If they are famous enough that they are being hounded by photographers, they are famous enough to have enough money not to have to work. If, by some odd circumstance, they haven’t made enough money doing whatever it was that made them famous, the fact that photographers are following them around means there’s money to be made in your celebrity status.
And while I’m against classism, that doesn’t mean I think it’s ever wise to get into such an intense relationship with your employees. And you definitely should not be hiring people because they are your friends.
Finally, I’m pretty sure it’s already illegal to stalk a celebrity and take a photo of them on private property. So what does this bill do?
I don’t think you get the point. It’s not that a class deserves special protection. The law should be the same for everyone, it’s just that only some people are going to be the subject of certain behaviour and need to take advantage of the protection of that law.
I think you misunderstand my post. Of course the celeb has enough money to take time off. It’s the people that work for them that don’t
Well, as much as you hate celebs, they’re still human. When I first started my job, I didn’t give a shit about anybody who worked there (Because I didn’t know them). Now that I’ve been there for a while I have developed relationships with some of these people. And I sure as hell don’t want to see them lose their job.
The bill is SB465, the pdf copy I found is seven pages long, apparently scanned from paper, it has six blank pages after page one. Do they have difficulty with portable document format in Hawai’i?
Princhester, I agree that if the current laws are being violated, then yes, they should be applied and transgressors should be prosecuted. The fact that those laws are more likely to apply to celebs (or to women) doesn’t bother me. It’s the way that this proposed law was originally presented, as applying only to celebs, that got under my skin. And no, the new spin on the story doesn’t change my opinion of the proposal’s worth.
Wouldn’t it be nice if it passed? We’d all be spared photos of celebrity buttocks - or at least a link to such - while clicking on a link to a film review. Who would lose out on this, exactly?
There’s also a consent issue. Saying you’re fine to have photos taken of you on the red carpet is manifestly not the same as saying it’s fine for them to follow you to the hospital.
It’d be hard to prosecute. Just which of these people in the line-up were in front of you with flashes blinding you?
Serious question. What happens to the photographers in this sort of situation? If me and 20 friends decided to take pictures of a bitchin’ luggage cart at LAX and in the process knocked over children and old people, blocked traffic, and damaged cars, we’d presumably have a long talk to the cops. Especially if we did it every day. So, are shit tons of disorderly conduct tickets being passed out?
Sure. What’s the problem? You’re singling out a special time of crime for extra legislation, rather than restricting the legislation to a special type of victim. Such legislation might be claimed to be superfluous (e.g., you could argue that billion-thieving and forced emasculation are already prohibited by general laws against theft and assault, respectively), but I really don’t see how it can be called unfair.
More analogously, consider a safety regulation saying “public building doorways have to be at least seven and a half feet high, to prevent head bumping for very tall people or anyone else”. Sure, that regulation is only going to benefit very tall people (disregarding rare situations like a short person walking on stilts), but that doesn’t mean it discriminates against others.
If the only safety regulations put in place were those benefiting the very tall, then yes, that would be unfair. But there’s nothing unfair about simply acknowledging that some safety hazards affect some types of people more than others.
I think the point is that the paparazzi are going to rather absurd lengths to stay just a hair within the law, and yet get their photos or whatever. This may be technically legal, but I’m sure it’s annoying as hell to the celebrities themselves, and it’s just sketchy and wrong if you ask me.
There’s another thing few have brought up- what about their families? Especially the ones where the spouse and children are not celebrities (like say… Dolly Parton’s husband).
Do they lose the right to to have a private life just because a member of their family is famous?
Think about it this way- if you were suddenly famous for something, would you want your spouse, children, parents, friends, relatives, etc… to be subjected to this bullshit just because you happen to be there? Of course not.
Maybe so, but the fucking scum then proceeded to take pictures of her dead body, IIRC. The EMTs had to push them out of the way. The paparazzi may not have killed her – but they ARE a bunch of sick fucks, and I don’t feel one bit sorry for them.
And while celebrities themselves may have signed up for the spotlight, their families did not. It’s not just celebs themselves themselves being stalked, but their children as well. Say what you will about him and how weird he was, but I can’t say I blame Michael Jackson for wanting his kids to wear masks. Not to mention how many celebrities are much more likely to be victims of actual, stalkers – the fucked up kind.
Sick fucks are people who buy mags after they print this shit. The type of paps you mention are the instruments of those who pay them. I don’t mean to suggest they are unblameworthy, but I always feel this sort of comment needs to be put in context.
They are saying exactly that. I quoted the letter that was sent to the Hawaiian legislature in the OP. Perhaps you missed it. Here, I’ll quote it again:
And I stand by the assertion that this bill is really about creating special privacy rights for celebs, and not for the general public: