Controversy of the Paparazzi - Research Paper Example

Introduction and Background In July Paul Raef a photo journalist became the first victim of the new laws in California that are aimed at reining in paparazzi and protecting celebrities. He was arrested following teen heartthrob Justin Beiber at speeds as high as 80 mph on L.A freeway 101 (Cohen). However, according to Cohen, while it may appear to be a good idea to have a law against the paparazzi, it jeopardizes the first amendment. The relationship between celebrities and the paparazzi appears symbiotic from a bystander’s perspective, while the celebs depend on the paparazzi to show them to the world, the latter hang around in the hope for the money shot that will propel them to fame on make them millions. However, in terms of privacy, the celebs get the shorter end of the stick because thanks to the paparazzi, they literary have to forfeit their right to privacy which was famously described by Thomas Cooley as the right to be left alone (Nordhaus 287). While Paparazzi are protected from the consequences of their actions by their first amendment, they should not abuse those rights at the expense of the personal privacy and safety others. People have lost their lives due to the Paparazzi, and more are suffering every day because of their behavior, therefore, a line needs to be drawn where a person’s safety is not subject to the perversions of constitutional rights. Before one is a celebrity, they usually are human beings entitled to their rights just like everyone else. In their quest to take photographs of the celebs, they often go out of control, and mostly results in danger both to themselves and the celebrities. The case that brought this to light was when England’s princess Diana was involved in a car crash while being chased by paparazzi who wanted a picture of her and her boyfriend (Johnson). However, in the attempt to protect themselves from this invasion, they crashed the car in a tunnel. While there has been no conclusive evidence to date on what exactly caused the accident, it is almost without doubt that the main contributors to this accident were the paparazzi. Moreover, they could get another photo of the person who in all likeliness is the most photographed human being in the world. Notably Diana was one of the few celebrities who had a cordial relationship with the paparazzi and often posed for them and acknowledged them unlike most celebs that rarely give them time of the day and even attack them (Julianna). They caused multiple deaths, which is a price too high to pay for any number of pictures. Notwithstanding, there are allegations that the photographers did not even deign to help after the accident just snapped away with their cameras. In another case of photojournalists going too far, George Clooney crashed his motorbike on a car as members of the fourth estate chased him for pictures, later he said that paparazzi are becoming even more dangerous since they are not just trying to look for Celebs in dangerous situations but are also creating this situations (Johnson). This begs the question that if the journalists claim that the first amendment protects from prosecution for invading the Celebs space, then is the law not directly denying celebs their privacy and ultimately safety. While one may argue that celebrities have it coming for them due to the nature of their jobs. Indeed many still depend on the same paparazzo to publicize their films and music. Celebs children are caught between their parents and the Paparazzi. Suri Cruise, Tom Cruise’s daughter who is only 6 years old is hounded and photographed by journalist so often that she often ends up hiding behind her toys and hair to shield herself (Puente). One does not need a degree in childhood psychology to tell that such actions portend future problem. To the paparazzo, these are just pictures they are taking, but to the child, the trauma might have far reaching effects in posterity, and she may suffer psychological issues because of the harassment that started when she was extremely young. In Washington D.C, mothers are collecting a million signatures to petition for the prosecution paparazzi that endanger public safety in the quest to get news. Besides, even by simply taking pictures of their parents in compromising situations, photojournalists indirectly affect their children. Take for instance, when a Celeb is caught on camera doing something like fighting or in a compromising situation. When this is splashed all over news papers, children will be forced to deal with their peers judging them based on their parent’s behavior yet, they are not responsible. In some countries like France, however, one cannot take photos of someone’s children without their parents consent (Puente). Therefore, such pictures would not be legally published. However, in America, such photos are taken at will and published without any regard to the adverse effect since they may be having to the children who end up as collateral damage. Thus, should such legislation be applied in America, it would shield children from the battles between the press and their parents in which they suffer a great deal despite not having done anything to deserve this. While it may not be in line with the first amendment, one must consider that privacy of celebrities and their families should not be compromised just so the paparazzi can take pictures. On the premier of the movie men in black 3 in Moscow, Will Smith slapped a reporter, who took advantage of the proximity to try and kiss him (Kain), this should be a Wakeup to call those involved that the freedom of the press needs to be limited so as to allow Celebs their personal space. In the past, there have been several cases of celebrities attacking paparazzi and causing them physical harm. While not advocating for violence, should one examine the situations objectively, they will realize that in their quest to snap their photos, the paparazzo not only overstep the limits allowed by the first amendment but they break other laws. It has become a trend for some unscrupulous journalist to bait celebrities by speaking offensively, and taunting them with the intention of provoking them to violence since they want to sue them for large sums should they hit them. Recently Paris Hilton attacked a photo journalist who tried to take pictures of her at a club parking lot; he says he is suing for injuries she caused him (Clark). An incident like that occurred recently to Beiber was out with his girlfriend Selena Gomez outside a mall in LA when he was involved in a scuffle with a paparazzi trying to take their picture without consent (Ruskiewicz). The rights to privacy have been developed in four main categories that are: intrusion on solitude, private facts, exploitation and depiction in a false light (Nordhaus 289). However, every one of this is trashed by the paparazzi who sell pictures of celebrities making millions without the former benefiting, they intrude into their privacy by camping outside their homes and the tabloids have a propensity for printing news and articles which they cannot substantiate. The law should exist to protect the celebs while offering the media a chance to interact with them albeit with limits. In 1973 Kennedy Onassis successfully sued garner and he was forced, through a restraining order by the court to keep at least 25 feet away from her and 30 from her children. This was because he had continuously invaded her and her children’s privacy by taking photos of her and her children wherever they were. Policies should be enacted to prevent publication of photos that are taken in privacy i.e. in ones house, using long range lenses to capture images from inside someone’s home is tantamount to trespassing. In many cases, celebs form a wall in front of the celeb and will not move, and the celebs bodyguards have to make way for them in the sea of cameramen/women. Is such a case, the Celebs freedom of movement is impeached. The same is true when paparazzo’s block the sidewalk so that when Celebs get out of their car they have to shove through them. As aforementioned, this allows a chance for people with ill motive such as the reporter who tried to kiss Will Smith or even worse stalkers who may want to do them harm. A classic example of trespass and invasion of privacy was when Sean Penn went back to his room in Shanghai, and found a paparazzi waiting for him in his room. In his reaction he clearly went off the mark by dangling the reporter over the balcony, however, he managed to get away with it (Guertin). For instance, if a celeb is trying to get from point A to point B, and one or more reporters physically bar his way, he is with his rights to reclaim his right to movement which is being denied by the journalists. When they attempt to hinder movement of Celebs especially in vehicles, they end up risking their lives as demonstrated in the Clooney and Diana examples. Should the press continue to harass celebrities as they do at present, it will just be a matter of time before another fatality occurs in the name of press freedom. Fortunately, the laws are being put in place to protect celebrities from this and hence stars like Beiber can be able to successfully sue overzealous reporters. Personal privacy and safety are not luxuries but are basic human rights that all people should enjoy. The laws in effect to protect each citizen of this country should supersede the rights of freedom of speech or press in regards to celebrities and the paparazzi, however, the press continues to blatantly disregard celebs privacy. This is because even when the Celebs sue successfully, they penalties are so minor that they are surpassed by the benefits of taking the offending pictures hence making it worth the risk. The right to privacy applies equally to all American citizens; however, the right is not taken particularly seriously for public figures such politicians, and celebrities. Some of them are more psychologically suited to deal with this because of the nature of their jobs or their general character. However, many do not care for such exposure and suffer silently under the onslaught of flashbulbs and dubious articles printed about them. In addition, some people justify the interference with the privacy of Celebs since they are public figures and as such so are their lives and affairs. In these premises, one is supposed to waive their right to privacy, while this may hold some truth in it, it should not be viewed as a carte blanche to write anything, and the only information that should be made public is what is relevant to the individual’s position in society (Nordhaus 289). There is no possible justification why a father should hire bodyguards to protect his child, not just from criminals but nosey photographers who use every action move or misstep to create sleazy headlines. Many of the celebs especially movie stars make a living based on their physical appearance. However, they cannot be expected to look as glamorous as they look on movies in when they are at home washing their car or buying glossaries. Nonetheless, the paparazzi endeavor to take pictures of them especially when they are having a bad hair day to portray them as superficial and shallow people whose beauty is artificially enhanced for the big screen with intent of embarrassing them. In some states like California, laws are now in place to protect not just the celebrities but any public figures from harassment. In fact, camping outside someone’s house of place of work and causing them to delay their exit out of the desire to avoid you can get a journalist arrested and charged with false imprisonment (Cohen). It is imperative that the law protects the Celebs from intrusion since many ends up living like prisoners surrounded from all side. Indeed matt Damon is on record as having said that his friends Brad Pitt and Angelina live like prisoners since they are always hounded by journalist and “require paramilitary troops” to protect them when they step out of their house” (Anhalt). Some of the journalists seem to imagine that since the celebrities are dependent on them to get the recognition that makes them famous, they have a right to follow them around, and take pictures at any time of day and night even in their own homes. Conclusion In conclusion, no one wants the whole world seeing them in their moments of weakness like when they have had too much to drink, or when they dress in clashing colors or break up with their spouse. Hence it is unfair to expect celebrities to take this in their stride as if it were part of everyone’s business. Ultimately, the issue of the celebs privacy and the rights journalist are allowed in the first amendment should be handled with caution. While one must make allowance for those Celebs who court the media and even leak information that will lead to their being mobbed to build their status, there are many who suffer simply because the first amendment is grossly abused by journalists. They live their lives fending off reporters and trying to live a normal life. Sadly, despite California having a law safeguarding the privacy of public figures, it is ignored, and considered impotent with paparazzi doing business as usual its existence notwithstanding. Paparazzi justify their actions by saying that despite the morally reprehensible nature of the pictures and business in general, there is demand for them as long as there will be people to buy this pictures there will be people to take the pictures (Puente). This shows that the problem is not only between the stars and paparazzo but is also caused by the fans demands for these pictures. Works Cited Cohen Adam. Justin Bieber: Legal Groundbreaker? Time Ideas. 2012. Web. 17 August 2012  Johnson Matthew. Dangers caused to celebrities & public by out-of-control paparazzi. Helium. June 05, 2009. Web. 17 August 2012. Puente, Maria. Are celebs kids fair game for paparazzi? USA today. 2012. Web. 17 August 2012 Guertin, Tatiana. When Celebrities Attack: Top 10 Paparazzi Confrontation. Zimbio. September 12, 2008. Web. 17 August 2012on   Anhalt, Karen. Matt Damon: Brad Pitt & Angelina Jolie Are Like Prisoners. People. 2011. Web. 17 August 2012. Kain, Erik. Will Smith Slaps Reporter at Men In Black 3 Moscow Premiere. Forbes. 2012. Web. 17 August 2012 Nordhaus. Jamie. Celebrities rights and privacy how far should paparazzi be allowed to go? n.d. Web. 17 August 2012. Clark, Cindy. Paris Hilton accused of attacking paparazzo. USA today. 2012.Web. 17 August 2012 Julianna, AEvans. Hollywood Paparazzi and The Cost Of Fame. Hub pages. 2010. Web. 17 August 2012 Ruskiewic, Ashley. Justin Beiber wont die in the paparazzo’s arms. Examiner.com. 2012. Web. 17 August 2012 Read More