![]() A California trial court initially dismissed the charges, holding that the law targeted the media and thus violated the 1st Amendment. The precedent, however, could be applied to other paparazzi, including those who doggedly pursue Harry and Meghan.Īnother case, in 2012, involved photographer Paul Raef, who was charged with violating a California anti-paparazzi law for allegedly engaging in a high-speed car chase targeting pop singer Justin Bieber. The order, which applied only to Galella, was based on his cumulative actions. Onassis alleged that Galella had made her life “intolerable, almost unlivable, with his constant surveillance.” She obtained a court order requiring Galella to keep 25 feet away from her and 30 feet away from her children. Galella stalked Onassis by land and sea, even charting boats to capture images of her and her family on the ocean. When she accompanied daughter Caroline Kennedy to tennis lessons in Central Park, Galella arrived to take photographs from courtside. Gallela hid behind a coat rack in a New York Szechuan restaurant to capture images of Onassis at a private dinner party. on a bicycle in Central Park when Galella jumped out from behind a bush into the middle of the path, causing John to swerve violently, almost falling off his bicycle. In litigation battles between the two that extended over decades, courts found that scores of incidents crossed the line from legitimate celebrity news gathering to impermissible harassment. paparazzi culture.” Onassis sued Galella and won. In the 1970s, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis was aggressively pursued by photographer Ronald Galella, once dubbed the “ godfather of U.S. ![]() Two cases, however, provide useful insights. But how does the law draw the line in the intermediate space, in which paparazzi relentlessly swarm and stalk celebrities in public spaces, without engaging in any actual trespass, or overtly threatening physical harm? Surprisingly few judicial decisions have explored this conundrum. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |