Scarlet Johansson vs the Paparazzi, or why is this shit still legal?

[The Romulan Republic]

https://etcanada.com/news/439484/scarle ... t-targets/

Scarlett Johansson suffered a paparazzi scare after filming “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” Monday night.

The actress was said to have been taken to the Los Angeles Police Hollywood station after leaving the taping of the late-night show with two other people, NBC Los Angeles claimed. Capt. Steve Lurie confirmed that the actress was not driving, but that she believed the paps were “following her in a dangerous fashion” and she was frightened.

Johansson was said to have made it home safely after stopping for a while. No charges were filed and the star was not injured.

A spokesperson for the LAPD has since told ET, “Last night Scarlett Johansson was at ‘Jimmy Kimmel’. At some point in time, the paparazzi overpowered her security and for her security reasons and for her security team, they were taken to the Hollywood police station. At that point, she was later able to leave the station. There was no crime report taken. She was just a little spiffed.”

The spokesperson noted that he was not aware as to how long Johansson was at the police station before she left.

Johansson addressed the paparazzi scare in a statement obtained by ET Canada. “The paparazzi consistently go to increasingly dangerous lengths to stalk and harass the people they are photographing,” she said. “Even after Princess Diana’s tragic death, the laws were never changed to protect targets from the lawless paparazzi. Many paparazzi have criminal pasts and will perform criminal acts to get their shot.”

“Yesterday, after leaving ‘Jimmy Kimmel [Live]’, I was followed by five cars full of men with blacked out windows who were running red lights and putting other drivers and pedestrians at risk so they could follow me to find out where I was staying and subsequently stalk me and my young daughter for the duration of my stay,” she continued. “The paparazzi put people’s lives at risk, so they can wait for days in quiet neighbourhoods in blacked out cars, and try to follow me to the playground and photograph my child and other people’s children in a safe place that should be off limits, but isn’t.”

“All of this is perfectly legal,” Johansson noted. “After yesterday’s incident, I felt it was my duty as a concerned citizen who was being pursued dangerously and stalked to go to the local precinct and seek guidance there. I would encourage others in a similar situation to go to the police. Women across the US are stalked, harassed and frightened and a universal law to address stalking must be at the forefront of law enforcement conversations.”

The actress concluded, “Until paparazzi are considered by the law for the criminal stalkers they are, it’s just a waiting game before another person gets seriously injured or killed, like Princess Diana.”

Johansson and her “Avengers: Endgame” co-stars have been busy promoting the upcoming flick, which is set to hit theatres April 26.

ET Canada has reached out to Johansson’s rep for comment.

Now, normally I wouldn't post celebrity "news" in News and Politics, but I really think that Johansson has a valid point here, and that there is an argument to be made for tightening legislation. Please note that I'm not talking about restricting free speech, limiting what the press can say about celebrities- I'm talking about prohibiting behaviour which is harassing and threatening to public safety. If someone pulled this shit with someone who wasn't a celebrity, it would (I fucking hope) be treated as stalking and harassment, and its especially important not to overlook this during the larger discussion of sexual harassment that is currently going on. Because I think (I hope) that most of us would agree that if under normal circumstances someone stalks a woman (much less a child), or pursues them in a high speed chase, and takes numerous photographs of them going about their private life, we would call that person a sexual predator. Hell, following kids around and photographing them could probably get you on the sex offender registry as a pedophile, under other circumstances. And yet its considered okay here, because of corporate greed and a sense of entitlement from much of the public, a sense that if someone becomes a celebrity, they somehow owe the public access to every moment of their private lives as the price they pay for fame and fortune.

This sort of behaviour is obviously dangerous to public safety, as well. Johansson is right- it killed Diana, and it will kill others sooner or later.

In short: fuck the Paparazzi.

[bilateralrope]

who were running red lights and putting other drivers and pedestrians at risk

“All of this is perfectly legal,” Johansson noted.

I'm not sure how it is "perfectly legal" if you've got dangerous drivers. Running red lights is pretty obviously illegal. Dangerous driving should be the kind of thing that gets the drivers license revoked. Though the difficulty might be in proving it.

But, in this case, the solution looks obvious: Put cameras on celebrity vehicles. Catch the bastards driving dangerously. Get their plates. Get their faces if they step out of the car. Hand a copy of that footage over to the police. If the police do nothing, then start complaining about the police refusing to do their job next time the person in charge of those police is up for reelection. A celebrity complaining about a police chief refusing to protect the public, with video evidence, should be scary around election time.

[The Romulan Republic]

who were running red lights and putting other drivers and pedestrians at risk

“All of this is perfectly legal,” Johansson noted.

I'm not sure how it is "perfectly legal" if you've got dangerous drivers. Running red lights is pretty obviously illegal. Dangerous driving should be the kind of thing that gets the drivers license revoked. Though the difficulty might be in proving it.

You would think it would be illegal, yes.

The stalking, though, apparently isn't. Which is really fucked.

But, in this case, the solution looks obvious: Put cameras on celebrity vehicles. Catch the bastards driving dangerously. Get their plates. Get their faces if they step out of the car. Hand a copy of that footage over to the police. If the police do nothing, then start complaining about the police refusing to do their job next time the person in charge of those police is up for reelection. A celebrity complaining about a police chief refusing to protect the public, with video evidence, should be scary around election time.

Yeah, but so would the media outlets that employ the Paparaizzi opposing their reelection. Especially since generally, the sympathy of the public is evidently not on the celebrities side. There's that sense of entitlement I mentioned, and after all, its hard for the average joe to feel sympathy for the suffering of the rich and famous, even when they have a legitimate grievance and there is a genuine public safety issue as well. And, at the end of the day, people like to read their trashy, exploitative gossip rags full of celebrity photos.

[aerius]

Clearly, the solution is to move to a State such as Florida with "stand your ground" laws so that security can properly dispose of the paparazzi scum under the guise of self-defence.

[The Romulan Republic]

Clearly, the solution is to move to a State such as Florida with "stand your ground" laws so that security can properly dispose of the paparazzi scum under the guise of self-defence.

That honestly occurred to me as well, but I doubt anyone wants to take the inevitable lawsuit, bad press, and chance of prosecution going against them (or at best spending years and piles of money in court) that would inevitably follow from that.

In a civilized society, one is supposed to be able to address such issues by law, rather than having to rely on legally-ambiguous vigilantism to solve their problems.

[bilateralrope]

Yeah, but so would the media outlets that employ the Paparaizzi opposing their reelection. Especially since generally, the sympathy of the public is evidently not on the celebrities side. There's that sense of entitlement I mentioned, and after all, its hard for the average joe to feel sympathy for the suffering of the rich and famous, even when they have a legitimate grievance and there is a genuine public safety issue as well. And, at the end of the day, people like to read their trashy, exploitative gossip rags full of celebrity photos.

So the celebrities frame it as police refusing to protect the public from dangerous drivers. Don't even mention that these drivers are Paparazzi. Just that the police refuse to protect the public from them even when they have enough evidence to prosecute. It might not work. But it's not going to cost much to do so. It might even turn a profit if a TV network wants to take a show that features various videos of crazy drivers and makes a Paparazzi episode with all the gathered footage.

Though that is assuming that the police don't jump on a case where someone has collected all the evidence for them.

[Khaat]

My first thought: ablative security - have extra guys in extra cars that can run interception, so noone thinks they have to get in a high-speed chase to "get away". Just have Tom, Bert, and Hugo drive their SUVs in a line abreast at 5 under the speed limit behind you and not let the paparazzi pass.... "oh, but they'll just drive around the block, in an end-run!" Have you seen traffic lately?

In this culture of instant online viability, I'm surprised noone has advanced the idea of the fans themselves forming a human wall of antibodies around these germs. "Hi, 20 million social media followers! I'm being harassed by a bunch of paparazzi, so if you're in the [fill in the blank] area, come on down and stand around in front of them and their cars!" Anti-paparazzi flash-mobs.

*edit: spelling

[The Romulan Republic]

My first thought: ablative security - have extra guys in extra cars that can run interception, so noone thinks they have to get in a high-speed chase to "get away". Just have Tom, Bert, and Hugo drive their SUVs in a line abreast at 5 under the speed limit behind you and not let the paparazzi pass.... "oh, but they'll just drive around the block, in an end-run!" Have you seen traffic lately?

In this culture of instant online viability, I'm surprised noone has advanced the idea of the fans themselves forming a human wall of antibodies around these germs. "Hi, 20 million social media followers! I'm being harassed by a bunch of paparazzi, so if you're in the [fill in the blank] area, come on down and stand around in front of them and their cars!" Anti-paparazzi flash-mobs.

*edit: spelling

That's an amusing idea, but it could be genuinely dangerous to the fans, in some situations. And maybe lead to liability if a bystander got hurt?

Also, remember, its "fans" who are keeping these parasites in business.

I suppose that leaves celebrities with "hire more security", yeah.

[K. A. Pital]

My idea would be to have no overpaid celebrities and no yellow press... *shrugs*

[Solauren]

I'm pretty sure that sort of behaviour is illegal everywhere BUT the United States.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm pretty sure that sort of behaviour is illegal everywhere BUT the United States.

Yet another triumph of unbridled capitalism...

[LaCroix]

Or do it like Daniel Radcliffe- Buy 20 of the exact same outfits and wear them every day for 2 months.
All pictures became unsellable, because they could have been old...

Paparazzi ceased hunting him.

[houser2112]

Or do it like Daniel Radcliffe- Buy 20 of the exact same outfits and wear them every day for 2 months. All pictures became unsellable, because they could have been old... Paparazzi ceased hunting him.

That's genius, I love it.

[Solauren]

Or do it like Daniel Radcliffe- Buy 20 of the exact same outfits and wear them every day for 2 months. All pictures became unsellable, because they could have been old... Paparazzi ceased hunting him.

That's genius, I love it.

Holy fuck, that's so damn simple.

AND, you have the bonus of appealing to geeks by going "well, I heard that's what Einstein did"

I also have to wonder how workable something like the 'Flash Masks' from 'Almost Human', and 'LED Privacy Goggles' from 'Baby Driver' are.

[Solauren]

I'm pretty sure that sort of behaviour is illegal everywhere BUT the United States.

Yet another triumph of unbridled capitalism...

Actually, in this case, I believe it's more the United States rather 'extreme' interpretation of their own Constitution.

i.e Freedom of the Press was MEANT to be 'the Press can't be held for saying bad things about the government'.
It's been taken to 'oh, it means the Press can do whatever the fuck they want'

i.e Freedom of Speech was MEANT to be 'people can't be held for saying bad things about the government'.
It's been taken to 'People can say whatever the fuck they want, even if it's a lie, fabrication, etc'

i.e 'Right to Bare Arms', was written in the time when you were using front-end loaded firearms. Useful for hunting, and for militia. You can kill one target every 10 - 15 seconds with it, if you are fast and a good shot'
It's been taken as 'people have the right to own weapons can kill 100 people a minute even if you're the crappiest shot in the world.

[Civil War Man]

Or do it like Daniel Radcliffe- Buy 20 of the exact same outfits and wear them every day for 2 months. All pictures became unsellable, because they could have been old... Paparazzi ceased hunting him.

That's genius, I love it.

Holy fuck, that's so damn simple.

AND, you have the bonus of appealing to geeks by going "well, I heard that's what Einstein did"

I also have to wonder how workable something like the 'Flash Masks' from 'Almost Human', and 'LED Privacy Goggles' from 'Baby Driver' are.

Quite workable. Radcliffe also apparently has a hooded jacket with a reflective outer layer. If anyone tries to take a flash photo of him when he's wearing it, all they get is a picture of giant hoodie-shaped lens flare.

[Crazedwraith]

I'm curious how quickly this thread turned into brainstorming preventative measures the victims should take rather than talking about the paparazzi.

[Elheru Aran]

I'm curious how quickly this thread turned into brainstorming preventative measures the victims should take rather than talking about the paparazzi.

I suppose because there's a general consensus that they're scum, and nobody really has a problem with getting rid of them one way or another?

But on the other hand, the fact that the conversation is leaning towards what celebrities can do to negate the problem, versus legal solutions, suggests perhaps a certain disbelief in the ability of the legal system (particularly in the US) to handle it...

[Solauren]

The problem is, in the United States (and to a lesser degree Canada), Tabloid journalism is VERY big business. How big? I've seen 'magazines', showing conflicting cover stories, about the same people, with the same publishing date/week on the newstands, and people buy each one 'to see all the angles'.

As these rags make their money off celebrities, when one of them fights back in court against their scum bag 'freelance photographers', the rags pony up the legal bills to fight back, and often counter sue on 'constitutional grounds'. And those rags have very deep pockets.
If Ms. Johansson wanted to sue a bunch of paparazzi, she'd need Disney bankrolling the lawsuit, and despite that, should expect to lose.

That's why celebrities usually wait until the tabloids themselves write something they can completely disprove, and then nail them to the wall. They go in, show the judge the proof. Bam, the tabloid is nailed for fraud/slander/libel/whatever is applicable.

But against Paparazzi? Assuming you even identify the correct one, good luck.

So, since the legal arena is not really the place to fight them, you have to fight them where it really hurts.

You make it impossible/next to impossible to photograph you, then you no longer are a desirably target for the Paparazzi. Kind of like how elephants without ivory are not a target for poachers.

I also creates a legitimate industry, 'privacy defense', that would put decent people to work, and leave the scum Paparazzi looking for other employment.

Meanwhile, fighting in the court just gets the lawyers money.

Besides, this is a discussion board full of NERDS, and Scarlet Johansson is a hot sci-fi actress. Of course we're going to look at techie ways to help her.

Kinda of like being her SHIELD Armorer in Marvel.

[bilateralrope]

I'm curious how quickly this thread turned into brainstorming preventative measures the victims should take rather than talking about the paparazzi.

I was a security guard on the studio where they filmed Ghost in the Shell. Between the studio and the airport, there is a hill owned by the airport that the public are allowed to walk all over. At one point on the hill, you can see into a narrow area of the studio grounds. Someone took a photo of Scarlet Johansson walking through there and used it for a story saying that she was in New Zealand.

A few cameras on the cars she's travelling in is cheap compared to how much I'm guessing they spent to make sure nobody else took any photos of her. They rented the hill so they could trespass people, hired a security guard to watch everyone on the hill to make sure they weren't taking photos, and rented a caravan to use as a guard hut. Which seems a bit of an overreaction.

Also, I recognise that the police might have trouble doing anything about illegal activity if they don't have evidence. Evidence that cameras would provide. Then we got a bit sidetracked over what would happen if the police refused to do their job.

[Solauren]

Not so much the police refusing to do their job.

The problem is Paparazzi .. DO NOT CARE ..

In the United States, you arrest them for trespass, they pay their bail, and then go back to it.

And since most of the violations for trespassing or local or state level, it's not worth swearing out warrants for them. They just have to avoid being arrested in that area again.

In Canada, I believe trespass is a provincial level offense, and warrants will be sworn out for it in the case of stalking. It's why you don't have near the Paparazzi problem in Canada.

[The Romulan Republic]

Not so much the police refusing to do their job.

The problem is Paparazzi .. DO NOT CARE ..

In the United States, you arrest them for trespass, they pay their bail, and then go back to it.

And since most of the violations for trespassing or local or state level, it's not worth swearing out warrants for them. They just have to avoid being arrested in that area again.

In Canada, I believe trespass is a provincial level offense, and warrants will be sworn out for it in the case of stalking. It's why you don't have near the Paparazzi problem in Canada.

Sigh... States' Rights strikes again.

More and more, I think we just need one strong centralized government. Maybe municipal governments for purely local matters. But that would take an Amendment that would never pass, in the current US.

[Elheru Aran]

Not so much the police refusing to do their job.

The problem is Paparazzi .. DO NOT CARE ..

In the United States, you arrest them for trespass, they pay their bail, and then go back to it.

And since most of the violations for trespassing or local or state level, it's not worth swearing out warrants for them. They just have to avoid being arrested in that area again.

In Canada, I believe trespass is a provincial level offense, and warrants will be sworn out for it in the case of stalking. It's why you don't have near the Paparazzi problem in Canada.

Sigh... States' Rights strikes again.

More and more, I think we just need one strong centralized government. Maybe municipal governments for purely local matters. But that would take an Amendment that would never pass, in the current US.

Eh. While certainly the states could stand to have a little less oomph on the national level, the US is a big enough country (both in population and geographically) that having states as a sub-unit of government does make sense to some degree, given the vast amount of regional variety you get between the states in various ways (economically, demographically, etc). The argument can be made that a strong centralized federal government might not be able to give enough individual attention to these variations. But that's a whole other conversation.

The plain fact is that from a legal standpoint, tying up the parapazzi is a little too much hassle from the cops/judiciary viewpoint, unless there's something they can solidly nail them on. An adjustment to the law might be in order, some sort of harassment policy, or a court case involving privacy concerns-- celebrities shouldn't necessarily have to worry about being as public as they are. How exactly that would work, I don't know.

[aerius]

That honestly occurred to me as well, but I doubt anyone wants to take the inevitable lawsuit, bad press, and chance of prosecution going against them (or at best spending years and piles of money in court) that would inevitably follow from that.

In a civilized society, one is supposed to be able to address such issues by law, rather than having to rely on legally-ambiguous vigilantism to solve their problems.

It's Florida. You can shoot a black kid in broad daylight and the DA won't even bother to file charges. Somehow, I doubt they'll care much about a bunch of paparazzi scum getting their brains turned into Jackson Pollock art pieces.

As for laws & civilized societies, I've said this many times already, we ain't had a civilized society with a rule of law since before I was born. It's never existed in our lifetimes so you might as well wish for a unicorn that shits out skittles while you're at it. We ain't gonna have one until we the people demand it and start start stringing up the Bourgeois from lamp posts.

[The Romulan Republic]

That honestly occurred to me as well, but I doubt anyone wants to take the inevitable lawsuit, bad press, and chance of prosecution going against them (or at best spending years and piles of money in court) that would inevitably follow from that.

In a civilized society, one is supposed to be able to address such issues by law, rather than having to rely on legally-ambiguous vigilantism to solve their problems.

It's Florida. You can shoot a black kid in broad daylight and the DA won't even bother to file charges. Somehow, I doubt they'll care much about a bunch of paparazzi scum getting their brains turned into Jackson Pollock art pieces.

As for laws & civilized societies, I've said this many times already, we ain't had a civilized society with a rule of law since before I was born. It's never existed in our lifetimes so you might as well wish for a unicorn that shits out skittles while you're at it. We ain't gonna have one until we the people demand it and start start stringing up the Bourgeois from lamp posts.

Sigh... I'm not a mod, but can we avoid the advocacy of mass murder? This isn't even a (directly) political thread (then again, everything's political, so...)

And we didn't have civilized societies with the rule of law before you were born, either. At best we had civilization and rule of law for well off white men, and subjugation for everyone else. Which is pretty much what we have now, just not as blatant and extreme so sometimes people forget it.