Tyson: Is Paparazzi Above The Law

In light of the new developments, with Mike Tyson, One has to wonder as to what length a photographer will go to get a picture?  And to expand, how far does a celebrity have to endure the media’s intrusions upon their privacy?  Well if we look back at the death of Princess Dianne, and the events that led to her death, had it not been for the media hounds, chasing her limo driver, She probably would still be alive.  Well Mike Tyson allegedly requested on several occasions, for the photographer he punched out at Los Angeles International Airport, to leave him and his family alone.

Now correct me if I am wrong, but the “ex-boxer’s” hands are registered weapons. If someone were to ask to be left alone, would not a prudent person leave him alone?  Especially since he has no second thoughts of hurting someone, when he is put in a bad situation.  Now, in the news reports, the “poor reporter/photographer” stated he was in fear for his life.. Yet he stuck around, after receiving the first of several punches from the former professional boxer. What is this guy thinking?  Okay, enough of the questions, because it does not appear that we are going to have all the answers, any time soon.

Not too long ago, Brittney Spears’ camp, filed a complaint against Paparazzi, whom were becoming too aggressive, in their attempt to obtain photos.

Michael J. Fox and Paul Reiser told a House panel in Washington Thursday that tabloid photographers had snuck into hospitals to photograph their newborns - and spit in the actors' faces to provoke a dramatic photo.

"I expect to have my photograph taken, and I'm a professional and understand that," Fox told the House Judiciary Committee. "I strongly disagree with those who would argue that some sort of Faustian bargain has been struck whereby public figures are fair game, any time, any place."

Fox's testimony came as the House committee wrestled with balancing preservation of First Amendment rights against protection of individuals' privacy rights. (Article: Celebs support bill to limit paparazzi, Article from: Chicago Sun-Times Article date: May 22, 1998 CopyrightCopyright 1998 Chicago Sun-Times.)

In an effort to curb Paparazzi taking risks, beyond what is reasonable, As reported by C.N.N. Money.Com reported that Celebrity Weekly Magazine, has stopped accepting photos, taken under extreme risk taking, by photographer placing the subject in a risky position. C.N.N. cited The New York Times, in their reporting on a Tuesday that the magazine, a unit of privately-held Wenner Media, announced the policy, which it said formalizes existing guidelines to ban pictures taken by photographers who "violated traffic laws, trespassed on private property or invaded the privacy of children at school."

Regardless of who you are, if you are caught repeatedly following someone, it is called “Stalking.”  However, The media does this all the time; despite being asked to leave celeb’s and those whom they are supposedly covering.  If it were you or I, we would have restraining orders, probably jail time threatened, and would face constant contact with law enforcement.  However the media seems to feel that they are above the law, in the name of  the “first amendment.”

In reasonable society, if someone is doing something inherently dangerous, and an injury or death is caused, that is involuntary homicide.  However, if we are in the process of committing a crime (even if it is on it’s face a misdemeanor) and some one is injured or dies, it is murder.  This is the main-stay of establishing charges for bank robbers and drunk drivers.  However, the media are constantly forcing themselves in places and trespassing where they were either not invited, or supposed to be.  When others get hurt, who cares! (sarcastically put.) They are there in the spirit of the “first amendment”. and that is supposed to make it okay.

Now, let’s go back to the Mike Tyson Incident for a moment.  If in the course of doing something dangerous, there are consequences for engaging in said “dangerous” activity.  Now, I am not sure about most of you, but if someone whom has their hands registered as dangerous weapons tells me to leave;  My continually pursuing that person becomes dangerous.  Especially when that person has had issue with violence, in the past.  What does one have to do, to express the dangerous nature of persistently going after him.  Take the picture from a distance and be glad you did not get hurt, then leave!!!!

Personally, The reporter/photographer got what he deserved.  Claiming he was in fear for his life?  Laughter has to follow this guy’s comments.  Look, the guy is dangerous to anger.  You angered him and when he asked you to leave, you pursued him.  You were at the edge of “stalking” him and his family.   Now, If someone kept following you on the streets of Los Angeles, or in New York City, you would be fearful for your safety.  You would be looking for something to prepare yourself for the worst.

 Now, if some reporter whom claims he was staying back and away from Tyson, was following him after being told to leave;  It is understandable that Mr. Tyson should have been defensive, at the minimum side of self preservation.  In closing:  Mr Tony Echevarria, You deserved everything you received.