Netflix has delayed start of Meghans show

[Viviennemary]

Just seen on Sky News. Breaking News headlines. Delayed because of the wild fires didn't say if this was technical difficulties or it would be a bit crass to launch a frothy type lifestyle show with all the devastation. Anyway it might be shelved for good with any luck.

Harry and Meghan's oldest child is four. Why would you take two tiny children to visits to charities? They would be bored shitless.

I suspect that Meghan chose her LA caps purely to time code the pics of her at the fires and aftermath.

Passed in 2013

"California Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill into law Tuesday that restricts photographers' right to photograph the children of celebrities. The bill goes into effect Jan. 1.
The bill, authored by Sen. Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles), punishes someone who intentionally harasses the child of any other person "because of that person's employment." Harassment, as outlined in the bill, means,willful conduct that "seriously alarms, annoys, torments or terrorizes" the child and that "serves no legitimate purpose. It includes "conduct occurring during the course of any actual or attempted recording" of the child's image or voice by following the child or lying in wait and without consent of the parent."

https://www.rcfp.org/law-criminalizing-photography-celebrities-children-passed-california/

That doesn’t outlaw photography though. It outlaws harassment. Different thing. If you take a photo from the other side of the street without the child being aware of you, then it’s not an issue.

Plus it would take the limelight away from her which will happen eventually.

It is literally the law in California.

https://www.rcfp.org/law-criminalizing-photography-celebrities-children-passed-california/

@Serenster you did not open the link. It outlaws photos without the parents consent.

This thread is crazy.
Meghan wore jeans and a baseball cap - its a terrible attention seeking plot.
Meghan and Harrys kids are never photographed in public, proof of all kinds of nefarious stuff. Oh, its against the law to take the kids photos in public without the parents consent you say?

It sort of does if the taking of the photo is deemed to have caused harassment. If the child is unaware of the photographer then a conviction under this law is unlikely.

Senate bill 606 increases the scope of what is considered harassment–as well as the associated penalties. It was sponsored by state senator Kevin de León and signed into law by Gov. Brown without comment, despite opposition from a number of journalists’ groups.
Now a photographer convicted of capturing or attempting to capture the image or voice of a child or ward of a “noteworthy” person without parental consent faces harsher penalties.

Yes - as I said. It’s about how the photo is taken. Not simply the taking of it.

It’s still odd that not one single candid family photo of Meghan and Harry has ever leaked with their kids - even if it’s just on social media or foreign gossip sites.

Or even annecdotes without photos of them being seen at the beach or park etc.

Nah, the other thread had In n Out burgers, “Kate should have been arrested”, Beatrice at Davos and the varying prices of Jimmy Choos. This one is baseball caps, paparazzi laws and interior design excerpts from Spare. (In the centre of the Venn diagram is me, clowning around.)

@wordler You are wrong!!
It is about taking any photo of celebrities kids in public without the parents consent. Doing this counts as harassment

Read the law that’s written, it’s an extremely high bar to be met.

Therefore, my post stands

No, read the law as to what counts as harassment.

And there was a follow up making it stricter. I posted about this above

The actual definition of harassment in the Bill:

(2) “Harasses” means knowing and willful conduct directed at a specific child or ward that seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the child or ward, and that serves no legitimate purpose, including, but not limited to, that conduct occurring during the course of any actual or attempted recording of the child’s or ward’s image or voice, or both, without the express consent of the parent or legal guardian of the child or ward, by following the child’s or ward’s activities or by lying in wait. The conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable child to suffer substantial emotional distress, and actually cause the victim to suffer substantial emotional distress.

There’s quite a wide safe harbour here for conduct which does not have the parent’s consent, but does not cause the child to suffer any emotional distress.

A key point: the Bill does not criminalise taking photos without the parents’ consent. Its it harassment without consent that is criminalised.

@Serenster Are you a US lawyer? Because you have a different interpretation than US publications

Yes, and what I’ve pointed out is it’s an extremely high bar to be met. Hence, it almost being useless.

Interesting that this is what’s got the Meghan fans popping up

They can’t explain, why meghan just so happens to get her photos taken doing ‘charity work’ incognito but is never ever seen with her kids in public

Can you tell us where in that Bill it says that taking a photo without the parents’ consent, by itself, is harassment?

But it is not a high bar. If a child is at all upset about having their photo taken or being filmed, it meets the definition of harassment. Similarly if the child is upset about being followed or having a photographer lie in wait, it meets the definition of harassment.

This is the bill

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB606

And any 4 year old and toddler is going to be upset about a photographer chasing them or crowding round trying to take photos of them and their parents.
Have you seen how paps take photos? Its not a case of asking someone to pose with their children and taking a nice photo.

The reality is it is running after kids and their parents whilst taking photos. Trying to crowd in to take a photo while a parent gets a child out of a car.

Or even people talking about seeing her and the kids in public. Or Harry and the kids.

Again compare to the Wales kids - it’s still quite rare that they get snapped in public and the UK papers don’t use the photos but there’s still those that sneak through - especially when George was a baby and Kate would take him to the park a lot in London.

Or anecdotes about them without photos - they are seen swimming and playing tennis at a local club, George playing football, Charlotte going to a friend’s birthday party at a pizza restaurant. Louis was once snapped at a museum with his nanny.

It’s an extremely high bar- look what it takes to constitute harassment

A child is unlikely to be upset with someone having their phone out taking a picture. Or even a photographer with a long lense camera. Anyone can take a photo anytime and the child would be non the wiser.

This law came into place, because of the early 2000s frenzy in LA with crowds of cameras, camcorders everywhere following celebs.