Famous people and privacy

[Hot_Sauce]

Beef of the day. What's up with famous people and their demands for privacy? Kinda sounds like biting the hand that feeds you. Latest in the news is Tiger whining about people knowing that he owns a big yacht. Remember Barbara Streisand crying about a guy that just took a picture of her beach front home? Shuning the very machine that brought on the wealth.....

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/writ...spot/index.html

http://powerandmotoryacht.com/megaya...hristensen155/

[calculoso]

I think that famous people should have a LOT more privacy than they are currently getting.

So they can sing well... So they can hit a golf ball well... what does it matter what they do on their vacation? What does it matter how often they go to the supermarket?

It's their lives. We don't need to know. They deserve some privacy.

[Eddie Bronze]

The most pathetic thing is the people who won't give them the privacy. Do I feel for rich people who don't get it? Absolutely not. But it really says something about someone who just won't give someone else their space.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Hot_Sauce@Nov 7 2004, 05:29 PM
Beef of the day. What's up with famous people and their demands for privacy? Kinda sounds like biting the hand that feeds you. Latest in the news is Tiger whining about people knowing that he owns a big yacht. Remember Barbara Streisand crying about a guy that just took a picture of her beach front home? Shuning the very machine that brought on the wealth.....

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/writ...spot/index.html

http://powerandmotoryacht.com/megaya...hristensen155/

So long as the public is willing to pay extraordinary wads of money via People and US magazines for pictures of these people taking a leak, then they will continue to be stalked.

There are various levels of anti-stalking laws and even laws governing paparazzi I believe, depending on where you are in the world.

Buts its the common man/woman driving it via their wallet so its not like they should be expressing sympathy for these people.

After Princess Diana died, my modest protest of the continued exploitation of her death by gossip magazines, all of which were outraged every week that people would continue to exploit her death, was to refuse picking up my wife's People magazine from the coffee table. I kept that up for a year or so but have since re-joined the majority, returning to the life of a common voyeur.

Cowperson

[Hot_Sauce]

Originally posted by calculoso@Nov 7 2004, 11:53 AM
I think that famous people should have a LOT more privacy than they are currently getting.

So they can sing well... So they can hit a golf ball well... what does it matter what they do on their vacation? What does it matter how often they go to the supermarket?

It's their lives. We don't need to know. They deserve some privacy.

I agree completely with you. My only point is how ridiculous they make themselves appear when some of their fans want a closer look and they freak out. Its funny how the people that hate it the most are the ones that get the most attention, negative or otherwise. Remember Mick Jagger and his habit of punching out photographers? His own behavior brought on more and more antagonism from the press.

[Hockey_Rules_22]

It comes with the territory. It depends on what people are taking pictures of and where the famous people are.

[moon]

Well I personally couldn't care about all the gossip that entertainers and athletes generate and will admit in rare cases it goes over the top but generally it is tough for me to feel bad about people living in 20 million dollar mansions that were payed for by fans complaining because those same fans want to see a picture of said house or new yatch.

[habernac]

Paparazzi should be reigned back by anti stalking laws. They aren't public property just becuase they're famous.