Question to you: What should the limits be for freedom of press when it comes to paparazzi behavior?

[MessiahRp]

I think we can all agree that freedom of the press has been one of the most important aspects of our Constitution and the fabric of American truth because we need real journalism, not just government approved stories but real journalism to tell us what is going on. Wikileaks is proof of the importance of tearing off that wall between government secrets and the American people and how different perceptions can become once we know the truth.

However I want to take this the other direction. The one aspect I really don't like about one part of the media is the seemingly excessive paparazzi stalking and being outside every celebrities house (big stars or otherwise) and really harassing them constantly. It was this paparazzi harassment that killed Princess Diana. Now I doubt some people are in as much danger as others but nevertheless the tabloids (National Enquirer, Star, People, TMZ, etc) and the like have gotten over the top with having photographers stake out these peoples' houses and make sure that their lives are living hells.

Furthermore in a case like Casey Anthony, it's not even just the tabloid media doing it. It's the mainstream media. She gets released from prison after a 3 year court case in which, like it or not, the prosecutor's flimsy case was not considered enough to convict her and one in which a biased media shaped and formed opinions about her that made her just short of the devil to some people. Whether or not you think she was innocent or guilty, one cannot deny the media's slant over the past three years. Also, whether or not you think the jury was wrong we don't live in a third world country where our courts and the decisions of our peers get to be undone by emotional vigilante violence.

With Anthony, I can see that happening because of the way the media slammed her (Nancy Grace alone deserves several lawsuits about comments over this case) and because they just won't let her be now. They're reporting everything. When she was released. That she has gone into hiding and reporting on where this is not to mention speculating on future plans. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8643675/Casey-Anthony-goes-into-hiding-after-release-from-prison.html) Photogs are in her face 24/7 and the media will not let up in reporting her every move.

And if you think the emotional crazies don't want to get her, think again. Another woman in Oklahoma was attacked just for looking like Anthony (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/07/15/2011-07-15_oklahoma_woman_who_looks_like_casey_anthony_attacked_by_crazed_revengeseeker.html).

They're putting her life at risk by covering her like this. Playing right into the hands of the lunatic crazies.

So I ask you. Should there be limits on freedom of the press in regards to paparazzi? Does this not conflict with other laws involving privacy?

I want your take. Let's discuss.

[Bake]

1. I, for one, hope that little shit never has one day of peace for the rest of her days

Papparazzi, do what you do .. do a Princess Di on her sorry ass.

Acquitted? Yes. Innocent? Hell no. Those are two different things entirely.

Bake

[MessiahRp]

2. So we as Americans should just use our opinions to circumvent the courts and go after people.

We should be vigilantes and murder people anytime we deem them guilty or don't like a court decision. We're that uncivilized? I sure hope not. The way people talk about getting Casey Anthony brings out the worst of America. We start to sound like Pakistan or some Middle Eastern or African nation where killing is justifiable and a way of life. I couldn't disagree with your assessment any more than I do.

Rp

[Bake]

4. Juries get it wrong sometimes.

And I'm a lawyer. Juries do get it wrong. We had a case in KY where Mel Ignatow tortured and killed his girlfriend, Brenda Sue Schaeffer, but got off because a jury got it wrong .. they had him on tape talking about the freakin' grave where he and another woman buried her .. but they didn't convict becuase they had watched too much CSI.

"Not guilty" doesn't mean innocent. If you think it does, you are mistaken. Anthony is the most hated woman in this country right now. Let the papparazzi chase her ... First Amendment in action. I hope she has no peace for the rest of her days, and I hope she doesn't profit one thin dime from what she did.

Meanwhile, Scott Peterson (who was also guilty, IMHO) is sitting on death row, saying WTF??? They ACQUITTED her and I'm on death row???? People get convicted every single day on less circumstantial evidence than in the Anthony case.

Bake

[Bake]

5. And by the way, they later found the PHOTOGRAPHS Ignatow took of the whole crime.

He had stashed them in the ductwork of his house, like a trophy. I believe in the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. But Ignatow got away with murder. He's dead now, by the way.

Just because he was acquitted (like Anthony) doesn't mean he gets to be a respected member of society again.

Bake

[MessiahRp]

7. I'd prefer she not profit either but that's not what we're talking about.

We're talking about putting her life in danger. Just because YOU and others (many of which were severely slanted by the media) deem her guilty doesn't give people the right to murder her. It doesn't work that way.

[Bake]

9. She's a public figure now. The papparazzi chasing her don't hurt a thing.

If she decides, on her own, to do 95 or 100 mph to get away from them, that's her decision.

I stand with the First Amendment. If you don't, why not?

Bake

[MessiahRp]

10. If the first amendment gets someone killed, what are our rights good for anyway?

Can't use them when you're dead.

Rp

[Bake]

12. That's the thing ... it won't be the First Amendment that gets her killed (if that happens)

The First Amendment never killed anybody.

Bake

[fredamae]

6. How do you know she is not innocent of murder?

Were you in the court room every day to hear every uttered word of testimony?

She may have been an irresponsible and terrible parent, but that does not make her a murderer.
The jury has spoken. Let it go.

What if it were you, things looked this bad and yet it was "publicly created" to look that way, so MSM could get better rating for the "manufactured juice" in the story...and yet you really are Innocent of the crime of murder?

[fredamae]

3. I don't believe "Freedom of the Press" is

applicable to the Private lives, nor do I believe it was ever intended to be "public judge and jury".

Freedom of the Press is NOT a License to "kill" and there are situations where a persons death is attributable, imho, to MSM and their "expert hacks".
I believe that if anything happens to any person as a direct result of publicity, those orgs/corps should be held accountable in a court of law for damages: charges of conspiracy for profit (sales and ratings), libel, loss of life, home, family, privacy, income, stress and suffering etc...Especially charges for any physical harm to persons and or property.

The Media intentionally gets the public worked up in a frenzy over Pure speculation, sound bites and bias--when a simple and factual reporting of Facts could avoid all of this.
Those who are "professed professionals" ie: former prosecutors, lawyers, judges, shrinks etc" should be held to the Highest degree of interference for they are the ones who, imho, are the MOST responsible for their credentials afford them "credibility" when all they offer are bullshit "what-ifs" biased opinions.
It's an exercise in "controlling the masses" and it's the "NOTW" way.

I hope it's not as bad as it looks to me.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RegieRocker]

11. 250 ft. distance in public and from personal property boundry lines.