Thread: The Papparazzi

Do you think the Papparazzi should have more restrictions with how they get their pictures, or do you thing that impeeds on freedom of speech?

Is being chased by the Papparazzi just something you tell famous people to deal with? It's all part of the lifestyle they've chosen, so deal with it and quit crying about the camera's that are stuck in their faces everytime they walk out the door. To have zero privacy, and everyone knowing everything about everything that happens in their lives.

I personally think they should have some sort of restrictions. You see news articles all the time of how they harrass certain celebrities to the point of temporary insanity (or rage at least)... lashing out and screaming, throwing fists or what ever is in their hands, not to mention driving irratically while trying to get away. Of course everyone remembers what happened to Princess Diana. It seems to go overboard, and they need some laws to stop the insanity.

I think the Papparazzi should have their limits of how far they can come to a celebrity, at least that. And, where they're allowed to go to take their pictures. Crawling over a wall, and getting snapshots of them while they're sunbathing in their backyards should not be allowed. That should be a criminal offense.

Originally Posted by Sunny

Do you think the Papparazzi should have more restrictions with how they get their pictures, or do you thing that impeeds on freedom of speech?

No, and I'll be explaining why.

Is being chased by the Papparazzi just something you tell famous people to deal with? It's all part of the lifestyle they've chosen, so deal with it and quit crying about the camera's that are stuck in their faces everytime they walk out the door. To have zero privacy, and everyone knowing everything about everything that happens in their lives.

Yeah, they have zero privacy, and guess who is to blame, the general public.

There is a much bigger and deep seated problem that causes this than the papparazi, and freedom of speech rights.

People have become so inactive and so bored with their own lives, that they have to watch others peoples lives, famous people, people who in a subconscious way they look up to in order to compare themselves on a very deep psychological level to them. I honestly find it hard, with my wealth of vocabulary and understanding of psychology, to phrase just how deep seated and terrifying this epidemic is.

Just imagine, millions upon millions of individuals, just like you and me, wake up everyday and they are doing so little with the life they have been given, that htey need to watch what other people are doing.

They are doing so little with this limited life and potential that they need to validate themselves through attachment fantasies. It is literally a case off "I cant achieve what you have, but you have it so i want to know what you do with it every step of the way in the brief hope that you fall". Then to top it off people gain some kind of self righteous justification, "they have money, there life isn't so bad", people elvate their "hard lives" with the mentality of "i'd like to see him try a day in my shoes". They bring down the ideal of what they want by comparing it to something lesser and finding some twisted sense of moral satisfaction.

It is literally wanting to see a hero fall.

I personally think they should have some sort of restrictions. You see news articles all the time of how they harrass certain celebrities to the point of temporary insanity (or rage at least)... lashing out and screaming, throwing fists or what ever is in their hands, not to mention driving irratically while trying to get away. Of course everyone remembers what happened to Princess Diana. It seems to go overboard, and they need some laws to stop the insanity.

No. Period.

So we put some restrictions on papparazzi, only logical things right? They can't harass celebrities, they can't enter their property as they have without harsh penalties. How do we compare those limitations of celebrities to normal people? Because if you give special privilege to celebrities, you are elevating them even higher, which will make the chase an even bigger bussiness.

What do we do then?

Well, as a man once said, peace ain't popular because war sells. This shit is popular, it sells. We need to start enforcing higher standards again, we need to stop having to bleed people dry just for a few moment of entertainment in our so called "pitiful lives" that we ourselves brought upon ourselves and continue to 'endure' due to our own laziness and inaction.

Basically, people need to get a life, in every sense of the word.

If you give the government a reason to cross over liberties, they will take a mile.

I think the Papparazzi should have their limits of how far they can come to a celebrity, at least that. And, where they're allowed to go to take their pictures. Crawling over a wall, and getting snapshots of them while they're sunbathing in their backyards should not be allowed. That should be a criminal offense.

No, you will only elevate certain celebrities from being catch of the day material to catch of the year. You will put more focus and importance on this BS. The minute you stop caring, is the minute the problem starts being solved. Like I said before, when you start putting up limitations, what is enough? Where do you stop? Everything is subjective and as long as someone can give a half assed explanation it will stand by law and then how do you get it to go away?

Other than that, Kudos, this is the first thing I really feel is worth discussing on this forum in a long time.

Absolutely, there should be restrictions. The Papparazzi shouldn't be able to pursue someone, follow them on holiday or invade their property in order to get photos or a story. That's not giving more rights to celebrities. They shouldn't be able to do this to anyone, celeb or non-celeb.

Originally Posted by Mystery

People have become so inactive and so bored with their own lives, that they have to watch others peoples lives, famous people, people who in a subconscious way they look up to in order to compare themselves on a very deep psychological level to them. I honestly find it hard, with my wealth of vocabulary and understanding of psychology, to phrase just how deep seated and terrifying this epidemic is.

Just imagine, millions upon millions of individuals, just like you and me, wake up everyday and they are doing so little with the life they have been given, that htey need to watch what other people are doing.

They are doing so little with this limited life and potential that they need to validate themselves through attachment fantasies. It is literally a case off "I cant achieve what you have, but you have it so i want to know what you do with it every step of the way in the brief hope that you fall". Then to top it off people gain some kind of self righteous justification, "they have money, there life isn't so bad", people elvate their "hard lives" with the mentality of "i'd like to see him try a day in my shoes". They bring down the ideal of what they want by comparing it to something lesser and finding some twisted sense of moral satisfaction.

I agree that the problem would be solved if people took less of an interest in celebrities and stopped buying papers and magazines that print these frivolous and invasive photos. But realistically that's just not going to happen. In fact, as people become more unhappy with their own lives, due to difficult job markets, rising costs and government cuts, the problem is actually going to get worse.

Restrictions may help, because if these photos and stories weren't readily available then people would naturally find something else (hopefully something positive and life-enhancing) on which to focus their attention.

I would love to think that we could live in a self-regulating world. Unfortunately we don't, and probably never will, so government restrictions and regulations will always be a necessary evil.

It's a fine line to walk. I think there are a fair few celebrities who are able to stay under the radar so to speak because they don't live in Hollywood. I think that's a lot of the problem.

I agree with Mystery, though, that the public is largely to blame. If there were no interest in celebrities then the papparazzi would have no jobs. Then again, the normal media can cover the lives of celebrities on a daily basis and not resort to following, chasing, stalking, or trespassing. Papparazzi are just the scum on the bottom of the journalism barrel.

Let me ask you: what do you think would happen to a celebrity that all the photographers, all the magazines, all the media ignored? Wouldn't have much of a career, would they?

Celebrities live and die by their media exposure. For them to try and dictate that relationship seems a bit unrealistic. "Hey, only take pictures of me when I look super awesome, and only report what's given to you in publicity releases." Right.

I think the only restrictions papparazzi should have is "the law." No tresspassing, no home invasions, or anything else specifically illegal. Following someone on a public street, taking shots of them on public beaches, or anything like that is fair game.

That being said, the Paps know the law, and they try to skirt it aaall the time. I think there should be zero-tolerance for it, and they should have the book thrown at them any time they cross the line. They're professionals and need to act like it.

Live by the sword, die by the sword for everyone involved.

While I don't usually put much stock in Wikipedia pages, I did find these excerpts particularly interesting:

Personality rights are generally considered to consist of two types of rights: the right to publicity, or to keep one's image and likeness from being commercially exploited without permission or contractual compensation, which is similar to the use of a trademark; and the right to privacy, or the right to be left alone and not have one's personality represented publicly without permission.
...
In contrast with common law jurisdictions most civil law jurisdictions have specific civil code provisions that protect an individual's image, personal data and other generally private information. Exceptions have been carved out of these general, broad privacy rights when dealing with news and public figures. Thus, while it may violate an ordinary citizen's privacy to speak about their medical records, one is generally allowed to report on more intimate details in the lives of celebrities and politicians.

(from Personality rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

The simple answer to the question is, 'No'. Mystery has said what needs to be said.

Posts in this thread have been removed because of their language content. Please remember the site policy on this.

Celebrities are public figure, and as such have less privacy rights according to the law. And it is (usually) a win-win scenario, the celeb gets media publicity and the reporter gets paid. That being said, there are cases where the papparazzi may have gone too far. ie. Jackson's infamous nude sunbathing photo, the Drew Peterson reporter (who also may have gone too far herself) and possibly Princess Diana. Any celebrity or public figure should always assume that every tiny little thing they do, or even say in an email will end up on the news.

There will always be cases of someone going too far though, in any job. It is an unavoidable fact of life.

I feel as if it's more a question of which group of spoilt brats needs to be brought back to earth more?
Trouble is, that both sides are as bad as each other.

First you have paparazzi who believe that harassment that would land any normal person in jail is too tame, and they act little better than coons.
On the flip side you have self-glorified stars who demand everybody jumps to their demands on perfect self-image, and demands that they can urinate on the street with impunity.

I really don't know which group needs to be checked more.

Originally Posted by rustgold

First you have paparazzi who believe that harassment that would land any normal person in jail is too tame, and they act little better than coons.

On the flip side you have self-glorified stars who demand everybody jumps to their demands on perfect self-image, and demands that they can urinate on the street with impunity.

Vanity is hardly a crime, whereas harassment, trespassing, and stalking are crimes.

I understand your point, that some celebrities are full of themselves, to the point where it may even become disgusting, but I feel they have the right to feel however they want about themselves, just as you have the right to feel however you want about yourself.

But papparazi don't have the right to do many of the things they do, and they often hide behind the argument that "they're just celebrities. Don't cry for them, they make alot of money. We should be allowed to trample on their personal rights to privacy!"

It almost translates to a bitter jealousy that says, "celebrities make more money than I do. So I want them to suffer for it. That makes it fair." which is an argument I find outrageous.

Originally Posted by KyleColorado

I understand your point, that some celebrities are full of themselves, to the point where it may even become disgusting, but I feel they have the right to feel however they want about themselves, just as you have the right to feel however you want about yourself.

There was a group of actors (led by a second rate actor from Just Shoot Me), who laughed at the fact they could piss on people from balconies and get away with it. What the paparazzi does, is help make people aware of exactly how disgusting some of these people are. And without the paparazzi, it'd be much worse. Vanity is hardly the worst trait from many actors.

I could go on about how bad either side is, and there's plenty from both sides.

Originally Posted by KyleColorado

It almost translates to a bitter jealousy that says, "celebrities make more money than I do. So I want them to suffer for it. That makes it fair." which is an argument I find outrageous.

That's actually sounds really offensive you know. This is nothing to do with 'jealousy', as you claim.

Originally Posted by Rustgold

There was a group of actors (led by a second rate actor from Just Shoot Me), who laughed at the fact they could piss on people from balconies and get away with it. What the paparazzi does, is help make people aware of exactly how disgusting some of these people are. And without the paparazzi, it'd be much worse. Vanity is hardly the worst trait from many actors.

I could go on about how bad either side is, and there's plenty from both sides.

Of course, unlawful actions by celebrities should be punished, just like the rest of us. But I don't think that argument holds any weight, because anyone urinating on another person deserves the outrage directed to them. Whether or not they are a celebrity is irrelevant.

I agree with you, though, that it's terrible when actors feel entitled to behave however they like. That could broaden into another discussion altogether, about the psychology of public validation... But keeping it simple I'll say I recognize your anger at that kind of behavior and I share it with you.

Originally Posted by KyleColorado

It almost translates to a bitter jealousy that says, "celebrities make more money than I do. So I want them to suffer for it. That makes it fair." which is an argument I find outrageous.

Originally Posted by rustgold

That's actually sounds really offensive you know. This is nothing to do with 'jealousy', as you claim.

I was making a statement about papparazi and what their actions seem to communicate about how they feel. I wasn't talking about you, and I apologize if you thought I was, and if you felt offended by it. In hindsight I should have used the word "we" instead of "I" to avoid confusion. I was attempting to capture the thought-process of a papparazi photographer.

The paparazzi's blatant disrespect for celebrities is what leads me to conclude that they are motivated by feelings of, possibly: jealousy or disdain. Or, in the very least, an utter lack of consideration that borders on viewing celebrities as inanimate objects, rather than people with feelings.

Consider the tabloids where unflattering images of celebrities, are, literally, celebrated (I've seen that paparazzi show where they gather in a room to discuss and show off their celebrity catches of the week, and the celebrities caught in unflattering photographs often are verbally mocked and laughed at with relish).

Originally Posted by KyleColorado

The paparazzi's blatant disrespect for celebrities is what leads me to conclude that they are motivated by feelings of, possibly: jealousy or disdain. Or, in the very least, an utter lack of consideration that borders on viewing celebrities as inanimate objects, rather than people with feelings.

Consider the tabloids where unflattering images of celebrities, are, literally, celebrated (I've seen that paparazzi show where they gather in a room to discuss and show off their celebrity catches of the week, and the celebrities caught in unflattering photographs often are verbally mocked and laughed at with relish).

This is their job, that is how they make money. There are people watching TMZ that thrive off what people do. Otherwise the Kardashians would be just another weird family doing weird stuff and nobody would be all the wiser. I will bet you that the video editors all share clips they have of film they didn't show, laugh and throw verbal insults that would make a gangster blush.

And so what if TMZ ridicules, say, Kid Cudi? That's putting attention on him. Maybe he has a new album coming out soon, or he's starting the next year's tour season. It's the same concept as the Taco Bell chihuahua. People HATED that thing. It wasn't to convince people that Taco Bell was good stuff, it was to get people talking about Taco Bell. lol

Again, with celebrities, any sort of publicity is usually good for celebs. Michael Vick even, I bet you when he signed up to play again after being finished being in trouble, people turned to the media to see what was up with him, what the analysts were saying on how they think he'd do, how his team would do. As well as human interests of "what is Vick going to do now? Charity work?"

Or I could put it another way. Say I was the Craigslist Killer. No, just, just go with it, lol. Now suppose the media had reported that I had blogged on WF and that alluded to my "activities". People would come here to read the stuff. Some might even stay as part of the community. More people stay, and arrive than leave because of my actions. Were my actions horribly, awfully wrong? Without a doubt. Would increased traffic to WF be good (albiet, in a morbid way, but lets assume we don't have a banner on our homepage saying "Lair of the Craigslist Killer"), be good for WF? Yeah. Same concept, a whole less morbid. But morbidity sticks for some reason.

There is disrespect for everyone. Cops, politicians, Obama, McCain, Reagan, Russia, China, Britain, America. CERN, religious people, non-religious people. Homosexuals and the WBC.

You make a good point, Kang.

It's interesting how media orbits around social figures. A discussion could be had on whether it's a direct effect of people wanting to know more about the celebs.. or of the media influencing people into thinking they want to know more about the celebs.

I don't think it's as cut and dry as "people will always want to know about what's going on in the lives of famous individuals" (and I know you didn't say this, I'm kind of just quoting myself to make a point) because, at least in my case, I know that's not true. I couldn't care less about what any famous person is doing. I'm too busy with my own concerns. I view celebs as so far removed from my reality that Leonardo DiCaprio could get married to Barbara Walters tomorrow and I would just say "so?" and be instead thinking of the bills I have to pay.

I may talk about it celebs, but only because other people seem to care about it, so it's an avenue for discourse. On that line of thought, I believe, personally, that media influences US, rather than us influencing IT. And as such, I don't consider Papparazzi to be a natural evolution of the human fascination with others.. I view them more as intrusive, obscene, and disrespectful.

And I agree that publicity generally does help celebs ("even bad publicity is good publicity!", or however the expression goes), but I don't agree that because of this Papparazzi should be dismissed with a casual flick of the wrist, as if their harrassing behavior is okay because it makes the celebs more famous and satisfies the desire of the viewing public, a desire which, much like a fire, might not even exist if the Papparazzi themselves didn't stoke it.

I think it's easy to accept something as being just the nature of the beast, because to question something that's so ingrained in our society is much harder to do. But questioning it might be the right thing to do.