WASHINGTON -- The Freedom Forum's First Amendment ombudsman told a House panel yesterday that a proposed federal law to protect celebrities from tabloid photographers threatens mainstream journalism and First Amendment rights.

State and local laws already offer adequate protections against invasion of privacy, trespass and harassment, Paul McMasters said in testimony before the House Judiciary Committee.

"There is simply no need to require -- by federal fiat -- what state and local laws already cover," he said. "There is simply no need to create another layer of regulation over one that already exists."

McMasters said a federal law would be "unwise" because it fails to recognize the public's interest in getting news and news images without government-imposed restrictions.

"The First Amendment exists precisely to allow American citizens to form and assert the values they wish to live by," he said.

McMasters was joined by other news organization spokesmen and legal experts in criticizing the so-called paparazzi bill, which would make it a federal crime for a photographer to threaten a subject or cause bodily injury in the pursuit of photographs or recordings.

However, two television stars argued that it was time to send a message to the news media that harassment, trespassing and physical endangerment are unacceptable.

"When they chase my family and me in an airport, or even worse, on a highway, or when they sit in a tree and keep us under surveillance in order to photograph us inside our home, that is not consensual," said Paul Reiser, star of the NBC-TV series "Mad About You."

"I can't imagine that any reasonable person in this room would disagree that this conduct is dangerous and intrusive," Reiser said.

Michael J. Fox, star of the ABC sitcom "Spin City," agreed.

"They have chased me on foot and in my car, yelled obscene comments at my entire family, and literally staked out my home, on a 24-hour basis, in hopes of capturing that one photograph that will win them the bounty," he said.

But media representatives countered that such legislation could be used to punish journalists who cover crime and disaster scenes and investigate government and private sector corruption.

"It could affect a whole host of areas having nothing to do with entertainers," said David Lutman, president of the National Press Photographers Association. "Its primary effect, however, will be to greatly reduce the legitimate newsgathering activities of journalists who obey the law."

Rep. Elton Gallegly, R-Calif., the bill's main author, said the legislation would preserve the right of photographers to take pictures of celebrities in public and sell the film, while cracking down on actions that jeopardize their subjects' safety.

But the bill allows prosecution of anyone who "persistently follows or chases any individual for the purpose of obtaining a visual image, sound recording or other physical impression if the image was to be sold, published or transmitted in interstate or foreign commerce."

News organizations warned that the broad wording of the legislation could dampen legitimate journalistic efforts to pursue news, thereby inhibiting the reporting of government and private sector corruption.

Paul Tash, executive editor of the St. Petersburg Times, testified on behalf of the American Society of Newspaper Editors. He said the proposed bill also protects "villains, frauds and scoundrels" against diligent photojournalists who expose their crimes.

"The sponsors may think they are aiming only at the so-called paparazzi, but they will surely hit the rest of us, too," he said.

Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., the Judiciary Committee chairman, favors new federal controls. He said the "real issue" is finding a proper balance between the press' ability to gather news and the public's right to privacy and personal safety.

"When in the guise of getting a story, the press puts someone at risk of death or serious injury, the First Amendment is no shield," he said.

But news organizations responded that the federal government should have no role in the matter since state and local courts have demonstrated a willingness to mete out harsh punishment for trespassing and other violations.

Earlier this year, two British photographers were convicted in a California court and sentenced to jail terms for their attempts to photograph actor Arnold Schwarzenegger and his wife Maria Shriver, McMasters said.

News executives also contended that a federal law is unnecessary because celebrities have effectively dealt with journalists they consider overly intrusive.

McMasters' testimony was endorsed by the American Society of Newspaper Editors, the Magazine Publishers of America, the Newspaper Association of America, the National Newspaper Association, the National Press Photographers Association, the Radio-Television News Directors Association, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and the Society of Professional Journalists.

McMasters told the panel that that photographers must have access to the people and events that make the news.

"Their ability to tell a graphic story is compromised, however, if they are forced to second-guess themselves in the fleeting moment when news comes into focus in their lenses," he said. "It is an instant too easily lost if reflexes are dulled by the threat of civil suits and prosecution under ambiguous laws."

Richard Masur, president of the 100,000-member Screen Actors Guild, argued that expensive and lightweight telephoto lenses and long-range listening devices have created new causes of action for privacy invasion or trespass. He said state laws against such violations were inconsistent and that federal laws were necessary to give comprehensive protection nationwide.

However, Barbara Cochran, president of the Radio-Television News Directors Association, said courts and legislatures were already free to punish those who use advanced technology to invade privacy when occupants have taken reasonable steps to shield themselves from prying eyes.

"Laws that prohibit shooting a back yard with a telephoto lens may protect the privacy of a starlet in a bikini, but they might also block a news crew from taping the city mayor taking bribes," she said.

"The death of Princess Diana should not be used to trample on the First Amendment while further bloating the federal statute books with matters devoid of federal significance," Cochran said.

Princess Diana was killed in a car crash in a Paris tunnel last year. Early reports blamed photographers for recklessly pursuing her car through the tunnel, causing it to careen out of control.

Related stories:

• Actors push paparazzi bill at hearing 5.21.98
• Celebrities, press advocates to square off at paparazzi hearing 5.20.98