The wierd thing is that in most cases there already laws that should apply, but are not enforced in these cases. Stalking is after all just another form of harrassment and their are laws against that. Hell often the cops do not enforce those laws even when there is a court order to do so in a specific case.
Selective enforcement of laws is not good. But then there are lots of laws out there that should never have been made, and I guess we are lucky when cops refuse to enforce those. And yes the propose CA ordinance I mentioned was an anti-paparazzi one. I do still wonder why it was the paparazzis fault that Diana's driver was doing 100+ mph in city streets? graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" ----------------------------------- frank theriault wrote:
The sad thing, of course, is that such anti-pap and anti-stalking laws (if they've even been put on the books yet) are brought into being with the noblest of intentions. Surely stalked women have a right to privacy, as do celebrities (I suppose <g>). The laws are a response to very real abuses out there. The problem is that these lawmakers haven't thought enough about the consequences, in their haste to satisfy what they perceive as the public's clamouring to "protect" certain "victims".
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.2/29 - Release Date: 6/27/2005
