• Wed, Aug 14 2013

Jennifer Garner Gets Teary-Eyed In Defending Anti-Paparazzi Bill Which Awesomely Passed

jennifergarnerpaparazzibillSenate Bill 606, the California bill that Halle Berry has passionately advocated for, has unanimously passed. The legislation will include recording or photographing a child without parental/legal guardian permission as “harassment.” But while Halle has certainly put her daughter Nahla‘s story front and center when testifying, so has everyone’s favorite Normal mom Jennifer Garner. The mother who doesn’t want you to think of her as “just” a wife, nearly cried on the stand when describing her concerns for her kids.

Seen in footage below, Jennifer’s voice quakes as she testifies:

“I love my kids,” said Garner, who has three children with filmmaker/actor Ben Affleck. “They’re beautiful and sweet and innocent, and I don’t want a gang of shouting, arguing, lawbreaking photographers who camp out everywhere we are all day, every day, to continue traumatizing my kids.”

Traumatizing officially ceased as that bill is now headed straight to the appropriations committee. A moment of pause, however, for the Motion Picture Association of America, as well as other journalists, who were not in favor of this bill because, reportedly, “the inability to take photos of children could prevent them from gathering the news.” Yeah, because 7-year-old Violet Affleck is really going to give you the 411 on “news.”

Share This Post:
  • Rachel Sea

    GOOD. Paparazzi coverage of celebrity kids is nauseating. Being filmed by strangers is creepy, and violating enough for adults, kids don’t have the context to understand people who stalk for pay.

  • CrazyFor Kate

    You could argue that adult celebrities knew what they were getting into when they worked to become actors/musicians/whatever. You CANNOT make the same argument for children, whether the offspring of celebrities or child celebrities or both. Paparazzi who get into kids’ faces and mess with their lives are scum. Good for the lawmakers.

    • JLH1986

      Remember last month I think someone called Suri Cruise a bitch? Really? I get the interest in celebs. But the kid thing? Too much

  • Theresa

    How can we have a law that only caters to celebs… That is fucking retarted.

    • Blah

      It doesn’t cater to celebrities. This law applies to any child. It may be difficult to imagine yourself in a situation where you would need this law, but it’s good that it exists.
      Just as an example, let’s say your child is born with a facial deformity and some a**hole reporter is hanging outside the hospital, waiting to exploit your kid for the local news. You would be glad that this law existed to protect your baby.

    • Rachel Sea

      Please be conscious of your word choices. http://www.r-word.org/

    • disqus_WjKIYzni5a

      THANK YOU

    • JLH1986

      Also it would preclude creepy ass weirdos from hanging out and taking photos of perfectly normal happy healthy kids playing. Until this a parent could call the cops and they may (or may not) shoo them away. Now there is some recourse. Also in areas where movies/shows are filmed paparazzi chasing celebrities down, blocking streets for photos of a kid etc. cause a danger for everyone in the area not the celebrity.

  • LadyClodia

    I totally agree that this is a great law, and I also feel guilty because I do occasionally indulge in an articles and photo albums about celebrity kids. I know where most of the pictures came from, and I know it’s wrong, but I still find myself looking at them.

    • Amber

      May I ask why you care? I can’t for the life of me figure out why anybody gives a damn about celebrity kids. They’ve done nothing to interest you. Why are they so much more fascinating than any other random kid on the street?

    • LadyClodia

      Sometimes I like looking at pictures of cute kids. We all have guilty pleasures, and sometimes I look at gossip websites, and they’ll have features about celeb kids, and I might look at or read them. I like seeing pictures of celebs with their pets too. Maybe it’s because it’s a peek into their lives. It’s not OK when it’s harassing or traumatizing for the children, though.

    • Mya

      Why does it matter to you?

  • Amber

    In some ways this bill does suck though. Is this going to cause a problem if a child walks into view on camera at a live news shoot or if photos at a local park are shot for an innocent story for the newspaper? That would blow.

    I’m all for kids not being harassed by scumbags. I’m just worried that this could have some crazy, stupid repercussions.

    • Rachel Sea

      No, it’s not about taking a child’s image, it’s about doing it in a harassing manner, for money. You can see the amendment here, it’s very brief and straightforward. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB606

    • Amber

      Thank you for posting that. It’s actually very reassuring. I was worried that the bill would be overreaching but it doesn’t seem to be at all.

    • Alex

      I just read the text and I’m willing to be corrected if I’m wrong here… but isn’t harassment as it’s described in the bill by ANYONE already illegal? And wouldn’t it make just as much sense to apply this to adults as well as children?

      That should do wonders for getting rid of paparazzi altogether without infringing on legitimate journalism and news reporting.

    • Rachel Sea

      They’ve been fine tuning for months, the highlighted bit is the August, 6th amendment. The portion of Sec 11414(b)(2) that says “including, but not limited to, that conduct occurring during the course of any actual or attempted recording of the child’s or ward’s image or voice, or both, without the written consent of the parent or legal guardian of the child or ward, by following the child’s or ward’s activities or by lying in wait. The conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable child to suffer substantial emotional distress, and actually cause the victim to suffer substantial emotional distress.” is recent and it’s the bit that Berry, and Garner (and others) have fought for. Previously paparazzi have been protected under freedom of the press.