Steven Tyler Act Stalls in Hawaii: Celebrity Privacy Bill Hits Snag in House After Senate Success, Reports Say Aerosmith Paparazzi Law Likely to Fail

After being passed by the Hawaii state Senate, the celebrity privacy bill championed by Aerosmith singer Steven Tyler has been stalled in the House. It also looks like the "Steven Tyler Act" will not make it through the house after missed deadlines according to key lawmakers. Perhaps Tyler's song, "Dream On" is playing in his head right now. This celebrity privacy bill has already missed one internal House deadline with a second deadline today.

According to Rep. Angus McKelvey, of Maui:

"There is zero support for that legislation in the House of Representatives ...To say there is absolutely zero support would be an understatement."

McKelvey is the chairman of the consumer protection committee, which is the first of three committees the bill has to go through to get to the House floor. He says that he will not be holding a hearing for the bill. McKelvey added,

"There is a better chance of people flapping their arms and flying from Lanai to Maui."

As mentioned before, the "Steven Tyler" act was passed in the Senate. Mstarz covered that story and here is an excerpt:

The so-called "Steven Tyler Act" creates a civil violation if paparazzi take unwanted photographs or videos "of others in their private moments." 23 of Hawaii's 25 Senate members voted in favor of the bill, which will now go to the House for consideration. Tyler asked Senator Kalani English to sponsor this legislation after pictures of the singer and his girlfriend ended up causing family drama.

Steven owns a multimillion-dollar home in Maui. Senator English feels that the proposal could help increase celebrity tourism in the tropical state. Support of the Steven Tyler Act has come from other celebrities including Mick Fleetwood, the Osborne family, and Britney Spears. These stars have argued that intrusive paparazzi make it hard to enjoy simple activities with family and friends while in Hawaii and in general.

All opposing the bill consider it a violation of freedom of the press. Also, the language in the bill is very vague, so it was replaced with the text of an existing California anti-paparazzi statute. Hopefully when the bill is brought up in the House, these issues will be worked out.