War on Cameras

War on Cameras, Rock Star Edition: "Steven Tyler Act" Dies in Hawaii


Aerosmith frontman and rehab enthusiast Steven Tyler has a house on Maui. Not so long ago, Tyler pushed Hawaii lawmakers to craft a celebrity privacy bill that, unsurprisingly gathered support from other publicity hounds who always want to be in the news except when they don't.

Foxnews.com has the dish:

Tyler, who owns a multimillion dollar home on Maui, earlier said he asked Sen. Kalani English, from Maui, to introduce the bill after someone photographed him with his girlfriend at his home in December.

Along with Tyler, rock legend Mick Fleetwood, who has restaurant in McKelvey's district, personally appeared to urge lawmakers to pass the bill. Their appearance generated buzz in the state Capitol, as staffers snapped cellphone pictures of the stars and compared them in the hallways after the hearing.

Britney Spears, Avril Lavigne and several other high-profile celebrities also submitted written testimony in favor of the bill.

Alas, for Tyler and his rag-tag band of citizen activists, the bill is unlikely to pass, which means that such folks—despite their god-like status on stages around the world—will be treated kinda sorta like the rest of us. If only First Amendment rights weren't so important that they apply even to paparazzi! And, of course, to citizens photographing the cops. Thank god that we live a nation of laws, not moobs.

Read more here.

In 2010, Reason TV, with the help of C-SPAN's Brian Lamb, asked the terrifying-yet-urgen question: "Why have cameras been in Katie Couric's colon but not the Supreme Court?" The answer may surprise you.

NEXT: Iranian Lawmaker Says US Must Back Rhetoric With Action

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. He does have perkier moobs than Chuck Schumer. So there is that.

    1. battle of the Moobs – now on CNN.

    2. Verily, I would rather suckle for an hour daily on the ample, pendulous mammaries of Senator Chuckulus Schumer than even once have to look upon Steven Tyler’s narsty bitch-titts again.

      Seriously, they’re awful.

  2. If these big stars didn’t want people going through their garbage and saying they’re gay, then they shouldn’t have tried to express themselves creatively.

  3. I wish Lena Dunham would put a top on.

  4. Moobs! Moobs! Boobs just like a lady’s!
    Moobs! Moobs! Boobs just like a lady’s!
    Moobs! Moobs! Boobs just like a lady’s!

  5. That photograph tells you everything you need to know about why rock stars should die in their thirties if not earlier.

    1. But Tyler was just as ugly in his 30s.

      1. And yet he produced Liv Tyler.

        1. Because she only got his lips, and evidently everything else came form her mother.

  6. That’s something you just can’t un-see.

    1. I was about to post this exact same comment.

    2. Really thought that was a photoshop of Janet Reno.

      ugh.. just brutal.

  7. “publicity hounds who always want to be in the news except when they don’t”

    There are so many good arguments against this sort of law – especially free speech/press arguments – but this is a bad argument. It can be used to attack the right to privacy across the board. “He put all sorts of personal information on Facebook, why is he complaining about the NSA tapping his phones, he obviously isn’t committed to his own privacy!”

    While I am skeptical of censorship in the name of privacy, there are plenty of *legitimate* applications of the right to privacy, and this right even protects those who, in some parts of their life, are exhibitionists. That doesn’t mean they can’t keep *some* of their life private. You may as well say that if the chick was wearing a short skirt it’s OK to rape her.

    1. the key word is ‘publicity’, as in ‘Public’.

      Has nothing to do with privacy.

  8. Make money even on vacation (if you’d like)
    Get the resources to become debt free
    Build residual income
    Save on travel by 50%-70%
    Earn commissions of 70%-95%
    Pay less in taxes
    Work with team of integrity and caring, NOT scamming http://zapit.nu/localvideo

  9. It may be hard to gross out a libertarian, but apparently not impossible… Ugh, where’s my eye bleach?

  10. I am a photographer- not for money. The right to photography is a first amendment right and applies to anything that can be seen from public property or private property that a photographer has been allowed to photograph from- so long as you are not trying to photograph through closed Venitian blinds or something like that.

    Taste in what should be photographed is a different and non-legal matter, most celebrities are just not appealing to the eye when they’re not playing make believe.

    1. I’m fixin to learn how to take pretty, pretty picture of airplanes. I can’t wait to get arrested in an airport parking lot some day for being “suspicious”!

      1. I still want to know what they think bad guys are going to do with pictures of airplanes and buildings.

      2. Get a telephoto lens because the picture will be better, naturally for things far away. Just go near an airport, stay in public places, take pictures. If you’re taking a flight, you can take pictures in the gate and on the ramp if the plane boards on the ramp. You can even take pictures out the plane window. No one will care, probably.

        1. I’ve heard many tales of planespotters being harassed, especially at Dulles, where there is no “official” area to watch. And Phoenix as well (you have to spot form the parking garage there).

          1. I know more than a few trainspotters that have been harassed and told they weren’t allowed to take pictures of the locomotives or the tracks. Luckily, my friends know their rights and politely told the officer to go fuck himself.

      3. There is a vantage point at Reagan where the Washington and Jefferson monuments look like a dick and balls.

  11. Dammit, reason! You’ve got to warn people if you’re going to post NSFW topless pics of old trannies. Fuck, now I’m going to get fired because my IT department is going to think I’m frequenting a tranny porn site.

    1. A granny tranny porn site at that.

      Seriously I thought we had a Coase based agreement on never showing that picture again.

    2. Let he whose muscle memory hasn’t turned the “re” for “reason.com” into “redtube.com” at work cast the first stone.

    3. IT thinks everyone might be looking at porn at work. That’s why we monitor your internet connection. That way we always get the best porn.

  12. Janet Reno and Mickey Rourke should never have had that baby.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.