Pa-pa, paparazzi~

Paparazzi are really invade people's privacy. What gives them the right to pretty much stalk celebrities when they themselves are people well? You can't blame celebrities for snapping when they want to live their lives how they want without having to share it with the entire world. Celebrities should somewhat expect it though, but to the extent that paparazzi are following these people to their homes is pretty scary and should not be tolerated in any way possible.

 

I don't really have a huge opinion on this, but some of the stuff she said to him was really uncalled for. I don't recall him ever cussing at her, or insulting her. Yet acted like that. I wouldn't enjoy being followed either but she clearly isn't able to conduct herself in a professional manner whatsoever...

 

You do have to consider, though, that she's hounded everywhere she goes, and she can't do anything without being viciously stalked by paparazzi. I can understand her reaction. If people were following me around, trying to film or take pictures of everything I do, I wouldn't be acting so professional either.

 

I don't think he did anything really that bad though. He followed her around a lot which is weird and annoying, I understand that but it was a bit far to, if I recall correctly tell him to get "Ebola and die" which is pretty weird for a celebrity to say. They have a lot of people who look up to them.

 

I've always thought that the paparazzi is horrible. It's basically a legalized form of stalking. I would hate to be famous if it meant that I would be constantly followed by those people.

 

This argument goes two ways, the way I see it. Standing is defined by point of view, in this case, as such in many others.

Well, first let's look at the paparazzi. They see themselves as the driver of public media, and are trying to collect information for the people who want to see it. However, to the celebrity, it's an invasion of privacy. But privacy is not a right specifically granted by the U.S. Constitution. There is the right to privacy within your own home, but not in a space such as a supermarket. (Local and state government laws may apply, but let's not get too complicated here)

Now, for the celebrity. Yes, it definitely is annoying to have people trailing you wherever you go. But that doesn't give you the right to openly attack them. I think snapping and telling them off is fine, but not to the extent that was done in this video.

Then again, there have been celebrities who disguise themselves when they go out in public, and it's been working. Just saying.

Anyway, every case requires special consideration and analyzation. Sometimes it is the paparazzi who are wrong, such as when they break into a celebrities home, and other times, the celebrity is the one at fault. Assault is never justified.

I guess I'm a bit of a fence-sitter in this debate. But really, there's no winning side here; your standing depends on the way you view the situation, which can be influenced by both your world view and the people around you, religion, family, social standing, etc.

 

Of course it's extremely annoying to be followed by people who want to take pictures of you all the time, wherever you go. I personally don't like picture being taken of me in general, so I can really understand that the paparazzi gets really frustrating after a while. You really just lose all of your private space, which is very unpleasant...

But from the other side, you can't blame the guy taking pictures either. That guy probably isn't interested in those pictures at all, he doesn't care. But apparently, many other people do want to watch her buy eggs, and other random things like that. He's not the one at fault, the people are. Seriously, why would you want to see a picture of a singer buying eggs? Shouldn't you prefer to see her, I don't know, singing?

The reaction of the paparazzi guy gives a clear example of what I'm trying to say. He doesn't want to follow her either, but no following means no pictures, and no pictures means no money. He isn't a stalker, he's just doing his job, like anyone else. The only difference is that his job isn't appreciated all that much. But if we wouldn't want to see those random pictures, that guy wouldn't have to follow her either, and he would have a different job now.

I can completely understand the singer's reaction to this situation, but she did make one mistake. By causing such a big scene, she only gained more popularity, causing more paparazzi to go after her. As difficult as it is, it's better to just try to ignore their existence at all...

 

I know I would feel really uncomfortable if I had people following me all over the place. Even though they're famous they shouldn't have to put up with this invasion of privacy no one should. I don't however think that they should necessarily freak put about it though, but I'm not quite sure what a good alternative would be.

 

I'm on her side, just because they like the attention on stage doesn't mean they wanna have a camera recording everything they do. What makes it worse is that most of the time the paparazzi people try to provoke the celebrity or something else along those lines and then make a big deal out of it when the celebrity reacts angrily.