40 posts in and one person gets it.
[hijack]
#1. You’re a liar. I never said that, nor did I ever imply what you are claiming I did. In fact, throughout, I made it clear that I wouldn’t mind at all if people took steps already in place in the SDMB software to make me stop annoying them.
#2. The whole ridiculous dust-up over my desire to go to the quarry and throw stuff down there did not take place “years” ago.
#3. You’re both idiots who contribute nothing substantial to the board or the SD community.
#4. If you really want to make this thread about me, remember that it was you who did it, not me.
[/hijack]
Terrific post. I agree completely.
Whiny celebrities, paparazzi, and the group of fucking brain dead fucksticks who are actually fascinated by the lives of celebrities.
The paparazzi are scum. Their whole job is to try to fucking catch people in situations they don’t want to be caught in, using all sorts of underhanded tricks and harassment. Without a doubt, they should all be rounded up and executed.
However, they’re just serving a market. For some fucking reason, there are people who spend their lives trying to find out fascinating shit like whether washed up singers eat Cheerios or cocoa puffs in the morning. Our culture dedicated so much retarded effort to the most uninteresting shit in the world - celebrity worship. Okay, so you like their singing or acting or whatever? Great. Why the fuck would you give a shit about what their kid looks like or what fucking color their bath robes are or any of a thousand even more mundane things. So the people who fuel this celebrity gossip culture should also be rounded up and executed.
So of the three groups, celebrities who want some fucking privacy end up coming a distant third in the “people who should be executed” sweepstakes. Liking to create music and share that with people or act in movies means you deserve to have some dude with a camera lurking around every bush, harassing you so that you have to push your way through the fucking airport like prison crowd control?
Celebrity culture worshippers are the biggest idiots on the planet, and their militant arm of harassment the fucking paparazzi are total scumbags.
What are you confused about, exactly?
Whether you think that celebrities who object to media invasions of their privacy are
(a) making a legitimate point, as your agreement with bump’s post seems to suggest, or
(b) just being whiny assholes, as your original OP seems to claim.
I agree with this as well. There is no reason that famous people should have to put up with intrusions into their private lives.
You are asking questions that don’t make sense because you are assuming things and ignoring details. Let me try and condense this all into three sentences:
I think that celebs should have exactly the same amount of and right to privacy that you and I do when out in public.
They are seeking to pass into law a measure that would afford them more privacy than you and I have when out in public.
Fuck that.
Bolding mine.
It’s all about the balance.
Sorry to upset you so much – yes, of course I was paraphrasing, so I guess I was technically “lying” (wait, are you saying you wanted people to report your posts and try to get you banned?) – I just remember a number of people telling you it was annoying, and asking you to stop. And I remember you refusing (you seemed to enjoy the attention) and I thought I’d seen you drop that phrase into multiple threads since then. If I got that wrong, I apologize.
But, the constructive criticism we were trying to give was that if you jump into dozens of threads with an inane catchphrase, don’t be surprised when people have trouble forgetting that so they can take you seriously.
It’s not just you. A lot of us are having that same problem with Starvin’ Artist. When he rushed to defend a guilty person recently, people in the new thread coluldn’t help but remember his defense of Paterno and Sandusky. Yeah, I cringed when they mentioned paper towel tubes, but he sort of asked for it…
Those of you excusing the paparazzi, have you ever seen this stuff in person? I’m not a celebrity at all but I have seen a few incidents at LAX that have made me feel pretty bad for celebs.
One time, I was waiting for the shuttle to where I parked to pick me up, so outside of where you get your luggage. There were a few random photographers sitting out there-- something I’ve seen plenty of times at LAX before. One of them looked down at his phone, shouted to the others, “GARNER. AND SHE’S GOT THE BABY!” Within 30 seconds, a sea of photographs screeched in from all over the airport, violently jostling to get the best shot (despite no visible celebrities). In this hullabaloo, one photographer knocked into a little girl (probably 5 or so) pretty hard, and another slammed into this old lady, making her drop her suit case. Another passenger said to the guy who bumped the old lady, “Sir, you need to be more car–” but he was cut off by the photographer who said, “Shut the fuck up. We’re trying to get pictures here!”
I don’t know what happened next, as my shuttle arrived. But while driving to the parking place, I was chatting with the driver and he said that what I described happens every day-- and when the celebs get in their cars, they they get chased by the paps. He said it’s not uncommon for the paps to slam into cars and stuff while trying to get pictures.
That’s a scary situation, regardless of how prepared for it you are. Then, of course, there’s even more annoying, but less scary stuff, like this video Miley Cyrus took while she was trying to walk her dog a few weeks ago. Plus, let’s not forget: when someone like Steven Tyler is on the beach, he’s probably not the only one. How would you feel if you paid for a lovely Hawaiian vacation at a resort and every time you went out to the beach, you had to seethis?
Still . Where are you getting the “when out in public” condition for this measure?
According to the first linked article in your OP, this measure is designed to protect the privacy of celebrities when they’re not out in public:
Emphasis added. Now, I agree that if the intent of the proposed measure is to protect privacy, then it would be better to explicitly specify in the wording of the measure that it does not apply to photos taken of celebrities in public spaces as well, which at present is apparently not the case:
But the sponsor of the bill seems to be pretty definite that such public places indeed are meant to be exempt:
So it sounds like your actual complaint boils down to “this proposed protection-of-privacy measure needs to be more clearly worded to protect freedom of the press related to activities conducted in public places”. Not really much of a Pit issue.
The linked article has been updated and re-written at least twice since I posted the OP; perhaps that’s why we seem to have a different impression of things.
But, if you look at the quoted text (in the OP) from the form letter that celebs sent to the Hawaiian legislature, you’ll note that part of the celebs’ argument in favor of the proposed bill is to “ensure the safety of the general public, which can be threatened by crowds of cameramen or dangerous high-speed car chases.”
That’s where I get the idea that the celebs are seeking to have a greater degree of privacy than you and I when out in public: from their own words.
On reading the new article that is posted, I note that the phrase “or anyone else” has now been appended or inserted to every sentence that previously only said “to protect celebrities from intrusive paparazzi”. This is, IMO, a public relations dodge. No paparazzi is interested in taking a picture of Joe or Betty Normalperson; it’s like trying to pass a law that makes it specifically illegal to steal a billion dollars from a billionaire or anyone else.
Me personally? I’d buy myself a beach and only invite the folks I want on it. Hell, I don’t like mingling with the crowds in public places now. Give me a shit-ton of money and I will become a recluse so fast its not even funny. 
See, I don’t think anyone can really understand until you’re there. And, even if it was possible to completely prepare somehow, there’s no way it’s right to do that to innocent children, bystanders or any property that might get in the way. I just can’t imagine. It would be one of the most horrible things ever not to be able to go to the hospital unmolested to see a sick (or dying) love ld one, watch your kid’s first recital, deal with a breakup over dinner or buy tampons. Again, just craziness.
But the circumstances are different and therefore require different actions.
If I go to the local convenience store, I’m not followed by hordes of photographers. If Clint Eastwood goes to his local convenience store, he is. So, IMHO, the laws should afford him more protection than me as it relates to that circumstance because I’m not harassed to the point that he would be.
I’m not advocating anything specific with regards to public places, but surely one can see the difference between me and Clint Eastwood.
Nope, sorry. “Celebrity” isn’t a special class of humans deserving of special protection under the law IMO. And trying to couch their arguments for special treatment as being something for the public’s safety just makes those particular celebs seem to be huge jackasses.
Is “President”?
Make your argument.
Then tell me how convincing my rebuttal of “Nope. Just ain’t so, bro” is.
For me, one big issue is that there are a lot of people who are of interest to the media who did not ask to be famous and who are not rich. Victims of notorious crimes (eg, Elizabeth Smart) or people who happen to be in the middle of things (eg, Princess Diana’s bodyguard), for example. Or relatives of serial killers. Maybe they are yesterday’s news quickly, and certainly many of them eventually court fame. But they didn’t ask to have the media camped out outside their house when things first happened.
And there are famous actors who are not rich. I would guess the actors in Downton Abbey are not raking it in hand over fist. I don’t know if any of them could afford to go out and rent a private beach.
I have no sympathy for people like the Kardashians who actively court fame (or infamy), but that’s not everyone who gets affected by the tabloids.