quote:What bugs me so much is that there's no way we would accept this kind of stalking and harassment as acceptable behavior if it happened to us, or anyone we know. So why do we think it's OK that celebrities are subject to it?
The problem is how you define the limits of what's acceptable. Right now, it's pretty much legal to take a picture in a public place. In fact, there are important first amendment considerations to that protection - imagine if it had been illegal to videotape the Rodney King incident or to take pictures of someone dumping toxic chemicals in a river.
So once we accept a right to some form of public photography, we need to determine where to draw the line if we want to limit it. And I don't see how to draw such a line except in the context of already-defined criminal offenses - obstructing traffic, trespassing, assault, battery, etc.
Assuming no other law is being broken, how do you criminalize following someone around and taking pictures of what they do in public, while still allowing the "desirable" pictures to be taken?
We could base it on whether the activity being photographed is illegal or not. But then we have the problem of assigning criminal behavior to someone based on their accurate assessment of whether another person's given activity is legal or not. (Plus, the incident described in the opening post was illegal, so that rule wouldn't help.) We could base it on reasonable belief that a law was being broken, but I think that gets rid of some desirable public photographing - I think a lot of journalism uncovers legal acts that the public should know about.
If we go by a newsworthiness standard, we have the problem of defining newsworthiness. Is it based on what people are interested in? If so, then these are newsworthy. Is it based on some refined sense of what people should be interested in? I'm skeptical such a thing can be defined in a precise enough manner to avoid chilling desirable activities.
I'm not saying there's not a way to do this. I'm saying none of the ways I've seen proposed or have thought of myself avoid problems I consider more significant.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, I'm pretty sure that MC was not talking about this in a strictly legal sense. I think he was talking about people's apparent approval (or lack of disapproval) of this.
If we actually respected celebrities as we ourselves would like to be respected, what he was talking about wouldn't be a problem.
---
As an aside, what would the legality be of pulling a Henry II "Who will rid me of this troubling papparazo?" sort of thing by sending messages to one's crazed fans that you really, really wish someone could take care of these people for you?
Would you be liable if some of your fans commited crimes against these people?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
MC was simply the catalyst for a lot of thoughts I've had on this topic. Whether what you say is true or not (and it likely is) has no effect on the underlying issues of regulating the behavior. Moreover, the same types of issues apply to judging the acceptability of the behavior, although I think the acceptable margin of error is far greater once we aren't talking about the use of government power.
Quite simply, the problem is defining the behavior to be punished or simply frowned on, and I think it's deceptively difficult to define this behavior. The definition can be somewhat fuzzy if we are only speaking of frowning on the behavior.
quote:As an aside, what would the legality be of pulling a Henry II "Who will rid me of this troubling papparazo?" sort of thing by sending messages to one's crazed fans that you really, really wish someone could take care of these people for you?
Would you be liable if some of your fans commited crimes against these people?
I don't know - sounds like a good episode of "Law and Order."
The most likely elements of contention would be causation - did the statement actually cause the death - and knowledge/intent - can the prosecutor prove that the intended result was the death of a photographer or that the likelihood of death was so high that the celebrity knew (in a legal sense, which includes some form of "should have known") that death would result.
The case would be easier to make against the celebrity if the photographer, killer fans, and celebrity were all at the same place at the same time and far more difficult if the statement was made on TV (say, repeatedly over the course of weeks) and the fan stalked and killed the photographer.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My apologies, Earendil18. I was not in a good state to be posting this morning, and I was caustic and mean, as mph noted
Thanks for taking it so graciously.
---
Edited to add: Even if you missed it, the comment I made could surely have been worded better. I will strive to maintain a less crass countenance in the future.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: One reason why is because they are paid far more than they deserve, especially in comparison the average American, that it's easy to believe at some level that there's a karmic price to be paid.
This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. First, how do we judge who makes too much money? If you don't like their salary, don't go to the movies or buy the records. But more importantly, do you really want to suggest that the more money a person makes, the more punishment they deserve? I don't understand the idea of punishing success. What about being successful incurs negative karma?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Like anybody can tell the difference between British accents.
I'm becoming more and more aware of the Welsh accent from watching Dr. Who. Since they film in Cardiff, they seem to recruit a lot of welsh actors in supporting roles. My friends and I joke about it sometimes, like the little boy who won the competition to be in an episode only won because he was welsh.
Wow, this came off as a really Dr. Who-fangirly post. Continue on, good citizens.
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: One reason why is because they are paid far more than they deserve, especially in comparison the average American, that it's easy to believe at some level that there's a karmic price to be paid.
This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. First, how do we judge who makes too much money? If you don't like their salary, don't go to the movies or buy the records. But more importantly, do you really want to suggest that the more money a person makes, the more punishment they deserve? I don't understand the idea of punishing success. What about being successful incurs negative karma?
I never said that it is a correct or defensible position to take.
You asked why people think it's OK to invade the privacy of celebrities, and I answered by giving a reason why people tend to do so.
I suggest nothing, but I do say that people tend to think that way on some level.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
The accent of the Doctor seems to be more scottish nowadays.
IP: Logged |
posted
As to celebrities in the news, I think for the most part they add up to the biggest collection of non-stories to ever waste printed space.
I remember photos of Rupert Grint and a friend at the beach buying ice cream. Oh.... there's earth shattering news - 'Kid Buys Ice Cream!' - stop the presses!
I remember the big deal of Prince Harry wearing what was allegedly a Nazi uniform to a fancy dress (costume) party. He wasn't in an SS uniform, he was wearing a khaki military style shirt with an arm band, and normal slacks and normal shoes.
That seem, especially to a young man, to be an infinitely superior costume. You want to go to McDonalds for a snack...arm band off, and your normal. Back to the party...arm band on, and your in costume. Also, he rented this from a local costume shop. If it was so terrible, why did the costume shop have it? That choice was certainly better that running around London in a fuzzy bunny suit.
Again, I see that as a non-story, and I think Harry father responded appropriately.
At the same party photos of Harry making out with a girl surfaced. Once again, my reaction was "Stop the presses!" "Boy Kissses Girl!" Who would have ever guessed that?
And that is essentially what you have, a non-story with a photo to back it up. Without the photo, and the money the photos provide for the photographer, there is no story. But since when is a photo a story? I remember a photo of Prince William walking back from the grocery store. That's all, just walking down the street carrying a shopping bag. That rated a full page big headline spread. Really, how big a NON-story is that?
Prince William and Prince Harry were shown at a nightclub drinking and getting friendly with some girls. Apparently that too was headline news. Yet, no mention of the other 500 people in the club who were also drinking and getting friendly. Apparently if a celebrity behaves normally, somehow...that is headline news...somehow.
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: The accent of the Doctor seems to be more scottish nowadays.
Nope. Though David Tennant is himself Scottish, on Dr. Who he speaks with an Estuary accent. Only on one episode does he 'pretend' to be from Scotland.
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: My apologies, Earendil18. I was not in a good state to be posting this morning, and I was caustic and mean, as mph noted
Thanks for taking it so graciously.
---
Edited to add: Even if you missed it, the comment I made could surely have been worded better. I will strive to maintain a less crass countenance in the future.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
