What if one wanted to sell a non-consensual photo taken of a Congressperson caught red-handed in a crime? Do you think Kate Middleton is—or should be—in the same category as public figures who work in the entertainment industry? Who is at fault here: the tabloid owners for publishing the photos, the photographers for taking them, the public for being so interested in the private lives of celebrities—or someone or something else? Celebrities such as Britney Spears and Tiger Woods are also often role models for young people. But why not strengthen them? Celebrities are humans and they deserve the same rights as the rest of the human population. Do People in Public Life Have a Right to Privacy? They are ordinary people just with a famous role in life. To listen to an interview with Barnes, click here: Celebrities Are Not Public Servants Over the past several decades, Barnes says, the U. Photographers and editors have different views on what is news and what should be private in relation with the public and sometimes they do show some bad taste in terms of the material they ch. If media publishes stories about the private lives of the rich and the famous, that is because there is an audience for them. One day when Princess was followed by the speeding car with paparazzi, the vehicle where Diana sat, crashed and she died very quickly.
If taking a photo is illegal, the sale of it can be criminalized too. I believe that there are ways to draw sensible lines and protect privacy in public, but the task will not be easy. Yes, it causes celebrities harm, but people love the gossip. Before the invention of computer. But why not strengthen them? Or they did an argument about something they disagreed about. People have to understand that being famous is just the same job as any other: teacher or doctor.
In recent years, lots of newspapers, news, and magazines focus on the actions of pop singers, movie stars and other famous men and women. This, too, sends us back to the issues I posed above. The recent phone hacking scandal has drawn claims that up to 3,000 celebrities, politicians and sports stars had their communications monitored. However, I believe that public personalities also have a right to privacy. The image of buildings collapsing and billowing smoke has been engraved into the minds of Americans and will remain there for years to come. But careers are rarely ruined by sex tapes or other personal or legal scandals. Sometimes when secret photographers post bad pictures and add scandalous articles, this may ruin private lives.
It should be imperative that the public should have empathy that builds up a harmonious scene in which people can enjoy their live tranquilly and peacefully. Newspapers and books are speech, yet they are sold too. That depends upon the difficult issue of when the law should protect privacy in public places. Paparazzi thrive because photos of celebrities thrive on the market and can fetch tens of thousands of dollars -- sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars or even millions. However, is it really their business to know everything. When the news came out of Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton's relationship, American society went mad. Although Campbell sued the Mirror for breach of confidence — an area of law developed from a case about the publication of the private etchings of Prince Albert, the husband of Queen Victoria — the court in its ruling weighed the more contemporary rights to privacy and freedom of expression, both safeguarded under the European Convention.
Can the law restrict the selling of photos taken without consent? Even if you are celeb and even if you are a normal person you should always have privacy. This not only damages the family's well being but also damages the daughters' mental health. United States law is often dismissive of finding any privacy rights in public places. As civilizations emerged and formalized through written constitutions, some of the more important civil rights were granted to citizens. Having said that, some people say that bad fame is still fame.
Rowling was entitled to privacy protection from being photographed in public. I am not arguing that nothing about celebrities is worth discussing -- there are plenty of issues involving celebrities that are. Although, they still are humans just like you and me and do deserve some privacy, because it is rare to never that you see celebs naked on the front cover because they have a little self respect. Actress Sienna Miller won £100,000 in damages from the News of the World in May, after the paper admitted hacking her phone. Or did they give up that right when they became famous? For example, if a television chef presents himself as a family man, the public deserves to know if he is having an affair.
Or inspire acceptance like Ellen? In addition, the more people that know about their rights, the better informed they are, then the more likely they are to participate in the process and in the public debate. Abortion means the interruption or termination of pregnancy. There are, in fact, plenty of famous people whose private lives are not routinely invaded by the media. I think that restraints should be placed upon where photographers are allowed to take pictures of celebrities. True, many in society will lose the candy they crave, but so be it.
I am not arguing that nothing about celebrities is worth discussing — there are plenty of issues involving celebrities that are. I do not feel like Kate Middleton should be in the catagory of public figures who work in the entertainment industry because she is only a princess, not an actor or entertainer of any type. It's a common dream I know most have had. Paparazzi wait outside their homes, jump in front of their cars, and swarm around them in public. Maybe we can limit the law to non-consensual photos that are not of legitimate public concern. It is reasonable to choose a career where that talent can be recognised, rewarded and shared with others. Give us your take on the paparazzi controversy.