David Caruso: Vipix Eulogy and Stalking Laws!

The photo isLindy's response to our previous post. Don't you just love it? Difficult lessons to learn when dealing with an obsessive psychotic stalker.

******************

Laws regarding the definition of stalking and their applications, including personally and on the internet. Sorry, all you internet stalkers. You're not immune to the laws of your and our country.

Intrusion on Seclusion = Invasion of Privacy. This link explains the elements necessary for a claim of Intrusion on Seclusion, or Invasion of Privacy. Keep in mind these are applicable to media (as in paparazzi). In no instance are these requirements necessary for an individual claim. The individual stalker or obsessor has no such rights.

http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/elements-intrusion-claim
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/risks-associated-publication
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/publishing-personal-and-private-information

First Amendment Law applicable to paparazzi not applicable to stalking individuals.The anti-stalking laws of most states and countries, while endeavoring to protect the individual, especially celebrities, recognize the rights of paparazzi in the commission of their job. For that reason, unless there is a violation of libel law or a patent intrusion on seclusion, the courts will hold the media innocent of stalking.

An individual stalking a celebrity has no such rights. Primary indicators are the distinctions between the media performing their assignments with no personal objective and the individual stalker, obsessed with a specific celebrity, who violates the law on a personal level. These individuals are usually dealt with harshly by the court systems. Today, the vast majority of individual stalkers are sentenced to jail time, extensive psychiatric treatment, usually with an injunction. A physical injunction would prohibit the stalker from being within predetermined boundaries of the celebrity; an internet injuction would prohibit the stalker from internet usage or, at the very least, a prohibition of use of the victim's name, actually or by insinuation.

Civil Law vs. Criminal Law
While nearly all celebrity stalkers who go to trial are found guilty, there have been a few acquittals, especially prior to the strengthening of the anti-stalking laws. Even in those cases, however, a civil suit could and should be initiated, though rarely is. The burden of proof in a civil case is considerably less restrictive. There is no "beyond all reasonable doubt". Civil law is based on "a preponderance of evidence". No smoking gun required.

In the context of Vipix and Heidi Schnitzer, Vipix had the right to follow (without intrusion) and photograph David Caruso, his children, his companion, etc., and to post said photographs on the internet. Heidi Schnitzer, however, does NOT enjoy these same rights, nor does she have the right to verbally abuse and assault, malign, fabricate, or publish personal information on David, his family, his companions. None of these falls within the protection of The First Amendment of The US Constitution. All are violations of almost every country's anti-stalking laws.

When you see someone on the internet blasting a celebrity for their public persona, acting, etc., they are probably within their legal rights. However, when the attack is personal and consistent, involves publishing of private information, then perhaps there exists a claim for criminal stalking; i.e., a case could be made against a known stalker who publishes, as part of her signature, the private, home address of the celebrity she stalks (her argument is that she's never said WHO'S address it is, which is not true. She has in the past often alluded to the identity of the owner).