Celebrities' Right To Privacy

[Eriatarka]

I've been thinking lately, about famous peole and how so many of them live their lives under a persistant spotlight. It really, really annoys me how the media think they have a right to follow celebrities around, taking pictures of them when they want to be left alone and reporting their every action.

Amy Winehouse and Pete Doherty for example, yes ok they have problems with drugs. That doesn't make it ok for some tabloid vulture to turn their addictions into gossip fodder, these people have feelings for Gods sake. Let them sort it out by themselves, I honestly find it disgusting that such personal problems get publicised the way they do, turning someones life into a circus just to shift newspapers.

In my opinion, everyone has a right to live their private life free from scrutiny, regardless of their career or celebrity status. I don't deserve to have a bunch of unflattering picture of me on a beach put up in some glossy magazine, and neither does anybody else, no matter how well known they are.


I'm sorry if I sound preachy or whatever, it's just something I feel strongly about.

But what do you guys think? Does the media go too far, or is press intrusion just the price you must pay to pursue a glamorous career?

 

[slartibartfast42]

If you were to give celebrities privacy, you would be restricting free press and taking money from the people who make a living getting the dirt on celebrities. The only reason such news reports goes on is that there are enough people who enjoy gossip that such news organizations that report that can make money. The people who are stupid enough to care about the personal lives of celebrities are the real problem. I mean seriously, why should anyone admire celebrities at all? They get paid way too much just for having a pretty face/basic acting talent, and usually have pretty screwed up lives. I for one don't care at all that Britney Spears just went through her 42nd husband and that Martha Stewart's dog just died.

 

[blazedaces]

If you were to give celebrities privacy, you would be restricting free press and taking money from the people who make a living getting the dirt on celebrities. The only reason such news reports goes on is that there are enough people who enjoy gossip that such news organizations that report that can make money. The people who are stupid enough to care about the personal lives of celebrities are the real problem. I mean seriously, why should anyone admire celebrities at all? They get paid way too much just for having a pretty face/basic acting talent, and usually have pretty screwed up lives. I for one don't care at all that Britney Spears just went through her 42nd husband and that Martha Stewart's dog just died.

:-O !!! Her dog died?! :'(



^^ Joke...

You can't restrict the right of someone to take a photograph in a public place. You would be opening the system up to abuse ...

-blazed

 

[Eriatarka]

If you were to give celebrities privacy, you would be restricting free press and taking money from the people who make a living getting the dirt on celebrities.

I'm not suggesting censoring, but would that particular restriction of what can be reported really be a bad thing? If anything, not allowing newspapers to report, for example, celebrity drug addictions, would be a good thing, as celebrities are often looked up to by young people and the 'rockstar taking drugs' story can give a glamorous image to drug addiction.
What harm would it be to freedom of press if they weren't allowed to show pictures of an actor on a night out? Again though, I'm not suggesting censorship, only saying that I don't think it's fair that it gets reported.

Also, I'd argue exactly how deserving of money the celebrity gossip columnists are. If they were good journalists, they could easily switch over to a different field of journalism, one worthy of merit.

I mean seriously, why should anyone admire celebrities at all? They get paid way too much just for having a pretty face/basic acting talent, and usually have pretty screwed up lives.

And how screwed up their lives are is none of my business.

I don't really think they deserve contempt either, I mean they're only doing jobs that most of us would love to have, where being good at your job gives a far greater salary than a similar level of skill at 'normal' job would give.

I agree with you on the rest though, this wouldn't happen if people simply wouldn't buy the publications that encourage obsession with celebrities' private lives, it's hardly real news. But alas, people want to know, so there's profit to be made, so it happens.
People make me sad.

You can't restrict the right of someone to take a photograph in a public place. You would be opening the system up to abuse ...

I didn't mean to imply I was suggesting a ban of any description, because yes that just doesn't work, can't work. I only mean to say that I don't think it's right that it happens. There's no defence against it (apart from punching the photographer outside the niteclub, it seems), I'm just saying that the people who stalk celebrities, taking photos of them and looking to scandalize them, are parasites.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

:-O !!! Her dog died?! :'(



^^ Joke...

You can't restrict the right of someone to take a photograph in a public place. You would be opening the system up to abuse ...

-blazed

I feel mixed. I don't believe in a great deal of intrusion on ordinary people, but I feel people of power need to be kept in check by constant rummaging from the press to allow for a more informed society.

 

[blazedaces]

Eriatarka: Alright, so you're arguing that the situation simply isn't "fair" to celebrities. But as you agreed with me, there is no real practical solution to this problem. Life can't cater to everyone's needs. We have to draw lines (like privacy on someone's private land is truly off limits) but we can't extend it to public places without restricting other rights...

-blazed

 

[Eriatarka]

Blazed, I'm not arguing with you here! There isn't a solution that I can see that would not infringe on other peoples rights, or result in terrible confusion over what photography is allowed and what isn't.
But ok, lets not talk about public photography for the moment- do you think it's acceptable for a newspaper to actively seek pictures of a celebrity taking drugs, with a view to exposing their addiction, when said celebrity would rather keep it private?

In that scenario, I would argue that their need to keep it private outweighs our need to know. If you substitute the word 'right' for the word 'need' in that sentence, you have my base point.

 

[blazedaces]

Blazed, I'm not arguing with you here! There isn't a solution that I can see that would not infringe on other peoples rights, or result in terrible confusion over what photography is allowed and what isn't.

I realize that this a forum with typed words instead of speech... but to be clear I didn't think you were really arguing with me (when I used the word arguing I was referring to your argument, your point of view, your position in a debate, etc.). I just assumed we were having a civilized discussion... and that's still what I think is happening. Let's continue...

But ok, lets not talk about public photography for the moment- do you think it's acceptable for a newspaper to actively seek pictures of a celebrity taking drugs, with a view to exposing their addiction, when said celebrity would rather keep it private?

In that scenario, I would argue that their need to keep it private outweighs our need to know. If you substitute the word 'right' for the word 'need' in that sentence, you have my base point.

Again, practicality, my friend, is the limiting factor here. How are we to set up an actual system by which to depict what newspapers can and can not write about? When is writing about drugs allowed or not? If evidence is left in public are people not allowed to write about it in a paper? You're not talking about our need to know, you're talking about freedom of speech here...

-blazed

 

[Eriatarka]

You could cut the civility in here with a knife..

I was more after what is the ethical standings of such actions, but ok I shall suggest a system. (While trying to adhere to freedom of speech, because I am totally in favour of it.)

Newspapers should not report on the negative actions of a celebrity, if they would not report the same actions if they were made by a 'normal' member of the public.
Unworkable, but it's what I'd like to see. But here's a better one;

Newspapers may not report on a specific persons' drug and alcohol habits.
That's a workable start, right there. It may contradict freedom of speech, but it doesn't honestly damage it, which is what I'd be worried about.

By the way, I don't mean to sound like I'm pro-drugs or anything, beacuse I'm not. Just in case it was coming across that way..

 

[DeliciousCake]

The problem is that celebrities are just that: celebrities. They're famous people, and if they expect to be famous, they have to expect negative press and pressing photographers and journalists. It's the price you pay for making big bucks and having everyone know you. Let the paparazzi go on their spree.

 

[SkylerOcon]

Personally, I think that there need to be laws regulating reporting on people. It's been carried out to far many times (just look at Britney Spears).

Some things that should be illegal are doorstep treatments, embarrassing reporting (this means making articles or reports based off of things that could potentially embarrass somebody, such as 'camletoe' or some other immature or trivial manner), and just overdoing it with somebody.

They need to regulate exactly how much one person can be covered. Britney Spears was just like... completely overdone. So much reporting on her, so much trash talk, and all this.

It just feels like the paparazzi is just going to far. There needs to be rules regulating reporting on people.

 

[blazedaces]

The problem is that celebrities are just that: celebrities. They're famous people, and if they expect to be famous, they have to expect negative press and pressing photographers and journalists. It's the price you pay for making big bucks and having everyone know you. Let the paparazzi go on their spree.

What kind of argument is this? "if they expect to be famous?" Not all famous people want to be famous. Some people might actually enjoy their jobs and despise the price/curse of fame that comes with it. Why should someone who is well-known have less rights to anything?

Personally, I think that there need to be laws regulating reporting on people. It's been carried out to far many times (just look at Britney Spears).

Some things that should be illegal are doorstep treatments, embarrassing reporting (this means making articles or reports based off of things that could potentially embarrass somebody, such as 'camletoe' or some other immature or trivial manner), and just overdoing it with somebody.

They need to regulate exactly how much one person can be covered. Britney Spears was just like... completely overdone. So much reporting on her, so much trash talk, and all this.

It just feels like the paparazzi is just going to far. There needs to be rules regulating reporting on people.

How? How could these things be regulated practically? How could you take these rights away from people on any sensible level whatsoever? Should we set up a committee to censor/regulate our mass-media? What else should we conveniently censor along the way?

-blazed

 

[DeliciousCake]

What kind of argument is this? "if they expect to be famous?" Not all famous people want to be famous. Some people might actually enjoy their jobs and despise the price/curse of fame that comes with it. Why should someone who is well-known have less rights to anything?

Because our society is a bunch of press-greedy morons. It doesn't matter whether they want to be famous or not. Putting restrictions on how much press celebrities can get would put a strain on our economy due to the sheer number of them that would want the privacy. If they'd be willing to pay for it themselves then that might be another story, but hiring Secret Service for every famous person with a bad rep and a hand in the press would just be a huge waste of time and effort.

 

[blazedaces]

Because our society is a bunch of press-greedy morons. It doesn't matter whether they want to be famous or not. Putting restrictions on how much press celebrities can get would put a strain on our economy due to the sheer number of them that would want the privacy. If they'd be willing to pay for it themselves then that might be another story, but hiring Secret Service for every famous person with a bad rep and a hand in the press would just be a huge waste of time and effort.

Alright, now that's a good argument. A strain on our economy (a cost) that outweighs the benefits of allowing certain people more privacy rights then others (the so-called benefit).

-blazed

 

[Eriatarka]

Sorry, how is this strain on the economy going to be caused? hiring people to physically protect celebrities isn't at all the kind of protection that they should recieve, it's the banning of irrelevant but reputation-damaging articles.

Is my"not writing aboud specific peoples' addictions" idea not workable? it's certainly not going to harm the economy. Plus I'm sure if anyone here became famous for any reason, and then went on to battle addiction, you'd certainly appreciate not having your problems turned into gossip-page fodder.

Agreed on society being "press greedy morons", but it's the powers that be that would be passing the legislation, not the guy on the street that thinks other peoples' problems are any of his **** business.

 

[blazedaces]

It's still restricting freedom of speech by a heck of a lot... Not to mention if we're going to choose some way to restrict freedom of speech... Why in the world is this the first one?

Also, who gets to decide what's banned from newspapers or not? This opens up the floor to all kinds of ridiculous rules about what can and can't be said (restrictions on freedom of speech). This is a ridiculous notion, why are we even considering it?

-blazed

 

[Eriatarka]

I wouldn't see it as restricting freedom of speech. It's one minor thing, we can still speak out against politicians, question everything, say anything that we could ever need to say. Freedom of speech is crucial in our society, but such a law would not be a threat to it.
I'm not suggesting we restrict freedom of speech by "a heck of a lot", I'm suggesting exactly what I am suggesting. No reporting of specific peoples' addictions. No opening of floodgates to silence the masses. Just well worded legislation which says articles focusing on a persons' addictions are a no-go.

Who would this damage? Whose voise would be silenced by such legislation?

It's still restricting freedom of speech by a heck of a lot... Not to mention if we're going to choose some way to restrict freedom of speech... Why in the world is this the first one?

Furthermore, on this being the first restriction ever made on freeedom of speech:

****.
Censored. I can't use curse words here to express myself. Unfair restriction on freedom of speech?
I can't print an article tomorrow stating that Person X is a terrorist without proof, even though it is my opinion. Unfair restriction?
If I am a doctor and I find out my patient has cancer, my hippocratic oath says I can't tell anyone. That's legislation restricting what can and can't be said right there.

Even within the freedom of freedom of speech, there are already fair and just rules about what can and can't be said. This, I believe, should be one of them.

 

[blazedaces]

I wouldn't see it as restricting freedom of speech. It's one minor thing, we can still speak out against politicians, question everything, say anything that we could ever need to say. Freedom of speech is crucial in our society, but such a law would not be a threat to it.
I'm not suggesting we restrict freedom of speech by "a heck of a lot", I'm suggesting exactly what I am suggesting. No reporting of specific peoples' addictions. No opening of floodgates to silence the masses. Just well worded legislation which says articles focusing on a persons' addictions are a no-go.

Who would this damage? Whose voise would be silenced by such legislation?

You're not looking at the big picture. If this "minor" restriction is allowed on the freedom of speech then what's to stop many more restrictions that others find justifiable?

Furthermore, on this being the first restriction ever made on freeedom of speech:

****.
Censored. I can't use curse words here to express myself. Unfair restriction on freedom of speech?
I can't print an article tomorrow stating that Person X is a terrorist without proof, even though it is my opinion. Unfair restriction?
If I am a doctor and I find out my patient has cancer, my hippocratic oath says I can't tell anyone. That's legislation restricting what can and can't be said right there.

Even within the bounds of obeying freedom of speech, there are already fair and just rules about what can and can't be said. This, I believe, should be one of them.

This is an online forum with it's own rules and regulations. Specific newspapers can have their own personal rules on what they do and do not report (like on reporting false accusations because obviously they would soon be considered an unreliable source).

The only example I can think of that restricts freedom of speech has to do with yelling "FIRE" in a place like a theater because it would cause mass panic, but this is still not a restriction in a public place. Other examples that come to mind also have the possibility of endangering a large number of lives (making a site that has bomb-making instructions, though I'm not 100% sure on this one).

Still, why should addictions be special? Why should people not be allowed to write about it? You haven't made a very good case other then saying "famous" people will have their feelings hurt (some kind of weird appeal to emotion).

-blazed

P.S. Stop coming up with stupid references that don't have to do with debate. You can make a site and accuse anyone you want of anything, but no one is going to take it seriously. A doctor can tell others that you have cancer, but he may be sued and his license might be taken away by the ethical organisation that gave him it... These regulations are specific to the organisation/company. They have nothing to do with actual restrictions on the freedom of speech.

Also, what about the freedom of the press? I mean, I was kind of bulking it in with freedom of speech... but still, the whole first amendment applies.

 

[SkylerOcon]

Well, the thing is that it's to often that famous people are practically stalked just to sell tabloids. All I want is laws prohibiting doorstep treatments and just beating one person to death.

I can understand where you're coming from, Blazed. I get that this is a restriction of 'freedom of speech'. But the thing is that, it's just unfair to famous people to be treated this way. I know I wouldn't want it.

To put it simply, treating famous people like this is just not fair. They embarrass people just to make money. And that's just not right.

 

[Eriatarka]

You're not looking at the big picture. If this "minor" restriction is allowed on the freedom of speech then what's to stop many more restrictions that others find justifiable?

I wouldn't have put minor in inverted commas there, that one change on its own would be reasonably minor.
I can't think of any other amendments I would make that could be considered an obstacle to freedom of speech/press, but if I found it justifiable, I would probably campaign for that change to be made too. I mean, if it IS justifiable, presumeably because it serves a good and valid purpose, whats wrong with making a change?

Still, why should addictions be special? Why should people not be allowed to write about it? You haven't made a very good case other then saying "famous" people will have their feelings hurt (some kind of weird appeal to emotion).

The only reason I'm singling out addiction is because it is clearly defined, and it would be easy to regulate what is about a persons' addiction and what isn't. I don't think papers should be allowed to excessively cover a difficult time in a celebrities life complete with pictures of them looking stressed and tired, but that isn't workable so I'm not campaigning for it.

As for weird appeals to emotion, that's not my case. I'm saying one person, ANY person famous or not, does not deserve to have the media after them when they make a mistake which does not directly effect any of us, even if it happens in the public domain. I don't think the media should be allowed to embarass someone, because it helps no-one and greatly hurts one person. You can say that goes against freedom of speech, but it's cruel. I'm just looking at it from their point of view.

It's not about something as trivial as someone having their feelings hurt, its about someones' private matters being made a matter of public discussion.

As for my "stupid references", I was just refuting that this would be the first restriction ever made on freedom of speech. You make good points to undo them, but they were only off the top of my head and not core to what I'm saying.


EDIT

To put it simply, treating famous people like this is just not fair. They embarrass people just to make money. And that's just not right.

Thank you. (Although the laws you wish to see (which are ones I wish to see too) couldn't possibly be put into effect, but that's beside the point.

P.S. I'm not certain exactly what you meant Skyler, but I'm pretty sure there's already a law against "beating a person to death".)

 

[DeliciousCake]

As for weird appeals to emotion, that's not my case. I'm saying one person, ANY person famous or not, does not deserve to have the media after them when they make a mistake which does not directly effect any of us, even if it happens in the public domain. I don't think the media should be allowed to embarass someone, because it helps no-one and greatly hurts one person. You can say that goes against freedom of speech, but it's cruel. I'm just looking at it from their point of view.

So, the media reporting on murders and such should be banned as well, because it paints a negative image of an infamous person and might hurt their feelings?

Legislation like that would take years to be passed, yet again just wasting our time when it's fully known it's going to be poorly regulated. Who's going to watch every single internet blog, newspaper, and tabloid on American soil? Then there's the cost of removing them from circulation and taking people to court and fining them. Not to mention major press companies and news syndicates would be fighting this because they would lose most of their business. Tabloids like Star and the National Inquirer would go completely belly up because their sole source of information would be taken away from them. News stations would lose some of their programming as well.

Edit: All those stay at home mom's in California would have nothing to talk about at their fancy tea parties too.

 

[blazedaces]

Organization like the KKK and the Nazi party are both allowed to exist in this country because of its freedoms...

This specific case is one of millions that can be made for restrictions to the first amendment.

-blazed

 

[Eriatarka]

So, the media reporting on murders and such should be banned as well, because it paints a negative image of an infamous person and might hurt their feelings?

That's not what I mean at all, I'm referring here to personal stuff being kept personal and out of the media. If you do something as terrible as murdering someone then you deserve to have your name painted black, that directly effects other people, and hence is valid news. Murder is a malicious act, the perpetrator in no way deserving of sympathy or protection from their deeds being made public knowledge. I'm talking specifically about personal problems, the kind which need to be dealt with in private.

I was thinking more that anyone who prints an article about someones' addictions would be liable to a lawsuit over defamation of character. That would mean no policing of the internet and media would be needed, as the risk of being sued by the subject of the article would be enough of a deterrant from writing such articles.

No company is going to go bust from not being allowed print about celebrity drug and alcohol habits, that's a very small portion of all the news thats happening in the world. If there was a notable "loss of programming" caused by not being able to report such things, I would seriously question the worth of the news channels which rely on such reports.

 

[DeliciousCake]

I highly doubt that any celebrities would take action on this then since, once again, this takes time away from their schedules. And anyways, celebrities shouldn't get off the hook for doing drugs just because they're celebrities.

 

[Eriatarka]

Agreed on that, but my original point was that newspapers don't go after your average drug addict on the street, because it's not news. And neither is anyone elses addiction, regardless of fame.
I don't think they should get off the hook, I just don't think a celebritys hook should be barbed with public humiliation when no-one elses' is.

 

[DeliciousCake]

Possibly if celebrities didn't make quite a big deal out of their own addictions and attempt to plea for lesser sentences, we wouldn't make as big of a deal out of it because they wouldn't be getting convicted for it every 2 months.

 

[Eriatarka]

I'm sure any drug addict up in court would plead for a lesser sentence for one reason or another.. as for frequency of convictions, there are 'regular' people with serious addictions who get convicted just as often, but we don't hear anything about them, they get left alone.. It's that luxury that I want to see extended to people in all walks of life, famous or not.
If said celebrity goes out asking for sympathy from fans and turning it into a big deal and such, thats a different matter. But the option to keep it private should be there, in my opinion.

Sorry if it sounds like I'm beating a dead horse here, by the way. A lot of my posts are starting to look a bit similar, but there are only so many ways I can rephrase my thoughts on this..

 

[DeliciousCake]

Point being that even if celebrities can pay off courts to get lesser sentences, they should at least go through a complete therapy session or get consecutively harsher punishments for doing the same stupid things repeatedly.

Also, if you're starting to beat a dead horse you need to go look for a new one to beat up or someone will take it away from you.

 

[SkylerOcon]

Actually, you've just ignored what she said for her last three posts.

You fail to realize that she isn't saying that celebrities don't have drug addicitions -- because they do -- and that they don't mind having them -- because they do. She's just saying that it's a personal affair and that newspapers and tabloids shouldn't be allowed to poke around with it.

Things like murder though are big news. They deserve to get in huge trouble for that.

 

[Eriatarka]

She's just saying that it's a personal affair and that newspapers and tabloids shouldn't be allowed to poke around with it.

Again, thank you! this is what I'm saying. ^^THIS^^. And it feels like it's being ignored and getting misinterpreted and getting tangled up in other side arguements about legislation which I never wished to have. Do you guys think ^^this^^ is a fair statement??

Never mind is it practical to ban it, never mind censoring the media, do you yourselves believe that a celebritys' (or non-celebritys') personal problems should be fair game for the public domain? If only from an ethical standpoint.

Hopefully this will lead to a fresh dead horse, ready to be beaten in new and interesting ways.

 

[DeliciousCake]

I looked around the web for a bit and came across an interesting article from the ABA: http://www.abanet.org/publiced/focus/priv_celebrity.html

I think our First Amendment traditions come into play. Concepts of libel and slander distinguish between public persons and ordinary individuals and accord public persons less privacy. If one propels oneself onto the public stage and courts attention, then one has a much weaker privacy claim. I think much of the interest in celebrities is actually manipulated by the celebrities, their agents, and the media, and so I have less sympathy for any privacy claims they make when they become offended as a result of attention they created. Correlatively, what about the ordinary person who videos and broadcasts her or his daily life on the Web? What does this say about our cultural sense of privacy? Or about generational differences in privacy?

For celebrities who are not politicians, I share Priscilla's view that the celebrities and their agents/managers manipulate the press and thus deserve a far lower expectation of privacy in their individual affairs. Why limit information disclosure if one is a celebrity?. . .Nevertheless, the tabloids will continue to pay for anything juicy they can get, and the public seems to love it. Thus, the market and economics seem to be driving the decision about what is relevant, fair, and necessary information for public consumption about an individual, rather than a thoughtful debate followed by common understanding about what is-and is not-legitimate to reveal. Currently, the press and the public market (not anyone tuned into the moral and political issues) are in the driver's seat about what is fair and legitimate. If this is correct, then far less privacy is possible for celebrities in modern societies.

Two contradictory thoughts on the celebrity question. First, the issue of "celebrity privacy" is almost irrelevant to serious privacy problems, because so many celebrities traffic in the bizarre and attention getting but want to play entirely by their rules. Further, many celebrities have the resources to protect themselves whenever they wish, far more than other victims of intrusion.

Obviously I skipped over a bit of the article, but feel free to read through it, it has a pretty interesting take on this. After looking through most of what I've posted I'm not really sure what I can say on the subject matter that hasn't already been disclosed from the quotes.

 

[slartibartfast42]

I was thinking more that anyone who prints an article about someones' addictions would be liable to a lawsuit over defamation of character. That would mean no policing of the internet and media would be needed, as the risk of being sued by the subject of the article would be enough of a deterrant from writing such articles.

A major problem with this argument is what defines someone as a celebrity and what defines something as media. There has to be a clear distinction. Media could be anything from a published news source to a blog to something passed massively through word of mouth. Of course, you couldn't ever make a law to exclusively protect celebrities, that is completely unfair to the rest of the population. So you have a law that prevents you from circulating any rumors in mass. Now you have the government regulating what you can say about other people on the internet, which is horridly impractical.

Example: Hey guys, Eriatarka is smoking marijuana!

See, you could sue me for that, because since theoretically everyone in the world has access to this post, it can be considered a mass distribution about something that is personal. You could probably even sue someone over a "your mom" joke if it was decently widespread.

However, suing for public humiliation is not unheard of. The star wars kid filed a lawsuit against the people who originally posted the video of him without his permission. However, it was settled out of court.

No company is going to go bust from not being allowed print about celebrity drug and alcohol habits, that's a very small portion of all the news thats happening in the world. If there was a notable "loss of programming" caused by not being able to report such things, I would seriously question the worth of the news channels which rely on such reports.

Of course theres a lot of dirt on celebrities to print besides drug habits. But you'd be surprised at how many businesses would be screwed if you banned celebrity gossip.

Agreed on that, but my original point was that newspapers don't go after your average drug addict on the street, because it's not news. And neither is anyone elses addiction, regardless of fame.
I don't think they should get off the hook, I just don't think a celebritys hook should be barbed with public humiliation when no-one elses' is.

I'm in high school, I have a hook barbed with public humiliation. It may be to a lesser extent, but I still have a barbed hook nonetheless. I don't think anyone is exempt from public humiliation, at least in their general circle of contacts. You just don't hear much local gossip, especially if you hang out with decent people who don't care about that kind of thing.

Never mind is it practical to ban it, never mind censoring the media, do you yourselves believe that a celebritys' (or non-celebritys') personal problems should be fair game for the public domain? If only from an ethical standpoint.

As a Christian, I find all forms of gossip to be ethically wrong. From a prime-time news programming talking about celebrity love relationships to Sally telling Suzie what Jane was doing with Bob last night. I think that the people who print and the people who read and care about celebrity gossip are pathetic. I don't think anyone here disagrees with that. However, as an advocate of practicality, free speech, and free-will, I don't think any person or organization has any sort of right or duty to regulate it.

 

[Taymond]

The problem is that you haven't really addressed well enough why drug addiction is THE SINGLE TOPIC we should restrict the freedom of the press in? What makes that the final straw?

You say it does no good, but don't you think it shows good examples to onlookers as to why drug addictions are so bad? Formal education can only go so far, and it helps young people to have a clear view of the consequences of those actions. Not everyone has an addict in the family, but we can all see celebrities' lives destroyed by hard drugs. Without seeing, directly, the consequences, how can children really understand how bad a decision is, short of making it themselves?

Don't you think it helps reinforce what parents try to teach when kids see Jamie Lynn Spears pregnant or Lindsay Lohan destroyed by drugs? Would you really want children to unwittingly continue to idolize these people--these horrible role models? Children need to see role models torn down from time to time, especially if those role models deserve that teardown. Witnessing consequences and learning from them is far better than if every single person had to make every single mistake themselves.

You chose a... decent topic. I agree that the media intrudes far too much in the personal lives of celebrities, though I don't think limiting rights is a solution, nor do I think there IS a solution, short of a wild change in certain public interest, but you chose as the ultimate example of this an aspect with clear social benefits, I feel.

 

[Byronman]

I personally think they should be left alone. Does it really matter what "so-in-so" is doing right now? Most of the problems that these celebrities have are amplified by being broadcasted around the world. I would not want a bunch of people with cameras trying to sneak a picture of me or trying to find out all of my secrets if I suddenly became famous. I agree that there should be a lot of attention to these people's careers but not as much their personal lives. There is freedom of the press, but there is also going too far. It is not a matter of what you can do, but what you should. Just because you have the ability, does not give you the right to do something if it is at the expense of others.

 

[Reaper0329]

Celebrities deserve the same right to privacy we all share under the constitution. Whether or not they get it is another story entirely.

 

[Airgemini]

I personally believe celebrities have the right of secrecy as we do.
However if people who had a job doing that weren't allowed to spy on celebrities people would lose there jobs and it might stir up controversy.
Sometimes I catch the show TMZ on tv and I just say in my head to leave them alone and its none of your buisness what they're up to. I mean you wouldnt want people to constently watch your every move right? Anyways, I'm all up for celebrities to have privacy rights.

 

[Crimson King]

No signatures.

 

[Firus]

Honestly, I'm not inclined to sympathize with celebrities at all; I really don't care for most of them. And I really think that if they're ashamed for people to hear about something, they shouldn't do it. If they don't want their drug addictions reported on, then don't get into drugs. Simple as that.

Even so, the gossip over celebrities does get a little insane. But you can't really limit what is reported. Even if celebrities file lawsuits for defamation of character or public humiliation, that still infringes on Freedom of Press to some extent. I'm not necessarily inclined to believe that the celebrity filing the lawsuit would win if the paparazzi only reported what actually happened. If they stretched the story, then yes, obviously. But if they told the absolute truth, then the lawsuit would probably fail.

When it all comes down to it, do I believe they should have more privacy? Yes. I know that if I were to become famous, I'd be driven nearly to suicide if I were stalked 24/7. On the other hand, I think that it is possible to avoid some of it. There are celebrities out there that you're not hearing about, and maybe it's just because they're not on drugs or have nothing else interesting that is to be reported. So do they deserve privacy? Yes. But they've also got to try a little harder to keep their lives private if they believe that. Try not to drop your baby in public if you want to have some privacy.

 

[Kur]

Everybody has the right to privacy, whether they are a public figure or not. It is a basic human right, while not specifically mentioned in the constitution, is alluded to in several amendments and supreme court cases.

Actively following a person around for the purpose of taking a picture or gaining information about them is nothing more than stalking.

If a public figure makes a public appearance, that is a different story.

And using the claim that it would violate the 'free press' and deny jobs of the people who make a living doing this is a fallacy. If a person makes money off of you, you are entitled to a share of the profits, which celebrities do not get. Some may argue that the celebrity gets publicity, but you can not put a definitive value on that and sometimes the publicity has a negative effect.

This business of following a person to a vacation resort, or climbing a tree so you can see over their privacy wall, or digging through their garbage, is just ridiculous and anybody who does it should be sent to jail.

I've always said "I want to be rich, not famous."