Paparazzi: Where Should The Privacy Line Be Drawn?

As you can see by the pattern of my publications here on SHC, I go through waves of thought and sometimes can be overcome with all the stuff floating around in my head. How do I overcome this? I write and tell you about it. I do this for a couple of reasons: Firstly, it is a great way of venting frustration or simply saying what I want and it is a great comfort to know that there are some of you who care to listen and even more encouraging when some of you feel the same way; and Secondly, because when I make my posts, it isn't long before I am swamped with opinions either agreeing or disagreeing with what I am saying and even sometimes there is a voice that provides a whole new perspective. Anyway, enough about that...

Something that has been wrecking my head, so to speak, is this whole notion of the Paparazzi and their constant ruining of the lives of celebrities. Firstly, I will not make this yet another "Look what happened to Princess Diana.." thing. Far more significant public figures have spoken out about that and I feel that they have done a great job, for the most part. But despite all of the complaints against the paparazzi, coupled with the paparazzi's reluctance to cooperate with these celebrities, there is an underlying constant that has yet to be solved. It is simply this, Where can we find a mutually beneficial harmony between both the paparazzi and celebrities?
I know what you are thinking, "The paparazzi are animals!", "They ruin lives", "They have no respect for peoples privacy". All of these are very valuable points. But before we make our case against the paparazzi, lets first look as some of the faults the celebrities make themselves...because there are some.
Let's create a hypothetical...if you are a celebrity, having trouble with your career, say...an actor? You are not landing roles of any merit, nor are you being noticed when you go out to clubs by "adoring fans"...who do you call upon to capture a moment that might land your name, EVER your picture, on TMZ or some other seedy, yet oddly popular publication? The answer: The paparazzi! For years now, hollywood/worldwide agents and managers have paid paparazzi under the table to ensure that particular people's faces are on the cover, or at least the pages, these crappy magazines...it is a step to fame...remember, there is no such this as bad press!!! In fact, the more bad press you get, the more popular you become! Take Britney...while I truly sympathise with the ordeals she has gone through, her constant featuring in various magazines under headlines as "Oops, she's done it again!", "She's driving crazy!" or my personal favorite "Clit-ney Spears caught with her pants off!" (yes, that one is a bit nasty, but it was nonetheless featured on several websites and blogs)...all of these have been the catalyst for her to relaunch her career and become once again, the princess of pop. One simply can't deny this. Kelsey Grammer, loves the paparazzi...except when he is being arrested for DUI...and embraces the spotlight because he knows that it will sell his Frasier DVD's and maybe an odd book here and there...cause let's face it, the 'respectable media' couldn't give a crap about his smug ass. Here is an example of how the paparazzi can be a tool and friend of celebs.

Ok, enough about can be good guys...on to the war against them...
I recently watched a video on Youtube, an interview with Halle Berry, on the Tavis Smiley Show. In the interview she spoke about how the paparazzi caused to have a fender-bender while, and get this, 3 MONTHS PREGNANT!!!. The Headlines the next day didn't say how it was the paparazzi's fault, but instead, published photos of her car being towed away (showing the not so bashed up side of the car) under the headline that implied that Berry was being towed away for illegally parking her vehicle. Now, I cannot verify if this was the case, but to be honest, I would take her word before the reputably dirty paparazzi. There are literally hundereds of examples of this sort of behaviour from the press.
If we examine Justin Timberlake's temprament with the paparazzi, he's pretty straight about it. He let's them know when to f**k off and has no scruples about slamming a camera out of their hand. And I think he is dead right!
Back to Britney...in all fairness, my heart genuinly goes out to her. She was going though some nasty stuff in her life, and did the paparazzi give a s**t? What do you think? I especially despise the way, they would pretend to be nice to her and, for example, LET her enter a petrol station to use the bathroom or buy some stuff and then, as soon as she left the building, would do everything short of assault her to get a pic. Just look at the pics of her (to which I will NOT provide a link to...you need to find those yourself, cause it would be disgusting to even give a gateway to see such an invasion of privacy) crying on a sidewalk, shaven head and barefoot. The videos of the ordeal, the paparazzi can be heard saying "give her space guys"...and "let her have a moment to herself"...she SAME guy holding the video camera is the person saying these things by the way...yet he is still rolling, recording her in floods of tears after she got upset. Firstly, who cares to watch this stuff? And secondly, who in their right mind would be sick enough to record it either via video or photo? I admittedly have watched some of the plethora of videos of paparazzi footage of various celebs...However, I do this not to see the celebs, but to listen in the abckground to the dogs that are the independent photographers.
But let's examine the recourse for celebs...there is none...well, they can always spend thousands of dollars to send decoys for the sheeparazzi to follow, but why should they have to? Are they not entitled to lead 'normal' lives?
George Clooney has, on several occasions, stated that there need to be restrictions places on the paparazzi. How can this be done? I don't think it can. The paparazzi will argue that it is censorship and impinging their right to freedom of speech etc. What are the alternatives for celebrities? To stay in their homes as recluse icons?
The thing is, I understand that there are fans out there that, because of the new access granted by the press to their favorite celebrities lives, feel that they know and are more involved in that person's life. It is a difficult dilemma. Difficult because celebrities surely appreciate that their fans have been given a taste for this new access and the supposed insight they gain into that celebrity's life increases popularity and sales which = more money. But there has to be a limit, at least I feel. Celebrities will never, at least in the forseeable future, escape the claws of the press. It is perhaps a disclaimer that everyone who wishes to become a celebrity should be aware of. Celebrity = abnormal life! But this is not the case for all celebrities. Just look at Matther McConaughey...he is in the press when he, sort of, wants to be. He is pretty cool about the whole thing. But I am sure that he knows that this is part of the fame game. But there are those not so capable. Those that are vulnerable. Those that can't, nor should they, deal with it. The onus is on the media. Simply, stop buying this crap from the paparazzi! Put them out of business. There is no information that can't be obtained from a sit down interview. It is respectable and builds a rapport between the press and celebrities. It also means that the stupid stuff celebrities do, is not highlighted in the press...because let's face it, we all have done some pretty dumb s**t. Why aren't our faces in the paper for it? Should they be? Maybe if every persons blooper reel of life was smeared across the papers, crime and basic stupidity levels would plummet? Maybe we would be mroe encouraged to cook at home, rather than eat out? LETS GET REAL!!! There has to be a balanced meduim. Laws. General (as we say here in Ireland) Cop-On!.
To invade someones private life does two major wrong: It makes trivial information something that is considered important; and it strips celebrities of having a 'Private Life'. Does anyone have the right to do that?

This is why I am going to start an experiment. I call out all people, regular folks and celebrities alike. To post the names and if possible photos of the paparazzi in their areas. Let's see how they like it! If they so much as pee on the side of the road waiting for "Angelina and Brad to leave their CA home" I want to know about it!. If they wait outside a McDonalds in a beat up TransAm, I want pictures of it! If they are following Britney to The Ivy, I want a video camera in their face, so I can see their reactions. We will post them and we will expose them. And I really hope they get mad! I welcome whatever they have to say, threaten us with! Let's do this and f**k them! Maybe then they will understand just how harmful their 'profession' is for the lives of others.

$

Homophobia: The New Racism? Do People Just Need to Hate Someone?

This is a post from the TalkPoliticsNow Blog. I just thought I should post it here too. The subject matter is something that's still bothering me. Take a look and send your comments. I look forward to reading them - S

Maybe I am going crazy, but lately I am getting the feeling that since Barack Obama was elected, there seems to have been a general acceptance that we are starting to win the war against racism…at least in the Western world (I can’t speak for the rest of the world, that would not be fair). However, in the wake of this seemingly ending battle, it appears the the world is being confronted with a new critically important social dilemma; the debate over gay-marriage. Since Californians voted “Yes” to repealling the laws permitting homosexuals to wed, there has been a discussion on almot all major American and some minor international outlets. Why all of a sudden have people jumped the “anti-gay bandwagon”?

I have been reluctant to give my opinion on gay marraige in the past, because I feel that people should keep their feelings about such things to themselve, for fear of impinging the feelings of others. However, now I feel that I need to throw in my two pennies…
Firstly, I am not the worlds greatest believer in marriage of any kind…for two reasons: it has become a contract; and in the unfortunate event of it ending, it turns into a asset/money-grabbing ordeal. Basically…I feel that unless you are 100% positive that it is something that you want to do, or else very stupid, you should not do it.
In a previous entry, I posted a link to Keith Olbermann’s Special Comment…and I, as I rarely do, agree with him. Marriage is a matter of love. To add my own note; love is something that is hard to destroy…even infidelity has a hard time killing love between two people. But that’s just my opinion.

Getting back to my point. This current war against the LGBTG community is thrust into the spotlight as the new debacle in the world. Between anti-gay rights activists who say “it’s not natural”, to evangelical christians who say “it isn’t what God intended”…it appears that people simply need to hate an ‘other’.
For these people who judge and ridicule the LGBTG community, I have two questions: What did they do to you? And, what real harm do you think will come from allowing members of the LGBTG community to share the same happiness as you enjoy?
I find great difficulty in understand people who believe that just because one man wants to make an official statement of his love for another man, or that two women wish to do the same with eachother, that this is a bad thing. And take god out of the picture for a moment, please. I need to be spared the “the bible says..” or “Jesus said…” because I don’t buy into that.

I don’t believe that a person doing something that makes them happy, which does not physically or emotionally harm another human, can be seen as a bad thing. Why deny people the right to be happy and why deny them the right to make an official gesture of their happiness?
Now that we seem to be overcoming, to a degree, racism (finally)…are we just designed to hate some people? Do we, the majority, have to have victims that allow us to feel good about ourselves? Do we need to overpower a group of people as a means of increasing the social status of our own? And is it part of the human condition, to make ourselves happy by making others unhappy? Is it such that we need to make up for the loss of having ethnic groups to belittle and deny equality?

Suicide: Can It Ever Be Justified? If So, How?

Today I watched a T.V. Programme...yes, I know, I reverted to the idiot box for over an hour of entertainment to cure my curiosity of what appeases the needs of the ever-dwindling population of our continuosly ailing planet. Interestingly, I stumbled upon a documentary entitled "Right to Die" on Sky RealLives. This was perhaps the most shocking diary I have ever watched in my entire, yet short, life. The topic was about assisted suicide and people rights to seek it when they feel that they need/want it. To provide some background to the show...
There were three candidates; a middle-aged man, from the United States although living in the UK, and an elderly couple, living in Canada. The middle-aged man was suffereing from Motor Neuron Disease and was gradually becoming more and more paralysed. He was refusing to allow his disease to render him, as he called it, to exist living in a tomb. The elderly couple were somewhat different. The pair, both Greek originally, sought to leave their eartly existence together. The husband was an individual who had suffered over four heart attacks, each leaving him more and more disabled. His wife however, was in perfect health. All three candidates wished to have their demise legally assisted rather than taking matters into their own hands.
The documentary was fairly self explanitory, the candidates were all seeking medical approval from a groups called Dignitas who plan and carry out the proposed assisted suicides, usually in Switzerland. And the documentary would show the world first intentionally recorded death as the final act of the film The entire ordeal, I use this word because it was personally the most difficult and sad thing I have ever seen in my life and regret doing so, was most disturbing.
Whatever about the show itself and its minor affects on me, it is something that, while I would noe encourage anyone to watch it, made me spend the rest of the evening thinking about where I stand on the issue of assisted suicide. I find myself juggling the moral code for which I have personally manifested throughout my life. This has occured because now I ask myself "Is suicide ok? And if so, when and underwhat circumstances?"
I have had friends over the years who have, due to various circumstances, taken their own lives, more often than not, fairly gruesomely. I had one friend who was a closet sufferer of manic depression who hung herself. Another friend also hung herself for reasons which will never be known. A friend, with whom I once went to college with, stopped taking his heart medication because he wished to lead a "normal life" knowing that he would eventually and quickly succumb to his disease. His death was not technically a suicide but he was well aware of the fact that neglecting to take his medication would result in his death quite quickly, he died at his computer, while having an argument with someone online, of a heart attack. More recently, an acquaintance of mine purposly drove into a river to escape the demons in his own life. The thing is, I have never sympathised with their actions, although I understand what may make them feel that they have no alternative but to take their own live. This is something that is hard to explain, I am aware of that.
Now, while I will never condone actions such as these, I feel I have my reasons. I believe that suicide is simply an easy escape that is primarily selfish and unfair...and not for the person themselves. But for their families, to be alerted by a policeman or a phonecall from a friend of such a tragedy leaves the family members with no immediate sense of understanding nor does it afford them a chance to help. For want of a better phrase, I feel suicide, in its traditional sense, is cowardly.
However, when the notion of assisted suicide, such as was documented in "Right to Die", entered my mind. This is where my own moral journey begins. If we examine the documentary, each of the candidates had informed their families of their intention to sanction their own death. Each family member had both the opportunity to reason with the prospective candidates as well as possess the chance to "say goodbye". I also find it different because each candidate had thoroughly thought it through and had clearly though that this was the optimum course of action. This still doesn't mean that I feel they are right to do what they wished to do. But as an alternative to the cowardly and unfair methods previously used by suicide 'victims', it seems reasonable to me that a person who wishes to conduct such an act, may be entitled to do so. My question is now, under what circumstances is it acceptable to allow someone to be able to make this decision?
If we again refer to the documentary, each of the candidates was subject to meetings with a psychologist. The intention of this was to evaluate the reasons for these candidates wishing to die. In the case of the man with MND, the psychologist granted him permission to seek assistance in his suicide on the basis that the man felt that being trapped in his body with no ability to communicate or act freely was a fate worse than death. For the elderly couple however, while the psychologist sympathised with the reasons of the husband, did not belive that the wifes reasons were acceptable. And while I still reserve judgement on the reasons of the two gentlemen, I would stand behind the verdict regarding the elderly woman. The strangest thing is, I find, that to have flexibility and believe in a persons right to end their own life, brings to mind considerations for other potent subjects such as abortion, drug taking and even prostitution.
If a woman carrying a child that has been concieved due either to her own health, incest, rape or simply lack of knowledge due to her age or mental capacity wishes to terminate her pregnancy, personally I feel she has the right to do so. If, on the other hand, she is pregnanant due to simply being careless, I feel she does not have the right to end her unborn childs life and should take responsibility for her and her sexual partners actions, as of course should her sexual partner.
In terms of drug taking, I believe is a person is aware of the effects, both mental and physical, of drugs. They should not be told that they cannot do it. I also believe that in this case, it is not the job of the state to care for these people if they develop problems from their actions. However if they are taken into the world of drugs either at a young age and become troubled by them due to innocence or are mentally incapable of seeing the issues that can arise from drug taking, they should be taken under the wing of the state and cared for. Also, there to prevent these things from occuring, there should be in place measures to minimise the potential of these occurences.
Prostitution is much simpler. While I believe that is should not be criminalised, there should be heavy regulations by the state to ensure that it is both a safe and proper proceeding. There should be regular health checks of prostitutes, as well as a registrar listing the names and addresses of a states working people. There should also be increased efforts to eliminate the number men and women drawn into the world of prostitution through the sex slave trade, this would also enable the state to rid the world of child prostitution. As well as this, we must remember, that while prostitution is seen as a profession resorted to as an act of financial desperation by troubled people, there are those who enjoy it and do it for both the love of money and the love of sex. In otherwords, it can be a victimless endeavor.
However with suicide, this is not such an easy dichotomy. I still consider the affects that prostitution has on the families of those who choose to die. But with that in mind, I understand that there are familial concerns with the three aforementioned topics. It makes for a very difficult debate. Where can we draw the line between what is acceptable and what is wrong? Moreover, who are we to decide the actions of another human being, especially when that human beings actions are not necessarily physically or mentally affecting the health of another persons? Finally, if we conclude that all of these actions have, at the very least, some profound mental affects on their families and friends, to what point do we reason and say to ourselves "well...that's all well and good for the families, but what about the individuals seeking to do these thing?...where do we take into account their wishes?". Where, if possible, do we balance both sets of feelings and who do we side with?
This is something that I can simple not answer. I pass the torch to you and let you give your views. Maybe you can enlighten me with your opinions because I am at a serious crossroads in my own moral journey. This is by far, the most stressing debate I have ever had with myself and it is making me uncomfortable to even begin to take a side. It would be easy to simply not take a side, but I feel that there must be an answer somewhere...or is there?