Freedom of the Press and Britney’s Latte: Will the First Amendment Let Her Drink Coffee in Peace?
Posted on February 25, 2008
Filed Under Celebrities, Criminal Law |
Britney Spears, the one whom no paparazzi can ignore, has a unique place in our culture. Due to her rather unbalanced life, her every move draws dozens of paparazzi photographers. And who can blame them? They can potentially get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for photographs of her doing something news worthy. And, being a great performer, she hasn’t disappointed her audience. In the last year she’s gone through:
A war with television’s Dr. Phil
A 16 year old sister getting pregnant
Has a No. 1 single after years out of the music scene
Britney simply lives a life that draws a crowd. However, there is a major legal issue constantly at odds with Britney and other pop culture icons (Lindsey Lohan, Paris Hilton, Nicole Richie, etc.). That is the press’ First Amendment Rights and the celebrity’s right to privacy.
The First Amendment Reads:
Congress shall make no law …abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.
There are a number of federal and state laws providing privacy for citizens, including a California State Law protecting the use of public information (SB 1386), the Privacy Act of 1974 and the Privacy Act of 1988.
The challenge has been where these two laws collide, and celebrities seem to be the nexus point where the collision occurs. Take for example Michael Jackson’s divorce. Media outlets were suing the state to allow Jackson’s divorce papers to become public. Most people would say that the matters of their divorce are private and not for public consumption, however Jackson is a celebrity and so laws aren’t quite the same. Courtney Love for example complained that she had no recourse against slander because it is government law that once a person’s name is used quite a few times, that individual no longer has the right to protect their name.
All this brings us back to Britney Spears. Is it legal for the press to follow this girl and overwhelm her with flash photography, swarms of media and the like? Well, for 99% of citizens, a lawsuit or even criminal charges would be in order for the press. However, laws governing stalking and public property access allow for photographers to walk by the score with Britney as she gets her daily caffeine fix.
In a recent case, Bartnicki v. Vopper the United States Supreme Court said that free-speech/freedom of the press are equally as important as the right to privacy. One major challenge in all of this is that the laws were originally intended to allow the press to freely criticize and even attack the government, while matters involving Lindsey Lohan and Britney Spears are slightly less essential to the public good.
There are swirling issues surrounding celebrities and the paparazzi, such as should they paparazzi be allowed to photograph near schools, should they be allowed to photograph the children of celebrities and so on.
A German court actually sided with a member of royalty, Princess Caroline, as they ruled that she could not be photographed eating, swimming, shopping or other mundane things without her consent.
However, in America, the press has even attempted to claim it has the right to view autopsy photos and videotapes.
The battle rages on and there doesn’t seem to be a a resolution in site.
Comments
2 Responses to “Freedom of the Press and Britney’s Latte: Will the First Amendment Let Her Drink Coffee in Peace?”
Leave a Reply
You make an interesting arguement re: freedom of the press vs the right to privacy. One question: Are the packs of photographers following the likes of Paris, Lindsay, etc around REALLY part of the press?
Also, I don’t think that being famous makes the hordes following you around inevitable. There are numerous celebrities who are able to live their day to day lives without being photographed every second (i.e. Will Smith). I think the choices some celebrities make increase the odds that they will be targets. Until people wise up and realize that they are the center of the cause and effect realtionship, we will have this problem. The only other soultion is to change the nature of american society.
The packs of photographers following these celebs around only exist because of the press giving THEIR pictures and videos airtime. However, being famous by definition is having all of these “followers.” It is the price of fame.