Halle Berry & Jennifer Garner’s paparazzi bill for children is now a law

About six weeks ago, Halle Berry and Jennifer Garner testified in front of the California State Assembly on behalf of a new anti-paparazzi bill in their state. The bill would impose much stricter penalties on anyone who “seriously alarms, annoys, torments or terrorizes a child.” Both actresses told stories of their children being harassed by the paparazzi, with Garner saying that she didn’t want “a gang of shouting, arguing, lawbreaking photographers who camp out everywhere we are all day every day to continue traumatizing my kids.

The bill has passed and was just signed into law by governor Jerry Brown. The children of celebrities and other public figures now have some much-needed protection against the paparazzi. Halle Berry issued a triumphant statement, and Sandra Bullock recently expressed her gratitude for the new law:

Beginning on Jan. 1, 2014, a paparazzo convicted of harassing a minor who has been singled out due to his or her parent’s profession (famous actors, singers, reality TV stars, politicians, etc.) can spend up to a year in jail — which is raised from six months previously. Fines can also be imposed, including $10,000 for the first violation, $20,000 for the second, and up to $30,000 for the third. The law also allows the parent or guardian of the child being harassed to seek civil liability.

“Kids shouldn’t be tabloid fodder nor the target of ongoing harassment,” Sen. Kevin de Leon of Los Angeles said, adding that the bill “will give children, no matter who their parent is, protection from harassers who go to extremes to turn a buck.”

Berry was joined by Jennifer Garner in August to testify before California lawmakers, claiming that photographers follow them around wherever they go and taunt their children. (Berry is married to fellow actor Olivier Martinez, while Garner is the wife of actor Ben Affleck).

“I am forever in awe of the support I got within my community from the enormously talented musician Adele to fellow actor, Jennifer Garner, who traveled with me to Sacramento to share her children’s stories, experience, and her desire to give them a better life,” Berry said in a statement. “I’m grateful to Nia Vardalos and the numerous parents who work as actors, musicians, as well as professionals in medicine, mental health, lawyers, judges, and cops who have experienced their children being harassed, tormented or otherwise put in dangerous situations due to their parent’s profession and therefore lent their support.”

“It is for all of us that I rejoice today and hope that this fight will continue and that the proper enforcement of this law will truly make a positive impact on the daily lives of all children,” she concluded.

Fellow actress and mom Sandra Bullock also spoke out about the bill, telling “Entertainment Tonight,” “It was passed! I didn’t know it was passed! Are you kidding? That is amazing! [Before] we [were] fair game, do whatever you want to us, it [was] almost like child slave labor, it shouldn’t be photographed and sold. Let them be kids, don’t let them live in fear. If they turn 18 and want to be an actor, they’ve dug their own grave on that one. [Halle Berry and Jennifer Garner] went out and fought hard for it, and we’re grateful.”

[From The Huffington Post]

It’s unclear what impact this will have on the celebrity family photos we see, but hopefully it will give the families, and especially their children, some peace. It’s outrageous to me that anyone would shout mean things to a child in order to get some kind of reaction for photos. Which celebrity do you think will try to enforce this law first? My money is on Halle, especially after she has her second child. She probably sought out this law hoping to spare her second baby from some of the things that Nahla has gone through. Plus her whole “moving to France” plan fell through.

photo credit: WENN.com

Related stories

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

113 Responses to “Halle Berry & Jennifer Garner’s paparazzi bill for children is now a law”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. T.fanty says:

    Jennifer Garner did this? Berry, I understand, but it seems a tad hypocritical from Garner. How will Ben Affleck win his oscar now?

    • ann says:

      They will still get their picture taken, but next time the kids won’t get yelled at. How nasty are these photogs? Ugh

    • Lindy79 says:

      I know! So will the endless coffee and ice cream runs stop now the kids can’t be photographed?
      They’re lucky that AnnE was such a force during 2012 campaign, it took the attention off them.

      As an aside, I was watching a Halle movie on the plane on Monday, which was funded by WWE.
      I never thought I would see a former best actress winner in a movie funded by tv wrestling…

      • Rachel says:

        The kids can still be photographed. However, the photographers are not allowed to shout at them or otherwise harass them in order to get a shot.

    • bns says:


      She uses the paparazzi as much as they use her.

      • hazeldazel says:

        I mean, really. It’s completely hypocritical of Garner and Berry to champion this law when they’re the ones calling the paps to get photos/attention. So are they going stop calling the paps, then? I don’t think so.

        The law was needed, but it’s just like Leanne supporting anti-bullying campaigns.

    • L says:

      She’s said several times in interviews they’ve talked to the paps about taking picture-e.g. you can get your one shot and then leave the kids alone.

      Apparently the paps were screaming at the kids constantly, stalking them after school, and being jerks. Hopefully Garner is thinking after this they won’t have to compromise.

    • Feebee says:

      No, there is a difference between the paps taking photos of your kids out with you and them yelling and screaming in their faces from 5 or 6 feet away being total arseholes.

      I don’t know if but would hope they’d have included a clause that the kids couldn’t be photographed (or pictures sold/published) if the kids were not with their famous parents ie out with a nanny.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        I think originally they were going to try and get a law about photographing children and selling it…but then journalists complained that it would infringe on their 1st amendment rights, and pointed to tragedies like natural disasters, etc. and how photographs of children help communicate real news. I think that influenced where the line was drawn.

    • Bluebear says:

      Personally, I don’t think Jennifer Garner has really gone looking for the attention. She is just living her life like a normal mother instead of relying on a nanny constantly. I make two drives to a school a day, trips to various after school activities with my children, coffee runs that my youngest accompanies me on and more. If Garner had her nanny take her child to dance class perhaps there wouldn’t be a picture of it, but why should she not participate in her child’s activities if she wants to just so that some zealous photog won’t snap shots of her? She has a right to be an active mother in her children’s lives, and she has the right to get her own damn coffee. Lilo may be calling the paps for coffee runs, but I never got that impression from Garner. There are numerous video’s of her snapping at photogs for bothering her children and getting to close for her comfort. This is a woman who is so invested in her children leading normal lives that she had them selling lemonade from their driveway. That should be commended in the Hollywood world, not snarked at like she is looking for attention.

      • Megan says:

        here is the problem with that theory, a ton of moms in Hollywood do the exact same thing everyday and many are bigger stars then Garner, in fact no one would care at all about Garner at this point if she wasn’t Mrs Affleck and she knows it. She uses her kids to craft the image of ultimate mom, she goes to places that are known pap hang outs, and she has called them.

        She courts them and then complains when they come to further her image. She isn’t the only star in Hollywood that doesn’t have a nanny and we don’t see their kids.

      • Bluebear says:

        I have yet to see any “proof” that she calls them. The paps have zeroed in on a few hollywood families and harassed and targeted them to no end. The Jolie-Pitt clan, the Garner’s, and the Beckham’s for example. Little Suri Curise was called a bïtch just a few months ago and she is only six. Pictures of these kids sell, and so they are targets. Simply because Jennifer Garner is a normal human who has patterns (the same coffee shop, the dance class, the school day ending) doesn’t mean she is inviting the paps into her life to photograph her children. Those paps get more money for pictures of those particular children. I take the fact that she stood up for all hollywood families hoping to pass a law to mean that she doesn’t care for the targeting of her children.

        There is zero proof that she has called the paps to get shots of her children, there is proof that she has lobbied for laws to protect her children from just that happening. That speaks volumes.

  2. lisa2 says:

    I was very surprised this passed. And so quickly. I think it will probably get challenged but I guess we will see. I think it will interesting to see how it goes. Most of the celebrity children that are really sought after are not seen on a daily basis. There is a loooooonnnnggg list of children that are seen daily. So let’s see how it goes.

    and on side note.. I HATE HALLE’s hair like that. It looks so dry and brittle. So much cuter when it is that pixie cut.

  3. brin says:

    Yes, I think Halle will definitely enforce it first (and often).

  4. Mia 4S says:

    Most of their parents are hypocrites, but since they can’t be protected from their parents this is something at least. I don’t think this can or will stop photos (if so, it will get murdered on a constitutional challenge) but it might stop the yelling and attempts to draw a reaction.

    • Kate says:

      I think it’s wrong to yell at the children, they’re not celebrities. What about children who are on reality shows, are they fair game. Since they’re parents are putting them front and center? What about parents who sell photos of their children and court the paps?

      It would be funny if Halley was walking the red carpet with her daughter and all the paps, put their cameras down.

  5. Emma - the JP Lover says:

    I am SO glad this bill passed and is now law! I can’t believe a lot of people who post here just couldn’t understand why some of the children photographed–yes, especially the Jolie-Pitt children–often looked upset or sad in their photos.

    (Shudder) Can’t you just imagine some of the nasty things shouted at Shiloh during the ‘Angie’s trying to make her a boy!’ crazy phase?

  6. Lucy2 says:

    I hope it helps, but it seems a little vague. If they’d banned the sale of kids’ pics, that probably would have been more effective, since all the paps care about it chasing the money.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      I agree. It’s dangerous to make these children so instantly recognizable – there are a lot of crazy people out there. I also think they have a right to privacy while they’re growing up regardless of what their parents do for a living.

    • Reece says:

      Yes that’s the problem with it. It’s very vague as to what harassment IS. I think we’re going to have to wait and see next year how it will be defined once it starts being enforced.

    • xera says:

      Or force the publishers to pixellate the children’s face

    • Tiffany :) says:

      As I mentioned above, they were going to try and do that, but journalists spoke against it. They said that would be a violation of their rights and pointed to events like natural disasters, terrorist attacks, etc. and said that not photographing children would prevent reporting of legitimate news.

      • ol cranky says:

        weren’t there some concerns that the law was so vague it could impact non-celebrities taking pictures of their own children at games and parties unless they got permission from the parents of every child in the picture?

  7. DanaG says:

    It does seem a little hypacritical how often have we seen the Garner/Affleck kids? There was time you never saw them once you open the door it’s hard to close. It’s terrible if the paps have been yelling at the kids and that should be stopped. Will be interesting to see how this actually works.

  8. Amy says:

    My money is on an actor/actress who wasn’t part of the law’s institution or passage. But time will tell….

  9. Sabrine says:

    Too bad this won’t help little Suri Cruise in New York who was called a foul name by a paparazzo.

    Maybe those who used to say Garner called the paps on outings with her children will sheath their claws now as obviously she has never done anything of the sort.

    • Mia 4S says:

      Actually the one who yelled at Suri was an autograph collector. Many of them also belong in special hell with paparazzi though.

    • Algernon says:

      “She’s never done anything of the sort.” Really?

      This is from earlier this year, top places in LA where celebs get papped.


      #8: Brentwood Country Mart. Where does Garner get papped a lot, with her kids in tow? Brentwood Country Mart. At the very least, she’s complicit in the system by frequenting a place, with her children, that she knows to be prime paparazzi real estate. Don’t want to be papped? Don’t go there. It’s that easy. There are other shopping centers, much less trafficked by the celeb-hungry crowds.

      But this is exactly what she (and Halle Berry, and other celebs like them) want. They want to be “heroes for the children” while still benefiting from a system that prolongs and/or increases their celebrity. It’s completely hypocritical.

      • Jenna says:

        The country mart really has turned into a family, daytime equivalent of a Hollywood nightclub. I’m glad I’m not a celeb because I would hate to have to avoid. It really is a great place when you factor out the paparazzi.

      • Algernon says:

        It’s great for one-stop Christmas shopping.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        I think people are forgetting: The Brentwood Country Mart is in their neigborhood! It is so local and close to their house, WHY would you drive out of your way in horrible LA traffic to avoid getting your picture taken when the paps will just follow you to the other location anyway? Even though they are celebs, they should still have the right to run to their nearest store to grab some milk.

        Brentwood is a small community. It feels pretty quaint, which is probably why they moved there.

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        Yup, what Tiffany said.

      • Emma says:

        @Tiffany I wasn’t faulting the celebs. I meant that the paps have begun camping out there because soooo many celebrities live on the westside that they are guaranteed at least a few sightings every weekend. You are absolutely right that even if they start going somewhere else, the paps will eventually gravitate there as well.

  10. neelyo says:

    “I’m grateful to Nia Vardalos and the numerous parents who work as actors, musicians…”

    Who’s following Nia Vardalos around to get her photo?

    • H.D. says:

      I found the Vardalos reference strange, too. A quick google image search turns up two shots of Nia’s daughter’s face. There are a few staged photos w/ her child’s back to the camera that Nia sat for to promote products or interviews.

      I notice that the Daily Mail sometimes digitizes out the face of celeb children, but sometimes they don’t. Is this a choice by them or the photo agency?

      • kendra says:

        It’s the DM. What’s weird is the inconsistency — they blur the faces of some and keep the others as is – irrespective of where the photos are taken. Gwen STefani’s kids faces are never blurred – whether they are in London or Timbuktu – yet Gwyneth’s are always blurred. I’ve heard speculation that the DM will only show the faces if they have the celeb’s permission, but that’s a crock of sh*t IMO. Like Gwen is really going to make a point of saying, Sure, take all the photos you want and publish them.

  11. bns says:

    I was expecting the law to be stricter. I don’t think they should be allowed to photograph the kids at all, or it must be mandatory to blur out their faces or something.

    • TG says:

      But then Halle and Jen wouldn’t be able to use the paps to their advantage. This way they can still have staged photos when they want them but they won’t have the guilt of their children getting yelled at.

    • Cirque28 says:

      Agreed! Although I’m glad there’s a little more protection now.

      This is not a popular opinion around here, but I have to say it… I don’t ever need to see pictures of Brangelina’s kids. Or any celebrity kids. Let them grow up without cameras constantly in their faces.

      • Cecilia says:

        I agree with you but this will not stop all the staged photo-ops they set up. The kids faces need to be blurred & the parents need to protect their children more.

      • Emma - the JP Lover says:

        Oh, I agree with you. I’ll go as far as to say that I wouldn’t mind never seeing any photos of the actors/actresses themselves on their own time. Only a small percentage of them actually ‘seek’ the Paps on their down time, but the majority really ‘do’ want to live their private lives away from the camera’s eye … and ours as well.

        I believe actors/actresses are fair game when they attend film premieres, are on promotion tours, are on the Red Carpet, and are at industry related events. But when they’re ‘not’ doing any of that, and are ‘not’ actively seeking out the press, then they deserve privacy to live their lives as normally as possible. I don’t need or want to know what they’re doing 24/7.

        I recall reading a story several months ago about Chris Pine and his girl friend being spotted grocery shopping, with photos of them looking very uncomfortable. The Pap wasn’t content with the first few photos, which the couple endured. He followed them around the store until Chris Pine just sat his basket down and the couple left the store. ‘That’ is the invasion of privacy I’m talking about.

        Why should celebrities be forced to stay indoors in order to avoid unwanted attention? Could you imagine a life like that? Not being able to go to the store to shop for food or to Starbucks to grab a coffee? Then when they hire people to do those things for them we call them ‘stuck up’ and elitist.

      • bns says:

        Totally agree.

      • Algernon says:


        That’s unfortunate what happened to Chris Pine because he generally keeps his head down and doesn’t invite extra scrutiny. But people like Halle B and Jen Garner talking out of both sides of their mouth are what wrecks it for everyone. There are actually a lot of paparazzi who make decent livings just photographing red carpets and around “zones” like a talk show studio, where a celeb could expect to see an increased media presence. But because there are celebs who will engage in baby parades and planned photo ops, the hunger for those more intimate moments goes up, and a vicious cycle is born. As long as there are celebs willing to use paparazzi for their own benefit, they all get dragged down by it.

      • Lucky Charm says:

        @ Emma – the JP Lover

        You have brought up some very valid points, and I have to agree with you. It’s nice to see photos, but then when you think about it, I would never want that to happen with my own life.

        And I have to add, that putting a picture of your baby on a magazine cover is different from a pap following that same child and taking photos. In the former instance, the parent controlled the setting, the picture, etc. and in the latter they do not. When I chose to take my children to the studio for formal pictures, and I chose who I gave them to, I had some control over them. If some stranger just followed my kids home from school or while we were at the grocery store, taking their picture and sending them to who knows where, that would be very distressing and disturbing to me and my children.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        I agree.

        I was in a grocery store the other day and a little girl in a cart was staring at me while I tried to find my items. Her dad had parked the cart and was darting around grabbing things. I realized it was Nahla, and I felt SO GUILTY for being able to recognize her.

      • Emma - the JP Lover says:

        @Algernon, who wrote: “But people like Halle B and Jen Garner talking out of both sides of their mouth are what wrecks it for everyone.”

        Excuse me, but exactly ‘when’ did Halle Berry court the Paps for her child?? Do you remember why she started bringing Nahla out in public and allowing a photo or two? Do you remember the photographer who broke into Halle’s property a couple of months after Nahla was born because Halle wasn’t allowing photos of her baby? The pictures he sold could have only been taken from ‘on’ her property from bushes right behind a spot Halle and her mother often sat at with Nahla.

        That was the first time Halle went to court over the Paps. It was only ‘after’ that incident occurred (and her expressed fear of another Pap getting onto her property or breaking in her house), that Halle began bringing Nahla out an would allow a photo of her. She reasoned (so she said at the time, in an attempt to control the situation) that if she allowed them to take one or two photos they wouldn’t do something crazy, like breaking onto her property again. And then they started camping out in front of Nahla’s school once she started going.

        Do people really only remember the ‘Custody’ crap?

  12. JJ says:

    Of course they don’t want paparazzi pictures, they want staged ones or else they don’t get the happy family pictures they want for theirs PR campaigns. Since the backlash of Affleck staring as Batman he needs happy family pictures badly. He and his wife are going to step up the staged ones big time in the next months.

  13. swack says:

    Seems like a weak bill to me also. It only addresses them shouting at the children. Even at my grandchildren’s school they must have permission to publish a child’s photo in anything they put out for people to see.

    • Christin says:

      Any published photo with children (including non-celebrity kids in the background) should have permission granted by all parties. I have noticed other kids, clearly visible vehicle tag numbers, etc., in pap photos of sidewalk strolls or ball games in particular.

  14. Mam says:

    Exactly I was of the understanding that to publish a photo of a minor will require his parents approval according to this new law, is it like that still?

    • Megan says:

      that would be a great part of the law. In order for a photo of a child to be used the parents have to give consent.

      That would protect the child from photogos because seriously if websites and magazines had to track down celebrities to get them to sign off the annoyance wouldn’t be worth it and the pictures value would go down. It would also hold these celebrities that use their kids (Jennifer Garner) accountable for doing so because it would show who signed off.

      • Cecilia says:

        This is a great idea. Parental permission must be obtained — that way, if the kids pics did show up, you know the parents signed off. The parents will have to stop & think that their intentions to pimp out their children for profit will be exposed & the kids will be further protected.

      • Emma says:

        While it is a great solution in theory. I don’t believe that a law including that provision would ever make it through state legislatures. And, even if it did, it would likely be struck down in state court as violating the 1st Amendment.

        Whether you agree or not, a law prohibiting “journalists” from printing photos of public areas is not going to stand up in court. It’s a wonderful thing the 1st Amendment and in order for it to stay wonderful, we must accept some of it’s shortcomings.

        For example, remember the photos of Sandy Hook. Those were praised as excellent journalism and gave people world wide a grasp of the tragedy. However, every photo had children and was printed without their parents’ permission.

      • Megan says:

        @Emma you do make a valid point except that we can’t walk on the street take pictures of a kid and put them in the paper because they are walking down the street. Thank God.

        So I think you could apply that here too. I mean there is a difference with them being involved in a news story (although I don’t think those kids images needed to be released) and just living with famous parents.

        I am sure you are right and there wouldn’t be a way to enforce it but I do think it would be nice if they put that into the law. It would protect the kids from paps and sadly some bad parents.

      • Emma says:

        @Megan Actually, you can take photos of children on the street and post them online or in the newspaper. As long as the photos are taken in a place where the subject has no reasonable expectation of privacy (not through their living room window) and it is not an indecent photograph, there are no separate laws for photos of children or adults. They are technically “editorial” photographs and all photographers fall into the same category, whether they be newspaper photographers, paparazzi, or just you with your camera phone.

        If you took a photo of my child while we were eating at an outdoor patio of a restaurant, I could ask you delete it or not share it. However, you would be well within your rights to refuse and post it online. If it showed up in a newspaper, I could complain to the newspaper but I would have no legal standing to make them remove it

  15. Maria Luisa says:

    Children’s faces cannot be shown in press/tv pictures here in Italy,and I think it is the same in other european countries.I think it works perfectly.

  16. Deanne says:

    A certain D-list celeb who loves to pimp out their step-children, is probably very upset about this.

    • Jana J. says:

      Don’t ya know it! lol

    • Cindy says:

      That’s why she’ll be one of the first to use the law to get attention for herself. We all know how much she loves to use her legal team to harass folks.

      • Deanne says:

        More people for her to sue. Great! With no career left I guess she can fit in some lawsuits against the paparazzi, when she’s not combing through surveillance footage of her beloved. I guess everyone needs a hobby.

  17. Jayna says:

    Good for them.

  18. Celeste says:

    Yes no more sports game photos?

  19. Bea says:

    These celebs do not want to have their children photgraphed for free and that’s the bottom line – especially for these two women who have used the press for Oscar buzz and custody battles.

    The less their children can be seen by the paps, the more money magazines will pay for photo spreads.

    It’s economics, not parenting.

  20. j.eyre says:

    I agree with the others here about the bill not being very strong. I have no problem with it existing, I just don’t see how enforceable it is. It says that the paps can’t intimidate the children but that means they can’t say things like “Violet, you are horrible and illiterate” or something to that effect. However, a pap could still yell, in the vicinity of a child “Cinderella was just run over and dragged by a Mack truck. She’s dead.” They can’t legislate against that but the child is still upset and the pap gets the shot they want.

    It took, I think, 5-7 years to pass the texting while driving laws because there were so many elements that could have become loopholes or render it unenforceable. This law was written and passed in a matter months, right? It seems more like a threat than anything.

  21. tara the original says:

    honestly, half those pap pics with kids are set up anyway so leann/denise richards/kardashians will still have their shots in magazines. I DO agree that they should not be camping outside of schools/homes and saying mean things to the parents/kids just to get a reaction.

  22. Walt Jr! says:

    They need to punish the gossip rags that buy the pic of the kids. If nobody is buying then the market is dead.

    • Algernon says:

      They need to punish the people who buy the magazines and visit the celebrity baby sites. Paparazzi are gross and I don’t care about anyone’s kids, let alone some hacky actress’s, but let’s not pretend like the magazines aren’t just meeting a demand. There’s a whole cottage industry that has sprung up around celebrity children, and the people who consume the product are just as much of a problem as the people who make it.

      • mom of 2 says:

        Good point. It’s not just the behaviour of the paps I find disturbing, but the fact that there is actually a market for photos of other people’s children. Seriously, I get the idea of being interested in a celeb, following their career, candid moments, etc., but there are sites that show photos of the kids WITHOUT the celeb parents and there is a market for that. Disgusting…

      • Cirque28 says:

        @Algernon and @mom of 2: THIS.

        The obsession with celebrity children is one of the odder things in our culture. Shiloh or whomever has fans? The thought makes my skin crawl.

        And we’re all waiting with bated breath for North West’s big debut? Seriously? No doubt she’s adorable, babies sure are cute, etc, but let me cut through the suspense. She is like…

        …a baby! Just like a baby! They don’t vary much. Round heads, chubby bodies, motor skills of a drunk. They suck at interviews. Their moods can politely be described as ‘uneven.’ Ask them what they think of a particular painting or poem and they’re likely to poop in response. How is a creature like that the object of so much focus and fascination? Let them grow up and then maybe they will become interesting or accomplished or beautiful or whatever. Until then, leave them alone! Childhood should be carefree, not spent fretting about people in the damn bushes with cameras!

  23. Tiffany says:

    So when Garner’s kids were out in shirts with their Dad on the front, that was okay because they wanted that one seen after the Batman backlash. They both need to make up their mind. I cannot even….

    • Madison says:

      Jen Garner is the biggest hypocrite “don’t take pictures of my kids they aren’t famous” blah blah blah but then takes one kid out dressed in a batman tshirt and the other one out dressed in a ben affleck t-shirt.

      • Jane says:

        And the next week Seraphina wears a shirt with Ben’s face on it. Of course Jennifer knows she will be photographed and the pics will go worldwide. Jennifer actively seeks the attention and it’s hypocritical of her to claim otherwise.

    • Lena says:

      So you are one of the weirdos who follows celeb baby pictures incessantly I see… How do you know what these little children wear everyday? Celeb baby lovers are the problem creating this sick demand….

  24. Miss M says:

    Well, I am glad Halle won’t have an excuse to leave the country! :)

  25. Izzy says:

    No, really – are celebrities just NEVER supposed to leave their houses with their kids? They go to the beach – PAP STROLL! They go to the store – PAP STROLL! I really thing the judgment is a little unfair.

    I also think it’s not a bad idea to make it illegal for paps to harrass kids by following them, screaming at them, insulting them… if they were all adults, and the offspring are not celebrities, we’d be talking about restraining orders. These kids aren’t the celebrities, they are not responsible for their parents’ career choices, and should not be subjected to some of the crap they are because of it.

    Having said all that, I can see how this law will present some interesting First Amendment challenges once they get into the enforcement phase of it.

  26. CAM says:

    Unless there is a law that says you can’t print candid, non-consensual photos of children then nothing is gonna change. All they did was up the stakes in the law for those who break it, but it was pretty harsh before this new revision, and they all ignored it anyways.

    As long as the paps (and lets be honest, the celebrities) can make money of taking pictures of children, then nothing will change.

  27. Jenna says:

    I remember watching a paparazzi video of Ben and Violet before Serafina was born. He was picking her up from school and all the paps were asking him what he and Jen were going to name the baby. Eventually one of them started addressing Violet, 2 or 3 at the time, and asking her what the baby’s name was gonna be. Ben got upset, understandably, and told them to talk to him but not his kid.

    That really disgusted me and made me understand how these guys are with the kids. He was hoping to capitalize on confusing the little kid. And, he had all the incentive to do it. If she did say a name (any name) he would have been able to sell that video for an incredible amount of money to every entertainment show and gossip blog. EVERYONE would have run that video as “Violet Affleck spills the beans” and played it as a cute moment.

  28. Thinker says:

    My big issue with this law is that it give celebrities the right to call police and local law enforcement to protect them from having their picture taken. From HAVING THEIR PICTURE TAKEN.

    Not from rape, murder, theft, or any other form of violence.

    Celebrities are wealthy enough to hire private body guards who would be able to stop these sort of pictures from being taken. A perfect example are the UK royals who have bodyguards that prevent people from snapping candid shots of them while out shopping, or walking in Kensington gardens, etc.

    Using the police to enforce this law is just a reinforcement of celebrity privilege. It’s not the appropriate use of the police, it’s wasteful and it’s selfish. The police are for the common good, not the good of a few wealthy famous people who don’t want their kids photographed.

    Now the police will have to respond when Halle calls 911, fabricating some sort of mischief against the paparazzi. Instead of attending to real crime, they’ll have to play the role of a pawn in the drama that is Halle Berry’s personal life.

    • Lol says:

      Let’s be real though, this law isn’t about them not taking pictures of the children, it’s about watching what they say to the children, if you were out with your child and a crowd of people would shout abuse at your child (“your Mum wants to move abroad, you’re never going to see your Dad again, what do you think” and the lines of it), would you not get lawyers/police involved? I would. Some pappariazi harrass the children on purpose to get these famous reaction shots of eitehr them or the parents upset

  29. Mitch Buchanan Rocks! says:

    Jennifer Garner and Daryl Hannah have the same lips.

  30. Guest says:

    I cannot think of one advantage to having paps. Especially the one that insulted Suri Cruise. If she was my daughter…….

  31. Maggie says:

    Thank goodness! It’s about time. I make it a point not to comment on threads when it’s about a celebrity’s child. It’s so creepy to me when posters use nicknames for children they have never met. Esp the Jolie Pitt kids like Z or Shi or Mad. Weird!

    • Ennie says:

      Well, it is easier to just type a nickname, like with H7. And the people writing hat are not actually in front of them calling their names, just commenting on them.

    • Cirque28 says:

      Yep, it’s creepy.

    • kendra says:

      Maggie, that’s not the half of it (giving them nicknames). Some of these people (adults?)comment on and judge the clothing attire of these children and in some cases, mock them and denegrate them. It makes rabid fans of (adult) celebs same tame by comparison.

  32. Anna says:

    I think most people enjoy seeing celebrity’s children pictures. Hopefully now the paparazzis will be more gentle and not aggressive while taking those pictures

    • sandie says:

      I’m assuming you mean interested in seeing the kid(s) with their celebrity parent – not alone. If someone is interested in a particular celebrity, yes I can understand why there would be an interest in their personal life – including candid photos with their kids. If said photos are taken respectfully and from a distance.

      If it’s just the kids you are interested in then, that’s a different – albeit creepy – story and you are part of the problem.

  33. Kelly says:

    I would like it if the paps just stopped taking pictures of Garner altogether. She would hopefully then fade into obscurity. It’s not like she will get noticed for her acting talent. Just find her so fake.

  34. Paloma says:

    So if a photographer “harasses” a child, is the parent suppose to call 911? Seems easier just to go about your business. Jail time? There is no room in California jails for offenders who have committed much more serious crimes than this.

  35. St says:

    Good. Overall I think that paparazzi should take pictures of celebrity but take them from at least some 15 meters distance. It’s crazy how they are at their faces and scream some nonsense to them all the time. And good for celebrity kids. Now kids will be protected.

    But Halle. Oh my. Mother Teresa is here ya’ll. She protected all children of stars… Just remember Halle that the only reason why your daughter was harassed is because you were washing your dirty laundry on public and you were calling TMZ to tell stories about your ex, not to mention that beating. You brought this on yourself. Before it all happened no one really cared about your daughter.

    And did you notice people how suddenly Suri Cruise is not in our faces every day since Katy divorced Tom? Which means that Tom was the one who was throwing her to paparazzi. BUt now Katy is not walking her in front of paps every day and Suri has quieter life.

  36. courtney says:

    shut up people this law won’t do anything because it can’t be enforced. Paparazzi are part of the deal when you sign up to be in the entertainment business. MRS Berry thinks she’s a legend because she won an academy award she isn’t other than in her own head. as for celebs selling pictures of their children to magazines that’s gone on since 1940 so it’s nothing new

  37. floretta50 says:

    I have often stated, if the Brangelina don’t complain then rest of Hollywood should be glad they get their pictures taken. Jennifer Gardner is such a hypocrite, just today on MSN.com web-site she has her daughter sporting a t-shirt with Ben Afleck name and face on it, she knows darn well that those are the things that attracts the paps. Hale personal life is a hot mess, apparently she is trying to clean up her rep.

    • Mia says:

      Well OMG, if Brad and Angelina didn’t complain then it MUST be okay!!! No one else can dare have an issue with grown men stalking their young children!! I and I’m guessing a lot of other well-adjusted people don’t give a flying fuck whether these men are stalking and yelling at the kids for “photos”. No grown man should be stalking a child PERIOD. ::Eyeroll::

      And didn’t Brad and Angie move to France because of it’s comparatively stronger anti-paparazi laws anyway? But yea Halle Berry is just making this up to take attention away from her crazy personal life. :: EYEROLL!!! ::

  38. cali says:

    So basically it’s just that the paps can’t yell nasty stuff with the kids present, right? Because there’s no way half of the celebs would be on board with a “no photos of my kids” bill. OODLES of celeb moms let the paps know where they are 24/7 with their kids. There’s a REASON we see daily photos of a certain handful of celebrities with their kiddos.

  39. Mia says:

    Good. I was absolutely disgusted when a paparazzo took a picture of Pink’s daughter’s genitals while she was getting her diaper changed. If that was my child, the guy would have been dead and they wouldn’t be able to find the body. These are innocent young children who don’t understand why these throngs of men waiting outside their schools and playgrounds are following them and yelling at them. They did not ask for fame, and I really don’t want groups of strange men using the excuse of being paparazzo to get that close to and stalk children. We don’t know if any of these people could have a criminal background. The well being of children comes before the need for a tabloid to have a picture of a crying child so they can build a story around it.

  40. Meadow says:

    Interesting, so now we know that any pictures of celebs taken with their children have been sanctioned by the celebs.

  41. Maritza says:

    So will they have to blur the faces of the kids from now on?