jimtfoto
3rd of March 2005 (Thu), 09:01
Thought some of you would be interested in a proposed new law in Canada dealing with paparazzi.
---------
"Paparazzi could face jail if Parliament passes law
*
Cristin Schmitz
CanWest News Service
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
OTTAWA -- Popstars and supermodels seeking respite from the telephoto lenses of the paparazzi could soon find a haven in Canada if Parliament passes a tough law that would criminalize invasions of privacy.
Few people can forget the topless photos of Sarah Ferguson lounging poolside as her "financial adviser" sucked her toes in their St. Tropez hideaway. The images not only ended the ex-Duchess of York's marriage to Prince Andrew and rocked the British monarchy, they also crowned Daniel Angeli "king of the paparazzi" and reportedly earned the Italian photographer $2 million.
But paparazzi contemplating future expeditions to Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver to hunt visiting celebrities such as Prince Harry or supermodel Naomi Campbell can anticipate quite a different sort of reward for invading their prey's privacy in Canada -- as much as 10 years in prison.
The Liberals' omnibus criminal law bill, now before the Commons justice committee, contains sweeping anti-voyeurism provisions. Lawyers agree it could have serious consequences for journalists who make and/or sell images that violate their subjects "reasonable expectation of privacy."
Those who engaged in activity deemed by a court to be voyeuristic could face up to five years in jail, while those who sold, distributed or published such images knowing they were obtained through voyeurism would also risk up to five years in prison.
And a paparazzi who took a photo of a nude celebrity in circumstances where he or she had a reasonable expectation of privacy and then sold it to the newspapers could face a total of up to 10 years in prison, agreed Lisette Lafontaine, a senior criminal law policy counsel with the Department of Justice in Ottawa.
"Depending on their technique, and where they fit within the offence, they may be caught, but I guess the privacy of people is more important than selling photographs in whatever magazine," Lafontaine told CanWest News Service.
There is widespread agreement amongst police, justice officials, political parties, and criminal lawyers that the antiquated Criminal Code should be updated to deal with electronic-age Peeping Toms and sundry perverts who use Webcams, cell phone cameras, and other high-tech tools for sexual spying and other violations of people's privacy.
But Toronto media lawyer Paul Schabas said the bill's anti-voyeurism section is worded broadly enough that it could potentially criminalize what is now legal behaviour on the part of paparazzi and ordinary photojournalists.
"On its face, it captures surreptitious observation or photographing of people engaged in acts they expect are private," he said. "It seems to be saying not only does the state have no place in the bedrooms of the nation, but nor do reporters -- which could be a concern in some circumstances." The bill offers an accused voyeur a defence if "the act serves the public good,' " -- but it also stipulates that "the motives of an accused are irrelevant."
"The section carves out a defence for the public good but doesn't define 'public good'," said Schabas. "There might be situations where somebody's conduct might raise questions that would be of public interest but we don't know what they are. I think the law would be made clearer if there was some kind of defence for the media engaging in legitimate activities."
--------
cheers,
jim
---------
"Paparazzi could face jail if Parliament passes law
*
Cristin Schmitz
CanWest News Service
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
OTTAWA -- Popstars and supermodels seeking respite from the telephoto lenses of the paparazzi could soon find a haven in Canada if Parliament passes a tough law that would criminalize invasions of privacy.
Few people can forget the topless photos of Sarah Ferguson lounging poolside as her "financial adviser" sucked her toes in their St. Tropez hideaway. The images not only ended the ex-Duchess of York's marriage to Prince Andrew and rocked the British monarchy, they also crowned Daniel Angeli "king of the paparazzi" and reportedly earned the Italian photographer $2 million.
But paparazzi contemplating future expeditions to Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver to hunt visiting celebrities such as Prince Harry or supermodel Naomi Campbell can anticipate quite a different sort of reward for invading their prey's privacy in Canada -- as much as 10 years in prison.
The Liberals' omnibus criminal law bill, now before the Commons justice committee, contains sweeping anti-voyeurism provisions. Lawyers agree it could have serious consequences for journalists who make and/or sell images that violate their subjects "reasonable expectation of privacy."
Those who engaged in activity deemed by a court to be voyeuristic could face up to five years in jail, while those who sold, distributed or published such images knowing they were obtained through voyeurism would also risk up to five years in prison.
And a paparazzi who took a photo of a nude celebrity in circumstances where he or she had a reasonable expectation of privacy and then sold it to the newspapers could face a total of up to 10 years in prison, agreed Lisette Lafontaine, a senior criminal law policy counsel with the Department of Justice in Ottawa.
"Depending on their technique, and where they fit within the offence, they may be caught, but I guess the privacy of people is more important than selling photographs in whatever magazine," Lafontaine told CanWest News Service.
There is widespread agreement amongst police, justice officials, political parties, and criminal lawyers that the antiquated Criminal Code should be updated to deal with electronic-age Peeping Toms and sundry perverts who use Webcams, cell phone cameras, and other high-tech tools for sexual spying and other violations of people's privacy.
But Toronto media lawyer Paul Schabas said the bill's anti-voyeurism section is worded broadly enough that it could potentially criminalize what is now legal behaviour on the part of paparazzi and ordinary photojournalists.
"On its face, it captures surreptitious observation or photographing of people engaged in acts they expect are private," he said. "It seems to be saying not only does the state have no place in the bedrooms of the nation, but nor do reporters -- which could be a concern in some circumstances." The bill offers an accused voyeur a defence if "the act serves the public good,' " -- but it also stipulates that "the motives of an accused are irrelevant."
"The section carves out a defence for the public good but doesn't define 'public good'," said Schabas. "There might be situations where somebody's conduct might raise questions that would be of public interest but we don't know what they are. I think the law would be made clearer if there was some kind of defence for the media engaging in legitimate activities."
--------
cheers,
jim