Do you think the paparazzi could make a living in Texas?

First of all I’m not sure who they would paparraz in Texas. And there maybe laws specifically regarding photographing people but taking a picture of someone, even if they don’t like that you’re doing it, I don’t think constitutes a physical threat of any kind or should cause a reasonable person to fear for their life or limb. It is not a physical assault on a person or property. It involves talking a picture of someone. Maybe the question should be whether or not Texas paparrazi, if there are any, have a reason to fear taking a picture of someone like Matthew McConaughey. But I am not a lawyer. Hopefully one may weigh in.

@lillycoyote Perhaps the Dallas Cowboys? Other than that, I can’t imagine who is stalkable in Texas either.

@chyna Yes. To answer the OP’s actual question: “Do you think the paparazzi could make a living in Texas?” I would have to say the answer is a pretty solid no; but it would have less to do with the Texas stalking statute than thee lack of a solid business plan, as you point out. The Dallas Cowboys, Willie Nelson, Rick Perry, Lyle Lovett? I think Sandra Bullock lives there, at least part of the year, but I’m pretty sure she and her marital woes are kind of over, for the public at least, though probably not for her. Just not much money to be made there, hunting down celebrities in Texas.

@lillycoyote, so if Sandra Bullock wants to be a complainant in a stalking case against a paparazzo who does his/her stuff in Texas, you don’t think it would hold up in court?

Would the situation change (in your opinion) if it were a layperson as the subject?

@FFan Don’t get me wrong, I am most certainly not a big fan of stalking, not a big fan of the paparazzi either. It’s scary and creepy and no matter who the person being stalked is, ordinary everyday person, and they are overwhelmingly the victims of real stalking, as opposed to celebrities, who yes are certainly the victims of stalking, but it just seems to me that the Texas statute has the bar raised pretty high, for anyone, celebrity or otherwise:

Like I said, I am not an attorney but the statute, as written seems to indicate that the stalker must “knowingly” engage in threatening behavior and activities. Difficult to prove, for against anyone, let alone someone merely taking photographs and following someone around, pestering them and annoying them.

”... knowingly engages in conduct, including following the other person, that:

(1) the actor knows or reasonably believes the other person will regard as threatening:
(A) bodily injury or death for the other person;
(B) bodily injury or death for a member of the other person’s family or household; or
(C) that an offense will be committed against the other person’s property;

(2) causes the other person or a member of the other person’s family or household to be placed in fear of bodily injury or death or fear that an offense will be committed against the other person’s property; and

(3) would cause a reasonable person to fear:
(A) bodily injury or death for himself or herself;
(B) bodily injury or death for a member of the person’s family or household; or
(C) that an offense will be committed against the person’s property.

It just seems that merely annoying and pestering someone is not a crime under this statute, from an amateur’s point of view.

Annoying and pestering and taking photographs may be annoying but it does not necessarily constitute: threatening)bodily injury or death for the other person; bodily injury or death for a member of the other person’s family or household; or would instill fear in a reasonable personal that being photographed followed and photographed by someone who’s livelihood is to follow and photograph celebrities should cause “the other person or a member of the other person’s family or household to be placed in fear of bodily injury or death or fear that an offense will be committed against the other person’s property.” Or would someone following you around and taking pictures necessarily cause a reasonable person to fear: bodily injury or death for himself or herself; bodily injury or death for a member of the person’s family or household; or that an offense will be committed against the person’s property.

I’m not saying the paparazzi are right or wrong. I’m just saying that I, someone who is completely unschooled in the law, and just happened to answer your question, doesn’t think that paparazzi violate this statute merely by trying to do what they do for a living, whether you like what they do for a living or not. And once again, I am not an attorney. I wish one would answer this question because I can’t really tell you for sure one way or the other.

How does this statute stop them at all? I just read it quickly, but as long as they aren’t doing something physically dangerous, I don’t see the problem.