One day Mel Gibson and some other celebrities were discussing their fears about nightmare situations with the paparazzi. Hmm, thought Mel, "What a great revenge film this would make." The result is Paparazzi, a Mel Gibson produced flick in which a Hollywood action star goes after the paparazzi who caused a Princess Di-like crash which nearly kills him and his family.

        My question is why hasn't this happened already? With the paparazzi's growing boldness rising to feeding frenzy levels it is only a matter of time before someone is seriously hurt or killed. Some paparazzi even do all they can to provoke a reaction from celebrities hoping for big bucks from "When Celebs Attack" footage and even higher civil case remuneration. These are Internet griefers let loose in the real world. The kind of people who pickup their camera bags and head out the door looking for celebrities to harass are the same kind of people who love to attack in chat rooms and sit at their keyboards laughing at the reactions. Most paparazzi-shot footage exists solely for these abrasive adrenaline junkies to get their rocks off and is never sold or seen anywhere. How long is it before Hollywood strikes back with something more than private security firms and lawsuits?

        Given the power and vast financial resources of these walking targets I am surprised no cabal has ever been formed to "take out" at least the more egregious of these vermin. If even the Princess Di incident was not enough for a crackdown or reformation of the paparazzi-machine then it will certainly take something other than governmental regulation to stop the excesses.

        These people should not have first amendment protection. Most of these people have no credentials and are not officially associated with any news organization. Anyone can buy a camera and start stalking celebrities under the banner of "first amendment protection." These are not journalists. These are not the press. These are opportunistic, parasitical vermin who put on an off-the-rack Halloween costume labeled "member of the press" in order to get away with their outrageous and barbaric conduct. They see the first amendment as an all-encompassing "get out of jail free" card. Getting called on bad behavior and screaming "first amendment!" is as bad as and not much different from claiming the victim is at fault because "it was just a joke." They are cowards emboldened by the thought no-one can do anything to them. It should not be allowed and clear limits should be placed on the behavior. Crossing those lines should result in civil or criminal repercussions.

        As far as I am concerned, the only act the press is constitutionally given the right to perform is that of publishing. Consider this earlier draft of the constitutional guarantee of a free press, "The freedom of speech and of the press, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to apply to the Government for redress of grievances, shall not be infringed," and ask yourself if paparazzi actions really fall within it. The assaultive, privacy-smashing behaviors some wish to claim first amendment protection for would not be accepted by a member of the general populace and should not be acceptable from anyone else. Their in-your-face confrontations would not be accepted against a non-celebrity and should not be allowed because someone has crossed some imaginary line called "public figure."

        If the government refuses to set boundaries the task will inevitably fall to someone else, someone who will have to use the paparazzi's own method of "by whatever means are available." Then "anything to get the shot" may take on a whole new meaning.