Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    A celebrity is being chased by photographers who are screaming after her (not doing anything else) and hence the celebrity ends up spraying them with water that ruined their cameras. The photographer sues the celebrity.

    Who do you think is in the right and wrong here? Do you think the celebrity had the right to spray water at the photographer, especially since ruining the camera was not her intention?

    Personally, I feel that the celebrity is in the wrong here. Technically the photographers were creating a din, but did not directly affect her physically. Hence she had no right to inflict physical damage on the photographer or his posessions. However, the qustion of mental harm/ annoyance on the celebrity does come into question...

    Any thoughts?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i think the celebrity shouldn't have sprayed the water n the camera. but photographers are always out of hand. we know people have died because of paparazzi chasing them down like dogs. so it's like in court. was she really provoked enough to cause the people harm by ruining their cameras? no. she's most likely famous because she wants to be photographed anyway. damaging the cameras, while something human that most of us would do, is not the way to go. so i think the celebrity is in the wrong.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I think its the pathetic, moronic, life lacking, ape-like scum who actually WANT to pay to see picture of celebrities buying stuff from shops and getting out of their cars that are to blame.

    Also the photographers should have waterproof cameras.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i think the celebrity is in the right. Although they (most of the time) choose to be in the public eye and obviously that comes with paparazzi following them everywhere, the celebrity still has a personal right to do their business, shop, eat out, etc. without being harassed. Paparazzi are doing their job but they take it too far a lot of the time and should know better than to scream, chase, and so on. Any reasonable person would lose their cool at some point especially if they have paps chasing them 24/7. She didn't intend to break the cameras and she wouldn't have done it but for the paps screaming at her.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LXXXVIII)
    i think the celebrity is in the right. Although they (most of the time) choose to be in the public eye and obviously that comes with paparazzi following them everywhere, the celebrity still has a personal right to do their business, shop, eat out, etc. without being harassed. Paparazzi are doing their job but they take it too far a lot of the time and should know better than to scream, chase, and so on. Any reasonable person would lose their cool at some point especially if they have paps chasing them 24/7. She didn't intend to break the cameras and she wouldn't have done it but for the paps screaming at her.
    She did not intend to break the cameras but she did intend to squirt water at him, which can be seen as a directly affecting violation of his personal space, right? Whereas he did not violate her personal space at all. What if a child had been screaming in the background. It would be unacceptable for a person to turn around and flick the child on the head.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chronicles)
    She did not intend to break the cameras but she did intend to squirt water at him, which can be seen as a directly affecting violation of his personal space, right? Whereas he did not violate her personal space at all. What if a child had been screaming in the background. It would be unacceptable for a person to turn around and flick the child on the head.
    the screaming is directed at her. a baby's scream probably wouldn't be. The typical person would probably lose their temper by being followed and screamed at, they probably wouldn't lose their temper through a baby screaming (as it is expected of a baby).
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by LXXXVIII)
    they probably wouldn't lose their temper through a baby screaming (as it is expected of a baby).
    You'd think so - but R v Woollin?

    I think the photographers are in the wrong for harrassing the celebrity and hunting her like an animal. In fact, if this was a regular thing she could probably bring an action under the Protection from Harrassment Act but that doesn't give her the right to assault them. So yeah, they're both in the wrong but it all stems back to the photographers.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr_Deeds)
    You'd think so - but R v Woollin?

    I think the photographers are in the wrong for harrassing the celebrity and hunting her like an animal. In fact, if this was a regular thing she could probably bring an action under the Protection from Harrassment Act but that doesn't give her the right to assault them. So yeah, they're both in the wrong but it all stems back to the photographers.

    I said a typical person. I certainly wouldn't hit a baby for screaming and I'm sure most other people wouldn't. BUT the same people would get angry if they were constantly chased. Re. stemming back to photographers - that's what I said "but for" the photogrpahers chasing and screaming
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Depends on on the celebrity.
    If they were an attention whore when it suited them, then they should take it and they are in the wrong. If they have tried to lead a private life, that might just have pushed them over he edge
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I would say the celebrity is in the wrong.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by LXXXVIII)
    I said a typical person. I certainly wouldn't hit a baby for screaming and I'm sure most other people wouldn't. BUT the same people would get angry if they were constantly chased. Re. stemming back to photographers - that's what I said "but for" the photogrpahers chasing and screaming
    I wasn't disagreeing with you, I just said that some people (and probably more than you think) do unfortunately hit their children for completely normal things like crying. I completely agree with the causation link between the photographer's harrassment and the celebrity's retaliation but I'm still not sure the "reasonable" person would react in that way - in fact, I doubt the "reasonable person" would retaliate at all and for that reason it's arguable that she would probably not have the defence of self defence.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Personally, I blame the water.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    oh i know you weren't disagreeing but, realisitically, i think there are few people who would hit a child for screaming compared to the number of people who wouldn't do it. On the other hand, i think there are more people who would lose their temper with paparazzi than the number of people who wouldn't. I think it's a question of degree/extent of the reaction - you see a LOT of celebrities losing their temper and they put their hand over the cameras, push paps out the way, shout, etc. But obviously there are some who either overly react or have been pushed too far; either of these could be probable cause in the scenario here, i just think more info would be required if a more definite or conclusive answer is to be reached.

    Chronicles, is this for a mini essay or just a debate post? just curious
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by LXXXVIII)
    oh i know you weren't disagreeing but, realisitically, i think there are few people who would hit a child for screaming compared to the number of people who wouldn't do it. On the other hand, i think there are more people who would lose their temper with paparazzi than the number of people who wouldn't. I think it's a question of degree/extent of the reaction
    Yeah, definitely this.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LXXXVIII)
    \

    Chronicles, is this for a mini essay or just a debate post? just curious
    debate. lol. Do you honestly think a teacher would set a question about celebrities? LOL. I was just reading something online and a thought came to me.

    Anyway, to those of you who claim that there is a direct causation between the photographer screaming after the celebrity and her retaliation, I do not think it is a justified retaliation. After all, being in the public light, one can only expect to be stalked and celebrities know of the strings that come attached to this career path they chose.

    She may have lost her temper halfway through, but that is no self-defense because frankly, everyone loses their temper and this can then be setting a very dangerous precedent if accepted in a court as a sufficient reason-- especially if she was so mildly provoked.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:

    both my 6th form and university had/have a whole range of questions, many with celebrities in the scenario. Celebrities are humans, too and often have legal action brought against them, so I think it would be rather narrow minded of someone to think that legal scenarios don't have celebrities included in them. Have you never heard of the Spice Girls case, for example?

    so yes, i DO think they would set a question like this. LOL
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LXXXVIII)

    both my 6th form and university had/have a whole range of questions, many with celebrities in the scenario. Celebrities are humans, too and often have legal action brought against them, so I think it would be rather narrow minded of someone to think that legal scenarios don't have celebrities included in them. Have you never heard of the Spice Girls case, for example?

    so yes, i DO think they would set a question like this. LOL
    oh please. I'm preparing for my A levels now and not even taking a subject related to this stuff. :confused:

    And yes, I'm aware celebrities are human and I'm well aware that they have legal action brought against them. But in a formal paper for A levels (YES, i know that in everyday homework tasks/ class informal discussion questions of all sorts get set), teachers do tend to be close-minded in that they would rather we hit the library for research than tabloid magazines. :rolleyes:

    Either way, if you do not wish to respond to the topic at hand, you are welcome not to. Coming to hasty conclusions and in a fairly rude manner will not bode well with anyone.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LXXXVIII)
    i think the celebrity is in the right. Although they (most of the time) choose to be in the public eye and obviously that comes with paparazzi following them everywhere, the celebrity still has a personal right to do their business, shop, eat out, etc. without being harassed. Paparazzi are doing their job but they take it too far a lot of the time and should know better than to scream, chase, and so on. Any reasonable person would lose their cool at some point especially if they have paps chasing them 24/7. She didn't intend to break the cameras and she wouldn't have done it but for the paps screaming at her.
    She has a right to personal space, but not a right to do as she wishes in acting out in frustration when that personal space is violated.

    IMO the celebrity is in the wrong.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LH123)
    Personally, I blame the water.
    :rolleyes: Innocent party. :hand:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chronicles)
    oh please. I'm preparing for my A levels now and not even taking a subject related to this stuff. :confused:

    And yes, I'm aware celebrities are human and I'm well aware that they have legal action brought against them. But in a formal paper for A levels (YES, i know that in everyday homework tasks/ class informal discussion questions of all sorts get set), teachers do tend to be close-minded in that they would rather we hit the library for research than tabloid magazines. :rolleyes:

    Either way, if you do not wish to respond to the topic at hand, you are welcome not to. Coming to hasty conclusions and in a fairly rude manner will not bode well with anyone.
    My conclusion wasn't hasty and if you speak to someone (else) from Northumbria, they will tell you that the formal exam papers have had celebrities in the scenario (one of the May 2006 papers for example). Also, not being able to take someone saying that there are, in fact, such scenarios in exam papers, isn't going to do you any favours. Approach things with an open mind
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: August 8, 2009
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.