The Student Room Group

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Are celebrities entitled to a private life?

Every other week we hear about celebrities kncoking out a photographer or bleating that they constantly have their privacy invaded.

Is such invasion acceptable? Should celebrities, to quote Piers Morgan 'die by the sword'? They constantly use the media when it suits them, and in the case of many 'celebrities' it's the only thing they're even famous for.

Opinions?

Scroll to see replies

They have every right to privacy as they're treated equally in the eyes of the law.

(Seriously guys, it's constitutional.)
Everyone is. It's entitled by law IIRC.
Reply 3
Avatar for coaster
coaster
OP
2
It's not illegal to photo them stumbling out of a nightclub and all that jazz though. Is that acceptable?
Reply 4
Avatar for Trangulor
Trangulor
6
They have chosen to become famous, highs and lows.

Anyone can be photographed in a public place, just the famous people are more 'interesting' to put on newspapers :biggrin:

Of course, forcing entry into a private home etc is rude, as well as illegal.
Reply 5
Avatar for LpLex
LpLex
They should have their rights exactly the same as anyone else. Rights are not taken away or given for being a celebrity.

Lex

yes there is a line but tbh if you court the media you deserve everything you get.
Their privacy isn't being invaded.

Do you ever wonder why we see some celebrities in the papers all the time and some hardly ever?

It's because the one's we see have their publicists leak to the press what restaurant or nightclub they'll be at. Paparazzi don't just stalk outside of every establishment hoping to see someone famous. You can't really think that the celebrities you see stumbling out of the nightclub are the only ones who do that! The paparazzi get tips and usually these are from the celebrity or the celebrity's people. All publicity is good publicity for them.
It’s supply and demand.

If people stopped buying newspapers that make it their number one priority to gossip about, and photograph, celebrities, then they would soon move on to something else.
Reply 9
Avatar for Thud
Thud
17
if they want the money and fame, then they get losers poking into their lives.
Thud
if they want the money and fame, then they get losers poking into their lives.


Hardly the point, is it?
Reply 11
Avatar for Thud
Thud
17
ForeverIsMyName
Hardly the point, is it?


sure it is.If you want the fame, privelage, money, etc etc then you expect to have people wanting to nosey in on your life. It's impossible to be famous unless you're known to many people.
I think the papparrazi use the public's 'right of know' and twist the meaning of it. Many photographers overstep the mark when they 'need' to have a photograph of a specific celebrity. Take the Naomi Campbell photo when she was allegedly seen coming out of a rehab clinic. That sort of thing should stay private, and I believe she was awarded damages as it was seen as not being in the public interest.

There are many laws which surround journalists, photographers and the people who are being photographed.
Thud
sure it is.If you want the fame, privelage, money, etc etc then you expect to have people wanting to nosey in on your life. It's impossible to be famous unless you're known to many people.


That's not the question; We're asking whether it's right for celebrities to have a private life, and under the British constitution, everyone is entitled to the same protection under the law. If 200 people chased you down the street and harassed you, you'd expect the law to deal with those people, and quite right too.

The answer is yes, they are. Harsher sentencing should apply to those people who do not respect the privacy of celebrities.
ForeverIsMyName

The answer is yes, they are. Harsher sentencing should apply to those people who do not respect the privacy of celebrities.


The press are regulated, however, many newspapers/ photographers can get away with many of their photographs, because if they are deemed to be in the public's interest then they can legally publish them.
Reply 15
Avatar for Thud
Thud
17
ForeverIsMyName
That's not the question; We're asking whether it's right for celebrities to have a private life, and under the British constitution, everyone is entitled to the same protection under the law. If 200 people chased you down the street and harassed you, you'd expect the law to deal with those people, and quite right too.

The answer is yes, they are. Harsher sentencing should apply to those people who do not respect the privacy of celebrities.


not really. If I'd gone on big brother or the like and allowed the public into my life in that fashion in the pursuit of fame then I'd expect to be chased down the street by 200 people and be harassed by them.
guitargirl03
The press are regulated, however, many newspapers/ photographers can get away with many of their photographs, because if they are deemed to be in the public's interest then they can legally publish them.


I don't have a problem with photographs taken in public spaces. But when magazines publish photos of celebrities lying in their back yard or on a private holiday, I have an issue with it. If I ever get famous for some unknown reason (:p:) I know for a fact I wouldn't be able to handle the press. Not a little, and I know how frustrating being followed and bothered all the time is.

Thud
not really. If I'd gone on big brother or the like and allowed the public into my life in that fashion in the pursuit of fame then I'd expect to be chased down the street by 200 people and be harassed by them.


If I went into Harlem with a sign on me which says "I hate niggers" on it, I'd expect to be shot. Doesn't give anyone the right to shoot me. The distinction is a question of rights as opposed to a question of reality.
ForeverIsMyName
I don't have a problem with photographs taken in public spaces. But when magazines publish photos of celebrities lying in their back yard or on a private holiday, I have an issue with it. If I ever get famous for some unknown reason (:p:) I know for a fact I wouldn't be able to handle the press. Not a little, and I know how frustrating being followed and bothered all the time is.


I wasn't just talking about photographs taken in public spaces. Although many newspapers are forced to publish an apology if the photos are not deemed to be in the public's interest, however, as I previously said, if the photo is deemed to be in the public's interest, then they are allowed to publish them, regardless of where they were taken.

The way the press is regulated is a very grey area.
Reply 18
Avatar for Thud
Thud
17
ForeverIsMyName
If I went into Harlem with a sign on me which says "I hate niggers" on it, I'd expect to be shot. Doesn't give anyone the right to shoot me. The distinction is a question of rights as opposed to a question of reality.


that would be incitement.

come on, fimn; you like people to take responsibility for their own actions don't you? celebrities want to be famous, they want all the glory and money so it's their own fault.
Thud
come on, fimn; you like people to take responsibility for their own actions don't you? celebrities want to be famous, they want all the glory and money so it's their own fault.


I'm a proponent of individual rights more than anything else; I believe it's a right to be able to walk around without harassment, to be able to sit in your own garden without people taking pictures of you, and anything that members of the public do. Part of our constitution is to treat every person the same under British law; Someone who peers over your fence and points a camera at you should be treated in exactly the same way as a celebrity, unless you're suggesting that criminal law should be applied differently based on how recognisable you are to other people?

Famous =\= rich, we can't make that error.

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you