A Celebrity's Right to Privacy

[fragglerocks]

I have heard, and agreed on occasion, that if someone wants to be famous, then they should expect the media to follow them, and try to get "juicy" details. That a celebrity chose that lifestyle and should expect their faults to be broadcast on the news.

But really, isn't that wrong in anyone's eyes?

I have to say what brought this up, because it's upsetting me. How much is the media entitled to? I went grocery shopping today, and had to stand in the checkout line for a bit. One of the magazine covers jumps out at me (it was GLOBE), and do you know what it was a photo of? Gary Coleman laying on his deathbed. Tubes and bloated face and bandages and a sad looking wife leaning in towards him.

WHAT. THE. FUCK!?!?!? I rarely curse but I am just livid. I have changed my tune. The media should have no rights to private information and photographs when they stoop this low. Give an inch and they take a mile, and are getting more aggressive in their tactics. When is it enough? When is the line being crossed?

[Safyre420]

I personally believe that more celebrities should go the way of Britney(no not go trainwreck) and attack or even run over the paparazzi, personally I would. Celebrities do have a right to privacy, things like what you saw, MJ autopsy photos, etc are in the territory of too far. The death of Princess Di should've been the wake up call for the paparazzi and those that feed on tabloids, but alas it wasn't and things have only gotten worse.

[fakepeeps7]

Yeah, it's not really fair that they're expected to share everything with the public. People today can become famous for all kinds of things. They don't necessarily want to be famous; they're just doing what they're doing and it happens. That doesn't give the public the right to harass them and make their lives miserable.

[el_flel]

Firstly, that's disgusting that a magazine would print that just for entertainment value. I find that really morbid. It's very similar to when papers got hold of the photographs of Michael Jackson's death bed in the exact state it was in when he died. It's revolting and IMO is extremely disrespectful.

To the original Q: I think that anyone who has a job which puts them in the public eye has got to expect that the public will take an interest in their personal lives (as Cheryl Cole said, "when you're famous there is no such thing as a private life"), and because the media caters to public interests it is only natural that they will report personal information about these people. However, I definitely think there are limits. The media generally seems to have little respect or regard for people's feelings; all they are interested in is getting a good story. A large part of the problem lies - I think - in the fact that most journalists need to try and make a name for themselves, and the best way of doing this is to get these stories.

I admire the celebs who don't talk about their personal lives because why should they have to? At the same time, if a celeb likes having the world know lots of intimate details about them then that's fine too. Each person should have a say in what factual information is revealed about them.

[Mistermook]

I think that if we were serious about wanting celebrities to have privacy we'd have less of them and invest much less money in it. I also think that anyone who assaults anyone or breaks laws for any reason, whether it's a celebrity or a journalist, should face the full consequences of that choice.

[Vanito]

Some better laws to protect celebs would be usefull. No stalking them in their homes or taking pics there. Not at funerals. Etc.

[Black_Barook!]

No the media has no right to infringe on the privacy of anyone whether they're celebrities, or public officials.

[jooxis]

WHAT. THE. FUCK!?!?!? I rarely curse but I am just livid. I have changed my tune. The media should have no rights to private information and photographs when they stoop this low. Give an inch and they take a mile, and are getting more aggressive in their tactics. When is it enough? When is the line being crossed?

Actually, it was his bitch of a "wife" that sold those photos to the tabloids and is trying to cash in on his death as much as she can (and she probably is responsible for his death as well). But that's a whole 'nother story.

I wouldn't lay the blame on the paparazzi or the tabloids. They are doing their jobs and legally earning for a living. As long as the public is interested in crotch shots and other "scandals" this will always be a good business. So there's two options to combat this:

a) to make these kinds of privacy invasions illegal - you get arrested for constantly stalking someone with a camera and no newspaper is allowed to post photos of someone without their consent.
b) make the public more intelligent and thus not care about stupid shit (will never be possible)

[longears15]

This is not unlike the debate I started the other week about politicians and their private lives, and I can see both sides here. If you're 'signing up' for fame and fortune, then you do so knowing that there is going to be a certain invasion of your privacy. A lot of people (myself included) really couldn't give a toss about who is dating whom, or what the latest Hollywood scandal is, or whatever, but as long as there are large numbers of people out there who are interested in that sort of news (if, of course, one can consider it news...) you're going to have the paparazzi and the tabloids publishing it. And you're also going to have people making a buck out of it.

But at the same time, everyone is entitled to a certain level of privacy whether you're in the public eye or not. The sort of thing that Fraggle has referred to here to me is downright wrong no matter how you look at it, and I think any sort of illness/breakdown/family tragedy/etc. should fall into the same category. There's such a thing as basic respect and basic human decency, and I think that a certain element of the population forget that at times. Just my two cents :)

[Mistermook]

Respect and decency don't go a long way if you're talking about putting food on your table though, and that's what we're talking about - people's professions. Add in things like "if we make this illegal for extreme cases, are we also installing a chilling effect on the regular press or even harming our democracy by giving people the tools to promote censorship" and I'm gonna come down on the "well, that's unfortunate but there's not much I want to do about it" side of the argument every time.

You'll note there are celebrities that have maintained their privacy fairly well over the years while still being celebrities and presenting themselves and not showing up on front pages showing off that the wear no underwear. Just being boring and not driving intoxicated, sleeping around, beating people up or throwing punches at journalists seems to go pretty far. And yeah, I know the rest of us get to do those things without having a camera in our face all the time, but it's the sort of thing that promotes gossip even if people aren't investing money in you to watch you do something on television or a movie screen.

[fakepeeps7]

Respect and decency don't go a long way if you're talking about putting food on your table though, and that's what we're talking about - people's professions.

Paparazzi suck. If you have no other way to make a living besides being what is essentially a stalker, then you're kind of a loser and I feel sorry for you.

Take your camera, build some skills, and become a real photographer... not a parasite.

[jooxis]

Paparazzi suck. If you have no other way to make a living besides being what is essentially a stalker, then you're kind of a loser and I feel sorry for you.

Take your camera, build some skills, and become a real photographer... not a parasite.

My friend's job is to design and create internet ad pop-ups and those are a nuisance for thousands of people. It's legal, so as long as the job exists, there will be people to fill the position.

And the nosy public is the reason why paparazzi's exist. I would suggest tougher legal measures and ban it altogether. But until that ever happens, people are really just doing their jobs (however sleazy they may be).

[SuicidiaParasidia]

people are people.

you take away the glory, you take away the obsessive need to monitor their every move.

ever see how people who ARENT famous, regard the famous?
i heard things after MJ died like, " i never expected it to happen ".
...really? you NEVER expected MJ to die, because hes rich/famous/loved by all??

the problem is not so much the paparazzi and the tabloids. its the people who encourage, endorse, and enable their invasiveness.

[spotlight-shure]

I think of it this way, people wanted to act because they enjoyed the work and were good at it. The media followed suit after it became a well known, enjoyable form of entertainment. No one ever asked to have their garbage gone through and their pictures dissected for cellulite.

[paksetti]

That's something I never understood.
Why is it somehow okay for "Extra" to spread rumors or reveal personal information about people, when it's not okay for your annoying neighbor Carol to do so?

I never got the whole "celebrity" culture. Why do I care that Justin Beiber held hands with some chick at the beach? Why do I care about Justin Beiber? Even if I did like his music, I don't give two shits about his personal life good or bad- and it's none of my business.

I don't even get why people want to be celebrities, but that's another story.

[Oaktree]

My response here is pretty much the same as my response in the other thread regarding privacy: I don't think that there is any right and fair way to prevent these sorts of things through legal action, so the best anyone can do is avoid things that will put them in the spotlight. Sometimes unavoidable things will happen, like illnesses and death, but, as terrible as it is for those things to be paraded through the tabloids, how can you draw the line on what paparazzi can photograph in a non-arbitrary way? And how does this censorship affect other types of media? If taking a photograph of a dying celebrity crosses the line, does reporting on their final days cross the line as well? I think that people should be more respectful of the privacy of others, but you can't prevent people from looking on when something happens in a public place. When anyone leaves their home, they enter the public eye. Anything you do can be viewed by another, if another happens to be around. People just happen to be more aware of what celebrities do in public.

On the topic of photographing dying celebrities: consider the example of autopsy videos. The person being autopsied is your average person. You are seeing all the gory details of their appearance at death and general physical details that they might have found embarrassing for others to see while they were still alive. If an autopsy video was made of a celebrity, would it suddenly be wrong for this to be publicly available? Just because people would pay more attention to it, does it mean that it is any more personal than if it happened to your average Joe?

I think that the problem is simply that people show more interest in personal details when it involves a celebrity. There are plenty of personal details of your average person available, but those things aren't regarded with the same level of interest. I will make the distinction that the type of interest may be the problem (in the autopsy video example, the autopsy of the average person would typically be examined for medical or forensic purposes, while some may view the celebrity's autopsy with a morbid sort of fascination), but that delves into the concept of thoughtcrime and I don't believe that thoughtcrime is or should be criminal. Further, you don't know that there isn't someone out there viewing autopsy videos of your average person with a sort of morbid fascination.

I'm rambling a bit now, but my point essentially is that it is impossible to really protect privacy through the law because every interaction we have with others, whether direct or indirect, is, in some sense, a breach of privacy.

[el_flel]

Re your autopsy question: I guess you mean videos for educational purposes? In which case the person made the conscious decision to donate their body to medical science. If a celeb decides to do this then I don't really see a problem with it because it's what they wanted, and presumably they would know what this entails.

[HsK.DaMiAnz]

Screw the media, they get paid to make celebrity lives hell.
People in the media = Wish they were famous, but they just can't be.

Heh, if I was a celeb and was going through a tough time and paparazzi just came up in my face I'd probably break all their cams and mics and then throw the pieces at them.

[Lobelia Overhill]

years ago [in answer to a similar thread] I said I'd no objections to the cameras being out in force at any red carpet 'do', where the celebs are on display, but that photos of them going shopping, eating in restaurants, playing with their kids etc etc etc should be off limits completely.

If I was in charge it would be illegal to take photos of celebs going about their day to day lives.

[fakepeeps7]

If I was in charge it would be illegal to take photos of celebs going about their day to day lives.

Yeah... I don't really understand the whole legality aspect of the paparazzi, anyway. What's the deal with photographers having to get the regular, average-Joe people in their photos to sign a release before the photo is made public? Why isn't that courtesy afforded to celebrities? By law, shouldn't it be?

[Mistermook]

years ago [in answer to a similar thread] I said I'd no objections to the cameras being out in force at any red carpet 'do', where the celebs are on display, but that photos of them going shopping, eating in restaurants, playing with their kids etc etc etc should be off limits completely.

If I was in charge it would be illegal to take photos of celebs going about their day to day lives.
Which would mean someone accidentally snapping a photo of a celebrity in the background of a picture shopping would be committing a crime. What would be the penalties? Are we talking a fine here or jail time? If it's a fine then you'd have to make it strong enough to penalize people who could make money on the thing over the cost of the fine. If it's jail time, see above - welcome to the world of "Jimmy is in prison because he caught Madonna picking her nose while snapping pictures of his gf on the beach." Then there's more critical issues: What constitutes a celebrity anyways? I've got tons of friends in the IMDB that no, maybe even me these days, would recognize on the street. How "famous" do you have to be to be a celebrity, or do you want to install fines for taking pictures of anyone going about their day to day lives? Or perhaps jail time? Maybe you want this sort of thing established by a license to proclaim yourself a celebrity, what happens when someone's "celebrity" status happens overnight? The police officer rescues someone or is indicted in a crime, can we take pictures of him or not?

I'm just saying that these sorts of issues everyone's jumping up and down about could have chilling and censorship effects beyond what you all seem to be focusing on. If the intent is to prevent or discourage people from taking photos or videos AT ALL, then a lot of everyone's notions here make sense. We'd kill off all the news channels except for people talking about things that happened, according to them, and we'd never really have any clue what anyone prominent for any reasons looked like. We could have stings on Facebook to incarcerate teenagers who didn't get express written permission (if that's an option) to take pictures of their friends. Surveillance on your own property, if it's also a public place, could be criminal. How far do you want to go to protect privacy if it means censorship and/or inviting law enforcement into the business of the press?

[Rectos Dominos]

Celebrities and Politicans are public figures so there for more people want to see them at their worst than they would a regular person. If your neighbor walked out of the car with no panties only the people who know him/her would be interested nor would a book dedicated to trashing your ex would sell as well.

I find it rather silly that there is fifty pictures of celebrity at Starbucks their probably waiting for a "money shot". Curtain pictures like someone on the toilet or in the hospital for example should be kept private. Things like who a celebrity is dating or who's gay I don't give a shit about.

[Lobelia Overhill]

Which would mean someone accidentally snapping a photo of a celebrity in the background of a picture shopping would be committing a crime. What would be the penalties?

Oh stop, my sides, you're hilarious!!!! :rolleyes:

There is a big difference between accidentally catching someone in the corner of a pic, and deliberately stalking them with a zoom lens to take pics of them falling over, eating, sneezing, shopping, taking their kids to school.

[Vanito]

Oh stop, my sides, you're hilarious!!!! :rolleyes:

There is a big difference between accidentally catching someone in the corner of a pic, and deliberately stalking them with a zoom lens to take pics of them falling over, eating, sneezing, shopping, taking their kids to school.
Or selling the pictures and publishing them.

[Mistermook]

Oh stop, my sides, you're hilarious!!!! :rolleyes:

There is a big difference between accidentally catching someone in the corner of a pic, and deliberately stalking them with a zoom lens to take pics of them falling over, eating, sneezing, shopping, taking their kids to school.
Show me in the legal code where the law takes into account "accidentally breaking the law" and says it isn't breaking the law, mmmkay?

If you make something a crime, it's a crime. Period. If you put fines and penalties for things that can happen accidentally, there will be people who will invoke those penalties and use them in ways that will be no accident.

Even if there's no intent to invoke those new laws in practice the new laws will probably increase liability risk. That, in the least, would mean higher insurance rates for professional photographers of any flavor, specifically news journalists.

But hey, you think it's so funny... how about you write me up some proposed legislation that would demonstrate exactly how it's different, would make a definite difference in how paparazzi operate, wasn't already covered with other laws, and wouldn't end up having a chilling effect on news photography. I'm interested, and you obviously think you've got a handle on all the issues more than I do. Knock yourself out.

[Lobelia Overhill]

Or selling the pictures and publishing them.

that too!

[Oaktree]

Oh stop, my sides, you're hilarious!!!! :rolleyes:

There is a big difference between accidentally catching someone in the corner of a pic, and deliberately stalking them with a zoom lens to take pics of them falling over, eating, sneezing, shopping, taking their kids to school.

How do you account for paparazzis that "accidentally" take pictures of celebrities? There is no easy way to tell whether something was accidental or intentional. In trials in which it matters (accidental death, etc.) the judge and jury are used to determine whether something was truly accidental or whether there was intent. Judge and jury are far from infallible. Why add that element of error and the possibility of wrongful conviction when it could have just been someone mistakenly catching a celebrity in a photo? Celebrities make money off of their image; when is it supposed to be legal to take a picture of a celebrity? And why are celebrities entitled to special treatment? Why is the privacy of a celebrity so much more valuable than the privacy of the common man?

[Vanito]

How do you account for paparazzis that "accidentally" take pictures of celebrities? There is no easy way to tell whether something was accidental or intentional. In trials in which it matters (accidental death, etc.) the judge and jury are used to determine whether something was truly accidental or whether there was intent. Judge and jury are far from infallible. Why add that element of error and the possibility of wrongful conviction when it could have just been someone mistakenly catching a celebrity in a photo? Celebrities make money off of their image; when is it supposed to be legal to take a picture of a celebrity? And why are celebrities entitled to special treatment? Why is the privacy of a celebrity so much more valuable than the privacy of the common man?
Well.. when pictures of people end up in magazines they are not accidental. The privacy of a celebrity is not more valuable than from the common man; but there aint much of a problem because he will not be in magazine.

[jooxis]

How do you account for paparazzis that "accidentally" take pictures of celebrities? There is no easy way to tell whether something was accidental or intentional. In trials in which it matters (accidental death, etc.) the judge and jury are used to determine whether something was truly accidental or whether there was intent. Judge and jury are far from infallible. Why add that element of error and the possibility of wrongful conviction when it could have just been someone mistakenly catching a celebrity in a photo? Celebrities make money off of their image; when is it supposed to be legal to take a picture of a celebrity? And why are celebrities entitled to special treatment? Why is the privacy of a celebrity so much more valuable than the privacy of the common man?

If you're following the person around all day, taking thousands of snapshots of him/her and trying to invade his private space so you can snap some more, and then sell those photographs to a magazine, then it wasn't accidental. Other than that, it should be fine if you just catch the person in a photo or something. It's not going to end up published anyway. The line isn't blurred at all, it's pretty clear.

[Oaktree]

What if you put a picture on the internet and magazines use it? At that point, you aren't making money off of it, but it has the same consequences. Should that still be illegal?

[fakepeeps7]

What if you put a picture on the internet and magazines use it? At that point, you aren't making money off of it, but it has the same consequences. Should that still be illegal?

Isn't it? If someone is recognizable in your photo, shouldn't they have signed a model release?

[Oaktree]

That's simply not possible. If you take a picture of your friends at the beach, you're going to get several people in the background that you don't know and really didn't mean to get in the picture. When you're out in public, with the prevalence of cameras, it's likely that you'll get caught in a picture sooner or later that you didn't mean to be in. There's no good way around it.

[Vanito]

What if you put a picture on the internet and magazines use it? At that point, you aren't making money off of it, but it has the same consequences. Should that still be illegal?
if you can prove the picture is harmfull yes. Like revengefull exes posting nude pictures etc.

[fakepeeps7]

That's simply not possible. If you take a picture of your friends at the beach, you're going to get several people in the background that you don't know and really didn't mean to get in the picture. When you're out in public, with the prevalence of cameras, it's likely that you'll get caught in a picture sooner or later that you didn't mean to be in. There's no good way around it.

I guess that's why some schools have banned cameras at concerts. Not everybody wants to end up on the Internet.

I'm not saying that's a good solution. Just that that's what sometimes happens.

[Oaktree]

Nude pictures are a private thing. Paparazzi's shouldn't be trespassing to get their shots. I'm talking about things you would see in public. Take Mistermook's example: what if you caught a celebrity picking his/her nose? Or something equally likely to be found in public, but still embarrassing.

[fakepeeps7]

Nude pictures are a private thing. Paparazzi's shouldn't be trespassing to get their shots. I'm talking about things you would see in public. Take Mistermook's example: what if you caught a celebrity picking his/her nose? Or something equally likely to be found in public, but still embarrassing.

Would you take a random nose-picker's picture? I guess some people would, and if you're going to pick your nose in public, you run the risk of getting caught.

The problem is that the celebrity would still be more likely to get their picture taken, simply because they're a celebrity and people can make money off of them.

People who make money off of the humiliation of others are loser parasites, IMO.

[Oaktree]

Would you take a random nose-picker's picture? I guess some people would, and if you're going to pick your nose in public, you run the risk of getting caught.

The problem is that the celebrity would still be more likely to get their picture taken, simply because they're a celebrity and people can make money off of them.

People who make money off of the humiliation of others are loser parasites, IMO.

I think they're loser parasites, too, but I don't think there's any sane way to pass laws preventing them from doing it.

[el_flel]

^ I think I agree. I hate this whole obsession with celebrities but I think laws regarding papps etc would just be too difficult to create and enforce.

[asai]

Do not feel sorry for these people they had to know that this is what kind of life they were in for. Trust me when i say this, they might yell and scream at the press for the pantieless shots as they exit a limo at some posh Hollywood function, but if they really were that concerned about it would they have worn panties or at least a longer dress. I can not attribute the quote to the actress who said it but here is the mentality in a nut shell, "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about."

The only choice one can make in this situation if you feel strongly enough about it is not to purchase, watch, or participate in the hype by ignoring it entirely. That to a degree is like expecting a bum to have sympathy for the rich guy who threw his back out moving his money around. Gary Coleman died as he lived a public spectacle and i seriously doubt if he minded his last 15 minutes of fame.

Asai

[fthomas]

Celebrities are just normal people, therefore, they deserve their privacy.
Katie Price has bought a house near where I live, at a location where I love to go with my friends and family, if the paparazzi are there constantly...it will piss me off, just how it must piss her off too.

[Ive]

Katie Price is not really a good example. If anything she probably tips off the paparazzi herself anyway :P

I do believe that celebrities have a right to have a privacy. Personal/everyday pictures is a nono but work related photos is allowed, as it is actually their job to be current.
Why do people even care wtf this or that went to the shop an bought? Totally uninteresting and noone would care unless they were famous. Like mentioned before here tho that some people go all complaining about their panties showing etc, why not wear a longer skirt or something?! They know the paparazzi is going to be there. Most people have the decency to dress 'appropriately' and we aren't even going to have our picture taken. Some celebrities do manage to stay out of the spotlight without problems. Example is Sandra Bullock who was in the middle of a shitstorm and yet noone knew anything until she came out with the info herself.

Sadly nothing is ever going to change regarding this as people will still buy the magazines to satisfy their curiosity. Humanity is sick.

[fthomas]

Katie Price is not really a good example. If anything she probably tips off the paparazzi herself anyway :P

Yeah, I know :lol:
But, I thought I might as well mention it though :]

[fakepeeps7]

Do not feel sorry for these people they had to know that this is what kind of life they were in for. Trust me when i say this, they might yell and scream at the press for the pantieless shots as they exit a limo at some posh Hollywood function, but if they really were that concerned about it would they have worn panties or at least a longer dress. I can not attribute the quote to the actress who said it but here is the mentality in a nut shell, "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about."

You're just talking about entertainers. People can become famous for many other reasons. What if your family member was the victim of a sensational murder and now the press won't leave you alone? Did you choose that?

The only choice one can make in this situation if you feel strongly enough about it is not to purchase, watch, or participate in the hype by ignoring it entirely. That to a degree is like expecting a bum to have sympathy for the rich guy who threw his back out moving his money around.

That just sounds bitter. Everybody has their trials. Why should someone be denied sympathy just because they have more money than the next guy? Money isn't everything.

Gary Coleman died as he lived a public spectacle and i seriously doubt if he minded his last 15 minutes of fame.

Gary Coleman hadn't really been in the spotlight in any meaningful way for years. To suggest that he's somehow reveling in his deathbed photos being plastered all over the place is making some rather callous assumptions. I don't care how famous you are; few people are going to want that.

[asai]

You're just talking about entertainers. People can become famous for many other reasons. What if your family member was the victim of a sensational murder and now the press won't leave you alone? Did you choose that?



That just sounds bitter. Everybody has their trials. Why should someone be denied sympathy just because they have more money than the next guy? Money isn't everything.



Gary Coleman hadn't really been in the spotlight in any meaningful way for years. To suggest that he's somehow reveling in his deathbed photos being plastered all over the place is making some rather callous assumptions. I don't care how famous you are; few people are going to want that.

The problem in a nut shell is that this content sells and if it sells someone will provide the content. I myself could really care less what ANY celebrity does as my life is interesting enough, and in some case a bit more interesting than i would like. But i do not feel sorry for them in any way pick a different job. As far as a sensational murder or some other situation beyond the cojntrol of the individual in question that is a different matter entirely, but i believe that the original cruxt of the thread concerns Gary Coleman, a celebrty an individual who's life was public spectacle. I was directing my reply in that direction. I do agree with you but before you point fingers ask yourself how many times at an accident did you find your attention drawn to the goings on, even if you admonished yourself for looking or thinking of looking there is no denying you were curious.

That is human nature and has been since we left the trees eons ago, as i said all you can do is not participate in the hype. Ignore the photos, the shows, glamorization of the celebrity. That is not to say that if you ran across an actor or actress who had a role in a movie or play that moved you not to show your appreciation of thier art. But even in that case could a "hey man you really nailed that part" as you pass by them in a resturant be considered intrusive? I am sorry but if that bothers you the celebrity you just have to deal with it or choose a different job, the celebrity has no one but themselves to blame. The choices we all make will influence the life we lead, if you choose a life where success is measured by the appreciation of your art, silence or apathy is a career killer.

This is not bitter, i am not bitter, it is however reality, whether one accepts it or not. You can go all Mc Enroe or Sean Penn everytime a flash bulb pops but you had better beware that if you go all Mel Gibson at a traffic stop someone is watching. Your only other choice is to hole up in some Hunter S. Thompson esque compound in the middle of no where two miles down the road from Harrison Ford. When your life is spent recieving the accolades of an adoring public, for your contributions to that art to whine about all the attention seems a bit assinine.

Do they go to far I could care less really and as i had no idea there were death bed photos of Gary Coleman until i was informed of them by the OP is not the OP just as guilty of the behavior the thread was started to admonish? I very rarely participate in the novelty of celebrity as i watch very little television to begin with. I watch NO news programs like FOX or CNN. I am not really interested in the sensationalization of what ever product is being pushed whether it is politicians, celebritys, or toothpaste. They all have the same thing in common it is a product being marketed to people with low attention spans. I read 2 news papers a day NY Times, and the local mullet wrapper, because imho the rest of it is marketed product, and even then i still have to sort, and follow up on the information to ensure its accuracy.

Regardless of all this the most important thing i think is to remember, whether it is politics, celebrity, religion, or toothpase they are all products someone is trying to sell you. The quickest way to kill anything is to remove the funding, it does not matter what it is remove the money and you remove the interest. If people stopped buying the National Enquirer thier editor would not be able to buy the pictures, and all of that vermin would be asking the really BIG important question...... Do you want fries with that?. I agree with you to a degree, and i wish you the best of luck, seriously, you go dude but the smart money is on the earth being inherited by the droolers.

Asai

[Drakesecaravdis]

they definitely have the right to privacy. I cringe at paparazzi videos because they're always being such a pest with questions or rather just the way they go about things. an example I can think of that is just horrible is that one where Britney (Spears) was trying to take a picture of this mural and they were all in her way. like Britney said "she's just a person"

if I like a celebrity, I like them as people. I respect them because they are human beings like us and I would not expect anything more from them (in fact I wouldn't even have it any other way. imagine if someone was perfect. how boring would that be? I like when I can see flaws of celebrities and their flaws help me like them more) they're not here to amuse/entertain us 24/7. that is just their job. when work is over, they should be able to kick back and relax.

besides that example, crossing the line would be stalking their house/hotel, judging their taste in mates or anything in their personal life rather.
I'm not gonna lie. some things I am curious about that may be none of my business. part of this is probly because I'm an obsessive analyzer. one thing I think I have a good perception on is sexuality (as I've been right before on other celebs) and I like to know if I'm right so sometimes I'm just like "dang come out already". however I never use this information for evil. I'm not a judgemental person at all, just very inquisitive.
another thing I like to know is who the celeb I admire is dating. I do not know why this is. I just often like to know. I can only guess that sometimes I like to know so I can see if I want to support them as a couple...and then if it's a guy celeb I admire's lover I want to know not only who it is but more about them (what's their favorites what do they do in their spare time etc?) for some reason I like to get into their world. I don't see why it's that bad to want to know this to be honest. I mean again I respect that sometimes they don't want to share this so I wouldn't ask them myself even if I got the chance but I don't see it as that big of an issue. I do hate when paparazzi/news people ask about breakups though. that's a whole different story.



now I may be wrong but paparazzi can be useful. they sometimes give you media that doesn't cross the line but many times they do go overboard.

[Oaktree]

if I like a celebrity, I like them as people. I respect them because they are human beings like us and I would not expect anything more from them (in fact I wouldn't even have it any other way. imagine if someone was perfect. how boring would that be? I like when I can see flaws of celebrities and their flaws help me like them more) they're not here to amuse/entertain us 24/7. that is just their job. when work is over, they should be able to kick back and relax.


I agree with you here, but this is why I think that celebrities should be given privacy. You are just a person, but other people don't stalk you in your everyday routines to determine that fact. With some exceptions, a celebrity only intends you to see the side of them that is trying to entertain you. That part of him/her is the famous part. The 'human' part is for his/her private life.

[Drakesecaravdis]

"I agree with you here, but this is why I think that celebrities should be given privacy. You are just a person, but other people don't stalk you in your everyday routines to determine that fact. With some exceptions, a celebrity only intends you to see the side of them that is trying to entertain you. That part of him/her is the famous part. The 'human' part is for his/her private life."

well yeah I think that is what I was saying too.