On The Slope

There was an interesting story in the Los Angeles Times this week about a group of paparazzi who ran afoul of the local surfers in Malibu and got the crap beaten out of them. Anyone who grew up in LA should already be familiar with the concept of “Locals Only,” and in fact anyone who has spent more than a few days in the area has probably seen some form of sign, bumper sticker, or graffiti that carries this theme. For the most part, surfers just want to surf, and if someone who isn’t strictly “local” shows up and stays out of their way, minds his or her own business, and just surfs and goes home, they will leave him or her alone. A large group of non-local surfers may attract attention, but again, as long as they just want to catch a few waves and stay out of trouble, they generally won’t find any…

Problems with beach turf tend to occur when a group of tourists (and in this context, “tourist” may mean someone from five miles down the coast or three miles inland) insist on setting up an elaborate base camp taking up half the beach, creating a huge amount of mess and noise, and interfering with the local people who just want to surf. It’s true that no one owns the beach, let alone the surf, but people coming into your space and demanding that you respect their “rights” to be there while refusing to respect yours is not a scenario that is going to end well anywhere people are people. What makes this week’s case so special, and the reason it enters the purview of this blog, is that the crowd in question were not just fun-loving tourists; they were professional stalkers armed with camera equipment and out to make a fast buck…

Now, as you might imagine, I’m in favor of free speech, and of freedom of the press. Sometimes this means allowing people who you despise the chance to say their piece, and sometimes this means allowing idiots who just have to see “candid” pictures of their favorite celebrities to purchase trashy newspapers and magazines containing those images. Any law that infringes on those rights is generally a bad idea, if only because once you start limiting free speech you have stepped out onto the ultimate in slippery slopes and there can be no good that will come from it. But what can you do about people who will infringe upon your rights in order to exercise their own?

What generally happens is that when any industry begins to threaten the health, safety or standard of living of society as a whole, the government is forced to step in and pass laws regulating that industry. If the people who take pictures for the tabloid press are not willing to regulate themselves – and more to the point, are willing to risk the lives and safety of other drivers, risk the health and safety of their subjects, and totally disrupt the lives of innocent bystanders in pursuit of their business – then it becomes the duty of the relevant governments to impose regulation on them. The City of Malibu is already preparing local ordinances to deal with the situation, and the County may follow suit…

The paparazzi will undoubtedly challenge those laws on the basis of 1st Amendment rights, but I’ve read the Bill of Rights, and there isn’t anything in it about having the right to risk the lives and safety of others, risk the health and safety of photographic subjects, and totally disrupt the lives of innocent bystanders in pursuit of one’s business. The fact is that just like any other industry that has the potential to negatively impact the public good, these people (and the publications that purchase their pictures) have the simple choice of regulating themselves, or having the government do it for them. I don’t know what level of decorum should be required of this industry under the law, but just as a general rule, if something you are doing as part of your business is causing passers-by to assault you and destroy your equipment, you need to rethink your business model…