[alexqgb]

That's very much a special case, and one that effects a microscopic portion of the population. Were that level of harassment to become part of daily life as lived by millions, the presently tentative efforts to rein them legally in would become very serious, very quickly.

[jack-r-abbit]

But that isn't a special case because of law. It is only special because only a microscopic portion of the population is that popular with the rest of the population. People don't do this to me because no one is buying those pictures and putting them in magazines... not because some laws give me extra privacy.

You asked what would happen. The answer is the same for me as it is for Jay-Z or Tom Hanks: Nothing.

[alexqgb]

That was actually my point, the law hasn't responded to paparazzi in a major way because they effect so few people. Or rather, it hadn't responded until relatively recently. California has found that the swarms are so big, and behave with such reckless disregard for public safety (high-speed chases on freeways are as especially sore point) that they've started to drop the hammer on these fuckers, passing legislation to curb the worst abuses.

Putting this special case aside, if you were to stalk someone in ways that many 'regular' people are actually exposed to, you'd find yourself face to face with a more fully developed - and far more serious - body of legislation.

http://suite101.com/a/stalking-law-a29952

The larger point is that a few people suffering the paps are not a threat to the republic. But if everyone had cause to live their lives in the fearful, guarded, anxious way that a lot of stars actually live (minus the giant paychecks, of course) then it's likely that society really would break down, and we'd see that "the reasonable expectation of privacy" isn't determined by what's technically possible at any given time, but what's psychologically necessary for people to function in and as a democracy.