How to stay in the news:
  1. Be an insanely popular pop singer.
  2. Get an insanely noticeable plug-in hybrid car, the Fisker Karma.
  3. Chrome it.
  4. Get chased by paparazzi going over 100 miles per hour, then get pulled over and get a speeding ticket.
These are all steps that Justin Bieber has managed to accomplish. Now, he's added a fifth: have the paparazzo be the first charged under California's new anti-paparazzi law, which makes it a crime to "create a dangerous situation while in pursuit of a celebrity for profit," writes the Toronto Sun.

State prosecutors filed four charges against paparazzo Paul Raef, who chased Bieber "in a careless, reckless fashion," (in the words of Los Angeles councilman Dennis Zine). Raef is pleading "not guilty" even though Bieber identified him to the police. His lawyer said Raef was just like any other reporter and is thus protected by the First Amendment. The arraignment takes place August 24. If convicted, Raef could spend a year in jail and need to pay a $3,500 fime.

You can see the TMZ video of the original situation below.



I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 12 Comments
      PR
      • 2 Years Ago
      Paul Raef needs to figure out that the first amendment doesn't give him the right to break the law, it just gives him the right to free speech. He can't break into a house because he wants to further his first amendment rights. He can't murder someone just because he wants to further his first amendment rights. And he can't participate in a potentially deadly and destructive illegal road chase just because he wants to make a buck selling off his free speech. Some people just don't understand that their constitutional rights end where violating other people's constitutional rights begins. No right is absolute.
        SVX pearlie
        • 2 Years Ago
        @PR
        If the First Amendment gives one blanket protection from lawlessness, I suppose if Justin Bieber had a cameraman filming, he could have his bodyguard beat Paul Raef to death and be fully protected. I'd be OK with that kind of result.
      Smith Jim
      • 2 Years Ago
      My first reaction to this article was, "Hey, this ain't green car news" so I pretty much ignored it at first. Then I came back to this site later and something occurred to me. The picture of Justin Bieber's car with two policemen was very likely taken by a paparazzo. Do you see the irony here? Displaying pictures taken by paparazzi is helping to perpetuate the whole paparazzi business.
        Nick
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Smith Jim
        To top it off, it might have been taken by the very paparazzo the article is talking about.
          Letstakeawalk
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Nick
          The photo was taken by one of TMZ's people, not by Paul Raef who is being charged.
      sirvixisvexed
      • 2 Years Ago
      So if the photographer is chasing at high speed just because he himself wants to keep the pictures, and not sell them, it's ok? (Why have "for profit" in the wording? Don't forget, profit is evil! Like when someone fixes your refrigerator for you and wants money, they're evil, because they're profiting) BAHAHA I'm in pursuit of you for NON MONETARY REASONS! BE AFRAID!
        David
        • 2 Years Ago
        @sirvixisvexed
        The wording "for profit" was a concession to the LA Times, who argued that a "legitimate" reporter (as in, one that works for them, and writes "legitimate news" articles, [you know, like politics and other really newsworthy crap], and is on salary) could not be charged with this crime. However, if I were a defense lawyer, I'd dispute the "legitimate" reporter's salary as making a profit. If you are getting paid ANY amount of money, IMHO, you are profiting from your work. Thus, ALL reporters are on the hook for this law. Send Paul Raef down the river on this one. Send a harsh message to these low-life abusers. Making news purposely is illegal, as it should be...
      karlInSanDiego
      • 2 Years Ago
      Isn't that how Diana was killed, by dipshizt pooper-yahtees? Bieber was given the Fisker on the Ellen show, by his manservant/caretaker/assistant. It looked kinda staged, so it wouldn't surprise me to find out Justin picked it out, but if I was Justin, I'd be rocking the Fisker. He handled the chase thing poorly, but the stars lives are getting creepy with the tabloid photogs, so I'm happy to see them get knocked back a bit.
        Letstakeawalk
        • 2 Years Ago
        @karlInSanDiego
        Diana died because her driver was drunk (3.5x the limit) and was speeding, and because she wasn't wearing a seatbelt. Being chased by the paparazzi is one thing, but making poor decisions behind the wheel and as a passenger are another.
      • 2 Years Ago
      Wow! Amazing! For Mobile Device Management, The Mobile Worker, Enterprise Mobile Apps and Beyond, Mobility Management and the CIO, Mobile-to-Mobile search Enterprise Mobile Hub
      diffrunt
      • 2 Years Ago
      why elude an opportunity for publicity ? If wrapping one's wheels in shiny vinyl sticky paper is not a cry for attention, what is ?
      2 Wheeled Menace
      • 2 Years Ago
      Wow, we have a justin bieber tag, and this is the 4th article about bieber on this site: http://green.autoblog.com/tag/justin+bieber/ Keep that reader IQ nice 'n low, autoblog green :)