You should not see this as a citizen’s law but rather as a law for citizens, celebrities and politicians.
In 1998, California instituted the Violation of Privacy Act, which prohibits the use of digital devices to take pictures of celebrities on special occasions. However, this law has been criticized by opponents who believe that it may impede press freedom to gather news. Also, the language used was considered too loose and ambiguous. Some media lawyers have described the law as a “Pandora’s Box” that has brought a slew of serious problems.…
Since California noted that confrontations between celebrities and paparazzi still occurred and even worsened, in January 2010 another law was passed against paparazzi AB 2479 to address two main problems: paparazzi car chases which often lead to accidents and their behaviors that prevent celebrities from moving freely.
It was introduced as a law to “protect” these groups,
Twitter states that it can have a significant impact on their well-being, especially among women, activists, dissidents and minorities.
Alone, the kwa Heisa group is surprisingly small,
There are exceptions where people’s media can be shared without permission. This includes, for example, photos of public figures or photos that have news value.
This group suffers a lot more than people who are actually left behind to stand in front of doors, mail in stores, children’s schools, etc., which brings you back to current legislation in the largest markets. It should not lead to a restriction of his personal freedom.
It is a bonus that other groups will benefit from,
But you have to see by the marketing part it’s a gesture, it’s part decency and part legislation.
As a platform, you don’t want to make any spin on this nonsense.
“Total coffee specialist. Hardcore reader. Incurable music scholar. Web guru. Freelance troublemaker. Problem solver. Travel trailblazer.”