The Paparrazzi

Remove all ads!

We already have laws which protect people -- trespassing, slander, stalking, etc. (the Erin Andrews case comes to mind). Most of these laws carry a minimal fine or jail time as compared to the payoff. It's simple math -- is a $100,000 worth a potential one year jail time? In most cases the answer is yes.

We, as a society, have driven the market. I don't read the Enquirer, Us or People; but I know a lot of people who do. Everytime a person buys such magazines (along with Playboy and Hustler who purchase nip slips and topless celeb pics) they add to the market.

Inacting new laws will not eliminate the market, only increase the value of the pictures. Where $100,000 was the going price, with new laws the going price may be $500,000 or a million -- there will still be people willing to snap the shots and go to jail in order to make the money. Magazine companies will still be willing to pay out millions in lawsuits for the chance to make even more in sales.

People with positions in the public eye (politicians, celebrities and high public officials -- even CEO's of corporations) simply need to accept this as a part of the choice they have made. They cannot turn off the cameras whenever they want -- there is always someone nearby with a camera or phone. I have little sympathy for the celebrity or politician who gets upset because their picture is being taken.

Even in the case of Erin Andrews; she should have realized there was the possibility someone would look throught the peephole and covered it. If a celebrity wants privacy, they must be proactive and willing to do a bit extra to maintain their privacy.

 

How far should a celebrity have to go to do that, though? And what if they are down and out has beens who are still being stalked? And what about going out to dinner and then not being able to get back to your car without shoving your way through a gaggle of reporters and photographers?

Maybe if we went after the magazines rather than the photographers it would be more effective. Or if we required them to disclose how a particular picture was taken.

I agree wholeheartedly that it is all fuelled by people who consume this stuff (I don't watch TMZ or buy tabloids) so changing Western Society's habits would be another answer, but one that is remarkably difficult to do.

 

Another person who made big news lately that has largely kept his private life private is Tiger Woods. I don't think the traffic accident was a big deal (he didn't hurt anyone, and the police said they don't believe that alcohol was involved in the accident). I think the only reason it's getting any publicity at all is because it is so rare that we hear anything about Tiger other than what we see in commercials and, obviously, golfing events. And while it is true that Tiger is not a celebrity in the traditional sense of the world, I think being one of the most recognized athletes in the world qualifies one as somewhat of a celebrity.

True that. The thing is, when you go to a public restaurant, or anywhere really, you're in public. So while I do not condone the tactics often employed, I don't think they're doing anything illegal. Last I checked it wasn't against the law to be either annoying or stupid.

 

Isn't that one of the chicks in the group Destiny's Child? I'm not sure if she is or not, but I still remember when they came into a Circuit City I was working at. They had a little shopping spree, walking around in the store with their entourage, and a lot of us were envious because it looked as if the sales guy was really going to make out. Anyway one of their guys just about ran up to me and another guy in the computer department and handed us a card, shouting, "Quick call this number. It's a radio station and tell them you've just had a 'siting' of Destiny's Child. Tell them where they are and what the girls are doing. You might even win something."

I was nice to the guy and waited till he was gone to discard the number he gave me. It seems that there is a lot of self-promotion with these people and once they get what they want out of it, they claim that the media is hounding them. You can't have it both ways.

But they never bought anything. When they went to check-out there was some problem with their credit card, so they just left. I felt bad for their salesman.

 

Of course there was something wrong with their credit card -- they expected to get the items for free; after all they were gracing the store with their presence and giving free publicity (something most celebrities believe they should rewarded for).

 

I see the public argument in terms of taking pictures, but not in terms of hindering the movement of people -- if you are in their way, making them slow down for you while you take your intrusive pictures, then that should be a crime -- harassment, maybe. We do not have the right to hassle or limit the movement of others for merely personal reasons. IMHO, paparrazzi have been using their "rights" to infringe on the rights of others. It really should change.

 

LKD, they can be arrested for physical contact or endangering their target. However, when police are not present the ramifications of such infringement are minimal.

As I said, there are already laws in place -- it's difficult to enforce those laws. The police simply cannot be everywhere at once and I do not believe it is the responsibility of the police to safeguard against the paparrazzi. The celebrities must be proactive; it's simply a price they must pay for the life they have chosen (or been born into in some cases).

 

I agree with that. There is nothing illegal, on the other hand, of taking a picture of someone walking into a restaurant or other public place.

 

What I can't sand is when they form a circle around the person, blocking their path, yelling at them, and causing a public disturbance.

If I was a "hot" celeb and I walked out of a night club with a sexy babe on each arm and a group of paparazzi pounced on me, sticking lenses in my face and flashes going off like a disco...I'd tell my babes to duck as I pulled out a can of mace in each hand and did a 360° mace-spray action move. Then my babes and I would step over the writhing fools and be on our way.


It's not just the action of taking the picture that irritated me...it's what they do with it afterwards. If you've ever see TMZ or the like, they make it their duty to humiliate the person. Example: I think it was Luke Wilson they were making fun of...but in a picture he was bending over...to what looked like...help fix a lady's stroller. Unfortunately, he had plumber's crack showing...so the idiots spent several minutes bashing on the guy for doing something nice.

I don't like TMZ...anyone employed by them should be publicly hanged, drawn and quartered!

 

UK, the royal family steps up media law:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...-tough-on-paparazzi-in-royal-privacy-row.html

 

Good on the royalty for standing up for themselves -- it's not like the political future of England is being decided by the royals anymore -- the public good is not served by telephoto pictures of the royal family playing cricket. The public interest might be served, but that's a different matter altogether than the public good.

 

I have noticed that those who are most contemptuous in regards to a celebrity's right to privacy are often the most jealous of their success.

Personally, I think the 'They profit from publicity on some occasions, so they should just accept the unwelcome invasions of their privacy' is a ******** argument. It's like saying that since a prostitute profits from horny men, she should accept the occasional rape as just being part of her profession.