Kristen Bell and Dax Shephard have created a #NoKidPolicy, convincing major news outlets not to publish pictures of celebrities' children without parental consent.

Seven-year-old Suri Cruise strolled around hand in hand with Katie Holmes in New York City Tuesday wearing a pink tank top and skinny jeans. Unbeknownst to them, they were being filmed by a paparazzi member who probably made a decent paycheck from selling the footage to Mail Online. Some feel that being in the limelight warrants being followed, but celebrities are now defending the privacy of their children through stronger legislation and by appealing to the public for help. California Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill last fall that celebrities like Halle Berry and Jennifer Garner have been rallying behind. Paparazzi in California could now pay massive fines and face jail time for alarming, annoying, tormenting or terrorizing the children of celebrities. Despite the star power behind the new law, The Motion Picture Association of America was one among several groups that opposed the legislation, claiming it violated freedom of speech. But there's a loophole that both protects freedom of speech and leaves celebrity children vulnerable to unwanted attention. The law states, "The act of transmitting, publishing, or broadcasting a recording of the image or voice of a child does not constitute a violation." Loosely translated, the paps can invade the privacy of celebrities and their children, so long as they're more stealthy about it. Taking pictures isn't illegal, but doing it aggressively is. Dax Shephard and Kristen Bell, who are new parents, have been working to garner support for what they've named the #NoKidsPolicy. They've aimed to close the loophole in the law by appealing to major news outlets who pay for the pictures and footage of celebrity kids. As a result, Entertainment Tonight, E News, PEOPLE Magazine and others have agreed not to publish photos taken of celebrity children without parental consent. A-listers like Bradley Cooper, Scarlett Johansen and Amy Adams put the pressure on entertainment sources by threatening to boycott interviews and appearances if they didn't comply, and apparently it worked. Shephard wrote in Huffington Post that supply and demand is at the heart of the problem. "We Americans have proven time and time again that if we want something, through hell or high water, we will get it," Shephard wrote. "So as long as people pay good money to buy magazines featuring famous people's children, there will be men popping out of bushes and lurking around playgrounds to get those pics. Those are just the facts. The consumer is the only one who can put an end to this. They are the only ones with real power." While it's clear PEOPLE Magazine and other entertainment outlets don't want to bite the hand that feeds them, it's also apparent that they realize there's a demand for pictures and stories about Hollywood babies and celebrity families. Jess Cagle, editorial director of PEOPLE Magazine, stated that the magazine doesn't support the targeting of celebrity children, and that it will no longer publish pictures of those children taken under duress. But she goes on to say, "Of course, there may be rare exceptions based on the newsworthiness of photos. And there's always the tough balancing act we face when dealing with stars who exploit their children one day, and complain about loss of privacy the next." What pictures are deemed newsworthy or fair game is yet to be determined. "It would be miraculous if the situation changed and celebrities' children got to be just children," Shephard said. "And it would be even more miraculous if that change came from the will of the people and not legislation."%3Cimg%20src%3D%22http%3A//