Murphy's Laws of People Seeing Your Tits: "If you are female, someone, at some point, is going to imagine what your tits look like. If you are an objectively attractive female, someone is going to try their damndest to make sure they actually do see what your tits look like. If you are a world-famous celebrity -- whether you are hot or ugly -- someone will eventually photograph your naked tits and they will be on the Internet for eternity." Like what happened with Kate Middleton. Someone took a picture of her tits. (SFW link) Then they posted her tits on the Internet. (NFSW) Now the Royal Family is pissed. And I guess I am too, because I always envisioned Kate's tits looking more lively than that. Focus: Invasion of privacy. Where do you draw the line for "celebrities"? Are they entitled to less-to-no privacy than the ordinary person because of the "they knew what they were signing up for" argument? Are they entitled to more privacy because they have more to lose?
TMZ is a total guilty pleasure for me. I think it's more about seeing everyone in the room ripping on each other than the actual celebrity guest segments. But I'd hate to see that go away. I think there really has to be a limit on how much you can harass someone just because they're famous. I'm really shocked that it has taken so long for California to pass some basic anti-paparazzi legislation. Even that is being fought by a guy who got arrested for getting involved in a high speed chase after Justin Bieber. Are you fucking kidding me? You're going to endanger lives on the freeway so you can get some blurry pictures of FUCKING BIEBER? On the other hand, many celebrities do an excellent job of staying out of the tabloids altogether. If you're not super famous there's probably an opportunity to live with a modicum of privacy if you're careful. Some people probably can't avoid it...top A-listers, celebs that get into hot water with the law, celebrities who have horrible things happen to them. I remember a couple years ago when Dennis Hopper had cancer, and he got an award with this huge bandage on his head because some paparazzi were all over him and, in his weakened state, he tripped and fell. Not cool, photogs. Not cool at all.
In my wonderful faery land (the Unicorns are beautiful, by the way) I'd have a sort of fair use test. Are you a politician who references your wife and kids as evidence of solid family values and good Christian morals? Well, in that case I don't have a problem with the paparazzi following you to your mistress' house or a local cruise spot, or filming your kids doing seven lines of blow and a bottle of champagne before screeching off down the block. On the other hand, if you don't use your family as a propaganda tool, they should be 100% off limits. For celebrities: if your agent advises you to get out of limos in minis and no underwear, well, you've waived your right to privacy as far as I'm concerned. Conversely, if you just wanted to be an actress and make films, it's fucking reprehensible to milk your suffering during a divorce to sell magazines. Also, for me a feel good story of the year was when some celebrities hired private investigators to dig into the lives of the paparazzi that were following them. Sauce for the goose and all that.
I think a lot of them bring it on themselves. They build up this huge almost cult like following and are surprised and/or angered when the people want more? You've made yourself public property champ, go cry yourself to sleep in your huge fucking piles of money. Cunt. Many celebrities manage to keep a relatively low profile and be A-listers at the same time (rarely see shit about Clooney, except who the new chick hes started banging is). Its possible but you obviously have to make sacrifices, you cant just pop down the local store in your daggiest clothes, your divorce will be big news, you bang several dozen pornstars behind your wifes back you will get caught etc etc. Being a celebrity has its perks, and with perks come downsides. Deal with it, or drop out of the public eye for good. Obviously there's exceptions, that Dennis Hopper shit Frylock mentioned isn't cool. Illness or personal grief should be a no-go area, just leave them the fuck alone and let them deal with their sickness or whatever in peace. Everything else? Fair fucking game. As for Kate Middleton... well the Royals are a special case really. They essentially are public property and they dont really have a choice about it. She was bloody stupid to go topless anywhere that could possibly be overlooked. Its not like the telephoto lens is a new invention. Nor is the paparazzi interest in the royals. I just wish she'd been blowing Wills on that balcony.
I understand that being in the public eye, you will draw more attention than usual, and if you're trying to play the Hollywood game, it's all about playing the tabloids. Matt Damon for example, seems to be able to avoid most intrusion, to the point where he could film crowd scenes for Bourne in actual crowds. As a fan of films, I like to know the backstory about filmmakers and actors, where they come from, influences, their life story, basically. But I have no interest in the bullshit dramas that go on, and the tabloids have a tendency to focus on people I'm not interested in anyway. So I'm pretty non-plussed about it for the most part; however... I think it takes a special kind of parasite to become a paparazzo. I cannot fathom the logic of entering such a soulless profession. To purely derive an income solely from leeching of another's person's fame is something I cannot reconcile with being a decent human being. I have no sympathy if a camera gets destroyed, or if some dickhead gets punched for taking a photo of someone's child. I don't really buy the "celebrities use us" as a legitimising qualification, either. If a Kardashian or a Hilton couldn't become famous without infecting themselves into the tabloids, then the world would be a better place. True story.
Have you seen where the photos would have been taken from? If you follow this link, you can see. That almost invisible blur in the background is the villa, about half a mile from the road. I think in that case you can and should expect to have your privacy respected. It's about as far removed from getting out of cabs without panties as you can be.
I almost completely disagree. Part of being a celebrity is that people are interested in you, and if you engage in certain careers you understand that some questions/comments/concerns about your personal life are part of the deal. You even also realize that there's a risk of some part of your body being exposed to the public without your consent, in the same way that somebody who does roofing realizes that there's a real risk of injury every time they go to work. That doesn't make it not fucked up. The fact that a woman acts in movies, or has a reality show, doesn't mean that her tits/ass/pussy are automatically for public consumption. It doesn't, and it never should. Saying, "they brought it on themselves" is hand-waving at best and victim-blaming at worst. The idea of famous women being "public property" (and let's be clear here, the vast majority of nip slips/leaked stuff/upskirt are women) is frankly pretty disgusting.
Totally agree. Simply taking a career path that leads to public exposure doesn't mean stalking and the relentless efforts to overcome any and all attempts at privacy is okay. "Disgusting" is really the word for it - victim blaming at its finest. I mean, we're talking about a situation where someone climbed onto an overlook and attached an enormous telephoto lens onto a high resolution camera, then cropped the results heavily just to make the image visible. This is not someone making bad decisions like wearing a short skirt and no underwear into a crowded and heavily photographed event.
Public interest in celebrities should be limited the cause of their celebrity-ness. Watch Tiger Woods play golf, go see a Beiber concert, watch Kate's interview on TV, go see Jennifer Aniston in a movie. Beyond that, the public has no right, or expectation of a right, to have any information whatsoever regarding their personal lives. Or what is under their skirt. Would I like to see Katy Perry's tits? Of course I would. I'd like to see everyone's tits. But unless Ms. Perry says "Hey World/fans/Misanthropic, here are my tits!" - I have no right whatsoever to see them.
Where I draw the line is when photographers start camping out with telescopic lenses to catch celebrities in places that are supposed to be private. Once they step into a public place, they are fair game. But if they are in their backyard or private boat or whatever and you aren't allowed within 500 yards, that doesn't mean get the fucking Hubble Telescope to catch them while they are changing. And as grainy as those photos of Kate look, that's probably exactly what they did.
Wait wait wait, are you guys saying that a woman doesn't deserve to be publicly exposed, even if she attracts attention? What next, it's not ok to rape her if she's dressed like a slut? You PC police take things too far.
Oh i agree its fucked up, and i agree people who decide to be paparazzi are absolute low life scum of the earth... but, and its a big but, they are only filling a demand. If the masses werent interested in seeing this shit it just wouldnt happen. But they are, so it does. Its going to take a fairly fundamental shift from the general public to say 'This shit is not OK'. Dont see it happening anytime soon though. Its not even a new phenomenon, its been around for fucking ages and if you become a celebrity you should be more than aware that you will likely be a target. Especially if you're female. So put on some panties, and take your privacy into your own hands. Take steps, be aware and dont let yourself become a victim. As far as im concerned its part and parcel of being a celebrity, so deal with it or dont be a celebrity (there is that choice after all). No one is holding a gun to their heads and forcing them to be world famous multi-millionaires.
On a completely unrelated note, I think women should have interchangeable tits. They could come in like a kit or something. There could be categories like: Katy Perry, Marilyn Monroe, Jane Mansfield, etc. Someone should do something about that.
I don't have much more to add but I think this clip from the show "Extras" is pretty appropriate for the thread.
Now I'm not a [snaps suspenders] big-city lawyer, but isn't this behavior covered by restraining orders? I mean if I were walking down a street and some asshole was following me, snapping pictures and asking me who I was wearing, he'd be getting served papers pretty damn promptly, preferably while still in the hospital to get his Nikon extracted from his rectum. I know they're in a public place, freedom of the press, or whatever, but if I can't put a Dollar Tree "Thinking Of You" card and a K-Ci & JoJo mix CD on the windshield of my ex-girlfriend's car while she's at work I don't see why some Italian douchebag gets to take photos of Susan Sarandon wearing yoga pants every time she's picking up a latte.
Some Dutch magazine published pictures of her majesty's fur burger. That's crossing the line. The only solace for the poor girl is that there are less blurry photos of Bigfoot circulating. If you're on private property, it's hands off. You got a show. Great. Now fuck off. There is no similarity between a husband and wife doing what all Europeans seem to do (get naked outdoors because it's a day ending in -y) and what human trash not wearing underwear in L.A. do when getting out of a car. You don't have the right to snap whatever you can just because you can see the couple from the road. Especially after what they did to Dianna, you'd figure they'd back off this kid. Scumbags. It should be legal to harpoon paparazzi in the heart. They act too much like bullies. I don't like bullies. Especially ones thinking they are exceptional, hiding behind a wafer thin veneer of the press.