I'm struck by the similarities between the public's response to paparazzi and its reaction to pornography and spamming on the Internet.

As of this writing, we still don't know everything that led to the tragic accident that took the lives of Princess Diana and her companions. But evidence indicates the driver may have been drinking and he may have been speeding to avoid photographers anxious to get yet another picture of Diana and her beau.

Many people have damned the paparazzi and the publications that print their photos. How dare these people hound, hunt, and harass celebrities like Diana, Tom Cruise, and George Clooney? There oughta be a law!

I'm not a celebrity and I've never had to speed away from a camera-wielding motorcyclist, but I do get harassed. And so do you. I can't log on to America Online without a pile of obnoxious email from people wanting to sell me something. When I participate in newsgroups and other online forums, I sometimes get flamed.

I worry about what my children discover online. They, too, get spam and rude messages. If they happen to wander toward the seamy side of cyberspace, they could encounter pornography. My 11-year-old son even gets email solicitations from X-rated Web sites.

A lot of people want to ban spamming and restrict access to adult sites.

I understand their reactions, but I steadfastly oppose laws to regulate cyberspace for fear that the laws censoring material I don't like could also suppress my freedom of speech. Yes, I'm a card-carrying member of the ACLU. And I'm proud to belong to an organization that fights to uphold the United States Constitution, including the parts that protect people I can't stand to hear.

Paparazzi, like spammers and pornographers, produce material many of us consider vile. But just because I don't like them doesn't mean they have no rights. We need to distinguish between the product itself and the way it is produced. If photographers break laws in the pursuit of their work, they should be prosecuted. If they act within the law, they shouldn't be condemned. And if we decide to change the laws to protect celebrities from paparazzi harassment, we must be sure the new legislation doesn't step on the legitimate rights of the press.

Sleaze Is Successful

Paparazzi peddle a product many people want. The supermarket tabloids wouldn't pay big bucks for celebrity photos if the photos didn't sell papers.

I don't know anyone who admits to buying the National Enquirer and the like, but these papers continue to flourish. And the money consumers spend on them supports the paparazzi so many people despise.

The economic arena provides more similarities between paparazzi and online pornography. X-rated Web sites are among the most popular attractions on the Internet. Only a tiny percentage of nonpornographic Web sites make money by charging visitors, but a number of "erotic" sites do well.

I don't like X-rated sites. I consider them demeaning to women and insulting to men. But I'm willing to march in protest if anyone tries to censor them. The same is true with print publications like Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler, The Sun, The Globe, and the National Enquirer. They're full of garbage, but people have the right to publish and read garbage. Some people may think what I write is garbage, and they're entitled to their opinions. But as long as I can find publications that print what I write, I'm entitled to write it.

I do believe that online and print media should be held accountable for what they publish. If a publication maliciously lies about someone, the libeled person should be able to sue the publication for damages. Many people have done just that, and some have won substantial judgments.

Paparazzi need to be held accountable, too. If the photographers who arrived on the scene of Diana's car wreck are found to have engaged in a high-speed chase, they should be prosecuted under the laws they broke. Pursuing a story or a photo isn't a crime, but driving recklessly is. A photographer who trespasses to obtain a photograph is also violating the law. And in most places, there are already laws to protect people from being stalked and harassed.

First Celebrities, Then Politicians

Are you still unconvinced? Then consider the blurry line between paparazzi and legitimate journalists. One of the photographers arrested at the scene of Diana's accident is an award-winning photojournalist whose work frequently appears in the mainstream press. His reputable past doesn't justify any misdeeds, of course. But imagine a different situation. Say that no harm came to the occupants of the car, who were not Diana and her companions but prominent politicians. What would happen if we deny the press the right to obtain information about the people ruling our countries?

We may need legislation to protect people from certain abuses by members of the press, but I worry about declaring open season on journalists in search of a photo or a story. The law that keeps an overzealous photographer from snapping a picture of a celebrity could also prevent a tenacious reporter from pursuing an evasive politician. I don't want reporters' access to public officials limited to sound bytes, press conferences, and formal, in-office interviews. I would hate to have officials calling the police whenever a reporter or constituent confronts them in public with a tough question.

No one said that democracy is easy. Balancing the individual's right to privacy and the public's right to know is a tricky business. While government has a role in protecting people from harassment and endangerment, it has no business interfering with the freedom of the press.