Do you think celebrities have the right to expect privacy?

!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes

Somerluvin

They don't have the right to EXPECT privacy, however, they should have reasonable privacy. No one on this planet can expect privacy except for in the cases that the law outlines. I do think the paparazzi have gotten out of control and are morally at fault in many cases for accidents that are caused.

Dan F

There's got to be a line drawn which some paparazzi respect but there are others who cross that line and it becomes stalking.

Taking pictures of a celebrity's kids without their permission is very off-limits, also sneaking onto someone's property is very wrong and very illegal.

But I think the majority of celebrities you see in these dirt magazine (Britney, Paris, etc..) go out in public purposely so the papz can get pictures of them... it makes them feel like they're still famous.

spicy

I think they should be able to have a private life. Yes, they are paid exhorbitantly, but there should be some boundaries.

However, when they decide upon a career in the public life, they must realize that a great deal of their privacy will be compromised.

trickygirlb

Yes, just because they are in films and television doesn't mean they should be stalked by paparazzi. Their private life should be their own, at least then maybe we could have some people in movies and TV shows with real talent, not the Tabloid kings and queens of the moments. However, I have to wonder about some celebrities especially when you see photos of them with their children, because I believe you are not legally allowed to photograph and publish that photograph of a minor without a parents consent.

Ollie's Mom

Yes, I believe celebrities have the right to expect privacy and can achieve privacy in their personal lives if they so desire. There are celebrities who have accomplished this feat such as Paul Newman and Joann Woodward. Of course, there are the exceptions such as Farrah Fawcett (sp) whose medical problems (cancer) were leaked to the press. Needless to say, it is a much more difficult task for them.

beez

If they are in public, not necessarily. If they are going about their daily lives or vacationing, they should be left alone. They chose to be a public figure and part of the price is the constant attention in public. But it can go too far, as we have seen.

Kenni M

Because they are celebrities, much of the public thinks that their lives are open books. And being a celebrity, they should expect much of their lives to be public. I think the Paparazzi does get carried away when it comes to the things that they report on. They should be allowed to have privacy in their personal lives. It seems that sometimes that just isn't possible when they have cameras following them around constantly. Just my opinion!

dryad

An interesting question to pose... , Celebrity - what is that exactly... it's not just the photos of a bad boy Rock Star or the latest antics of a bar hopping starlet or musician peering at us from the magazine covers at the checkout line.

According to Roget's, celebrity is also used to indicate someone who has earned distinction, eminence, glory, honor, notability, prestige by their efforts in a variety of fields such as science, literature, the arts, philanthropy and yes, dare I say it... politics.

To gain celebrity is to gain popularity, acquire renown, prominence, establish a reputation, preiminence as well as commercial stardom via films, stage plays, the different genres in the music world and even "American Idol". Unfortunately in today's world, anyone who achieves acclaim draws the public's attention.

Once that recognition has been acquired, the public seems to find it fascinating to deterimine what makes the celebrity different, what path led them to become a celebrity, is that celebrity so much different or better than the rest of us? Or are they merely human with all the frailties and flaws that entails?

That fascination would not be carried to the extent it has without those in the media (or paparazzi) who find it to be quite lucrative to invade the privacy of celebrities. Unfortunately that type of invasion is encouraged by those with 'celebrity' who seem to thrive on any type of publicity whether good or bad just so their name is in a headline somewhere. Sadly that type of recognition is non-enduring and doesn't bring them what they'd hoped for...respect, it only brings them shallow notoriety.

To become well known in one's chosen field through hard work and effort does not give the admiring public carte blanche to know every facet of that persons life. If an individual requests privacy in their personal life, that request should be respected. Just because the public buys a CD, DVD, sees a movie or contributes to a campaign does not give them the right of ownership to the private lives of those we admire. Imagine what life would be like to comprehend that you exist in a fishbowl, that you are being constantly monitored, judged and displayed in the tabloids as fodder for public titillation. That would not be living ... there would be no balance, no respite, no peace, no quality of life and eventually no sanity.

The fiercest: Jenny

Well, yes and no. Lemme explain...

Everyone, no matter what their status in society, deserves basic privacy. This includes medical record confidentiality, being able to do simple tasks (filling up at a gas station, going grocery shopping, etc) without being mobbed, and doing whatever they please in their own homes.

However, it would be stupid of them to expect privacy when they go out partying or while they're filming a movie. They ARE movie stars, after all, and it's not as if going out partying is a necessity--if it really bothered them that much, they could simply not go out.

Anyway, one of the best quotes I've heard about the situation you're referring to is from Michelle Pfeiffer. She said, "I act for free, but I demand a huge salary as compensation for all the annoyance of being a public personality. In that sense, I earn every dime I make."

Sierra Luhvs You

of course i think its retarded how people get into their personal lives so much

Lillian

That depends. If they were not seeking to be a celebrity they need to be left alone. If they are seeking the public eye (i.e. actors) then they really can't expect much in the way of privacy.

Shay

some celebs such as paris hilton i think no because they ask for it and all the celebs who do reality shows and celebs who are rly doin it just for the fame but i think sum celebs such as alicai keys who do wat they do for the love of the music or for the love of what it is they do....it think they deserve privacy but some celebs are just askin for it...then wen it goes the way they dont like they complain.

Harry W

Celebrity status is obtained & maintained by media coverage. In some instance it is desired & encouraged to maintain their status, others duck it to obtain some degree of privacy. Loss of privacy is an occupational hazzard & the price they pay to maintain their status. They live or die by media coverage , they can't have their cake & eat it to. They have forfeited their privacy right by the profession they have selected.

Reformed

Celebrities are who they are, in part, because the fans allow them to be; they pay their salary, make them marketable by keeping their ratings up. It seems unreasonable that they would expect privacy.

MR2002626

Nope. Public scrutiny comes with the money they make, so deal with it.

Eliza M

It depends, some celebrities beg for attention and once they get it they hate it. Others just want to be left alone.

Pick me for best answer please!

Sway_27

Nope, its comes with the profession, just like janitors have to clean up ****

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: