������Ƶ

A bill that seeks to clamp down on publicity sure has gotten a lot of publicity this past week.

Most of the attention is because of the man it’s named after. And that man is so keen on the anti-paparazzi measure, he even took the time to visit the state’s Capitol to testify in person.

Yes, the rumors were true. Steven Tyler, lead singer for Aerosmith — clad in snakeskin cowboy boots and skin-tight white jeans — sat down in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee Friday, urging lawmakers to approve the so-called Steven Tyler Act. At his side was longtime Maui resident Mick Fleetwood of Fleetwood Mac.

Photographers snapped away and TV cameras got plenty of closeups. In this case, the paparazzi included the lawmakers themselves who not only took pictures themselves but later posed for photos with the super stars.

“Being a personality, no matter where we go we get shots — it’s part of the dealio. As my mom said, ‘you asked for it, Steven,’” Tyler said. “But when I’m in my own home and I’m taking a shower or changing clothes or eating or spending Christmas with my children … it hurts.”

The bill, , would allow people to sue if they feel their privacy is being violated by someone taking an “offensive” photo or making a video recording of them in their private lives.

Critics argue the measure violates the First Amendment. Even Hawaii’s Attorney General was concerned that the bill was too vague.

The Senate passed the measure with several amendments recommended by committee Chair Sen. Clayton Hee. Sen. Sam Slom approved it with reservations.

The amended bill now goes to the Senate floor, and Maui Sen. Kalani English, who introduced the measure, expects that it’ll pass that hurdle as well. The proposal has already garnered the signatures of 18 of the state’s 25 senators.

But first, the Hawaii state Capitol became something of a circus Friday. And it was the Senate’s morning floor session — held after the hearing — that really caused some commotion. After closing the session, giddy senators swarmed around the two rock stars to take pictures.

The celebrity visit detracted some attention from the day’s bills, including those addressing , and the .

Amendments Clarify Act’s Language

Hee’s amendments aim to limit the bill’s scope, clearly defining what kinds of circumstances would be subject to the law. That seemed to satisfy the AG’s office.

The measure, modeled after and introduced in honor of Tyler’s “contribution to the arts in Hawaii and throughout the world,” is intended to crack down on paparazzi who stalk and harass celebrities.

The amendments follow criticism that the original bill was too vague.

“I want to create certainty in the tort action,” Hee said. The new version “is substantially different from the bill that was introduced.” (The Senate has yet to post the amended bill online.)

Among Hee’s proposed amendments:

• Limiting activities protected by the new law to those taking place on land the plaintiff owns or leases and specifying the private property where the plaintiff would have a reasonable invasion of privacy
• Deleting language relating to civil fines
• Clarifying the definition of “personal or familial activity”

English supported the revisions, noting that they are a critical part of the legislative process.

“What we’re doing is taking the California code then making it stronger,” English said. “Trying to get the right words is very difficult. This is our process — getting out the right terminology so that it becomes more clear.”

English said he hopes lawmakers will keep the section stating that anyone taking footage while situated in the ocean would also be subject to the law.

Tyler recently bought a home on Maui, where paparazzi on a boat earlier this year took some rather of him. Maui is Hollywood’s favorite island, according to the bill.

The bill argues that the lack of laws restricting paparazzi activity deters many celebrities from buying homes or vacationing in Hawaii. The purpose of the bill is to encourage celebrities to visit and live here.

Many celebrities “are deterred from buying property or vacationing in Hawaii because the same paparazzi that harass them on the mainland are more likely to follow them to Hawaii,” the original bill states.

But the Steven Tyler Act is not limited to the world of celebrities and paparazzi, Tyler and Fleetwood stressed.

Anyone who attempts to take or takes an offensive photo or recording of someone in his or her private life would be subject to a lawsuit — even if the image isn’t sold. And anyone would be allowed to sue.

“It’s not just for the celebrity situation,” Fleetwood said. “It’s for everyone to get a sense that it’s just not right to be doing that.”

Both Fleetwood and Tyler on Friday made multiple allusions to the aloha spirit, leveraging it to argue that Hawaii’s not a place where paparazzi intrusion and harassment should be tolerated.

“I come to Maui to feel the mana, the sunshine,” Tyler said. “[Hawaii’s] supposed to be paradise, and it needs to be respected.”

submitted written testimony, including as Britney Spears, Margaret Cho, Neil Diamond and the Osbourne family.

Several groups testified in opposition to the bill, with some calling it a .

Others, including the Motion Picture Association of America and the Society of Professional Journalists’ Hawaii chapter, said it would violate the First Amendment.

Local law experts have also questioned the measure’s constitutionality, pointing to its broad scope and its threat to free speech.

But bill proponents on Friday dismissed those concerns, emphasizing that the law would only apply to private places — not areas like beaches and parks.

Tyler and Fleetwood’s attorney, Dina LaPolt, also contended that the First Amendment protects the right to report the news — not to gather it.

Journalists would still be allowed to write what they want about the celebrities, LaPolt said. The law would only apply to “a visual image, sound recording or other physical impression.”