if the paparazzi has become more aggressive in recent years? I'm guessing social media, etc has played a role in this- some people want this gossip 24/7. I really think paparazzi need to step away from the children. They obviously won't be doing it themselves so I guess a law needs to made to keep them away.
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Thu, 08-15-2013 - 11:53pm

Most celebrities chose to be actors or musicians, etc...they didn't choose to be constantly hunted public figures.  In my opinion, they do owe some of their time and privacy to take pics and sign autographs for fans, but the way they are hunted by the paparazzi is WAY out of line.  I think the 25 foot limit is way, way too close.  I'd go for at least 100 feet.  Let the paparazzi buy a telephoto lens.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-13-2007
Fri, 08-16-2013 - 12:19pm
I agree- 25 feet is really too close. 100 feet would be much better.

Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-24-2012
Fri, 08-16-2013 - 12:23pm

Well, I never thought I'd say this but...I agree with Deenasdad Tongue Out

The paparazzi WAY WAY WAY oversteps their boundries, especially when it comes to people's kids.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-16-2013
Fri, 08-16-2013 - 1:41pm

Why on earth would anyone chose to be an actor or musician if they weren't seeking fortune and fame?

I tend to agree that it's not the taxpayers problem and we shouldn't have to pay to have a law enforced to protect a celebrity's privacy. I'm sure there are people they can hire to keep the paparrazi at bay.

Avatar for jamblessedthree
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-23-2001
Fri, 08-16-2013 - 9:00pm
I have little sympathy for celebrities, While I wouldn't want to see celebrities chased down like Diana I do think their demand for privacy is kind of selfish, I mean they demand and get billions of dollars for public exposure, I think there's a price beyond the studio you just act at.

 

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2009
Sat, 08-17-2013 - 10:11am

First of all I hate the word "celebrity". It brings to mind people who are "celebrities" for the sake of being famous and not for anything they have done. 

Actors and musicians are craftmen. Their career choice is to "tell stories" in action and music, to engage in the cultural life of our society, to interpret our way of life in action and music.  These people do not first say to themselves "I want to be famous" so I am going to be an actor/musician or whatever. Being famous is a byproduct of what they do and "how good they are" at their craft. They are actors/musicians etc  first. (I am sure that LA is full of actors that are not famous.)

Yes, the sucessful ones get paid a great deal but that does not mean the public "owns them".  They deserve privacy when they are "not on the job" as much as a plumber, doctor or lawyer does. What they do in their private lives is their business.  And their children and family members should be OFF-LIMITS.  What their kids look like and what they do has NOTHING to do with craft.

It is as if those who think they have a right to know everything about a celebrity are jealous. They want to see the "celebrity" fail; they want to see their children end up "messed up" because it makes them feel better about themselves and their choices in their lives. I wonder how they would feel if they were stalked day and night and their children were harassed.

Avatar for jamblessedthree
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-23-2001
Sun, 08-18-2013 - 8:51am
I certainly do think there is a price for stardome. Jealous.. Really? it's the fault of papparazzi and society that subscribes to that that kids grow up messed up? The fact is kids grow up unscathed or dysfunctional b/c of the dynamics under which they're raised. And while I think that is a universal concept the life of a a celebrity is not like the life of a plumber or other normal professional, They live lives only seen in fairy tales and that's why society is so caught up in it.

 

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2009
Wed, 08-21-2013 - 11:05am

People are jealous and envious of these people's lives and yes, think their lives are "fairy tales".  But no life is a fairy tale and that does not give the  public the right to intrude on their lives. 

People love to hear that the kids of "celebrities" are messed up; makes them feel better about themselves and their lives. But, in reality, there are just as many (and statiscally more) messed up children of plumbers, factory workers and whatever in the world.  

And yes, the papparazzi (and hence the general public) does contribute to the problems these kids can have. I cannot imagine how difficult it must be for a mother to have her young child harassed, asked inappropriate questions by total strangers, not able to go and get an ice cream or go to school without strangers snapping pictures of them.

I see no news value in Ms. Garner taking her kids to school or to the park. It is actually creepy that photographers even show up and take pictures.

These kids are not "news".  Their parents, when they are not working, are not news. It's called gossip-the age old over the fence type now translated to the modern age.