1 . They hide in trees, hang from helicopters, even follow people down on motorcycles—all so that they can snap a shot of a celebrity. They are paparazzi—photographers who make a living by taking pictures of the rich and famous.
This September, California, a state with plenty of celebrities, passed a law aimed at taking action against paparazzi. The law forbids photographers from entering private property to take pictures, from using high-tech devices to take pictures of people on private property, and from “persistently following in order to take a picture.” Violators can be fined or spend time in prison. The United State Congress is considering passing a similar law.
Supporters of the California law say it will protect the privacy of celebrities, whom paparazzi have been bothering for years. Opponents (反对者) say the law restricts photojournalists from doing their job.
Most celebrities seem to like having their pictures taken when they are in public at award shows or other events. After all, it’s free publicity. But when they’re not in public, they say, photographers should leave them alone. Yet paparazzi have been known to secretly look in windows and worse. Actor Michael J. Fox said that paparazzi have even “tried to pretend to be medical personnel at the hospital where my wife was giving birth to our son.”
Celebrities have as much right to their privacy as anyone else, supporters of the law state. Supporters further argue that the California law is a fair way to keep the press at bay, because the law still allows photographers to do their job. It only punishes them, supporters say, when they violate celebrities’ privacy.
Opponents of the law say it violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (美国宪法第一修正案), which guarantees that no laws will be made to limit “the freedom of speech, or of the press.”Although some people might not consider paparazzi a part of the legal press, the California law does not single out paparazzi. It applies to photographers working for any publication.
Opponents of the law are also concerned about its wording. “Does ‘persistently’ mean following someone for six minutes, six seconds, or six days?” asked lawyer Douglas Mirell. The wording of the law is too vague, critics complain, and could be used to punish almost any news photographer.
The United States needs a free press to keep the public informed about important news, paparazzi law opponents say. Limiting the press in any way, they argue, limits the freedom of all.
1. Which of the following will be considered illegal by the new California law?| A．Paparazzi slipping into the house of a famous person to take a shot. |
| B．Paparazzi taking photos of famous people with high-tech cameras. |
| C．Paparazzi hiring helicopters as a fast means of transportation. |
| D．Paparazzi rushing towards filming sites on motorcycles. |
| A．it prevents the media from getting worse |
| B．it gives photographers a fair way to compete |
| C．punishment forces paparazzi to quit their job |
| D．privacy of famous people needs special protection |
| A．it will violate paparazzi’s privacy |
| B．the First Amendment will be changed |
| C．some photographers will be wrongly accused |
| D．people will not be informed of important news |
| A．Critical. | B．Neutral. | C．Approving. | D．Skeptical. |
