Sorry, but I’m not hip to whatever the hell RationalWiki is. But I was pretty clearly accusing they of either stupidity or at least contributing to make a bad situation worse. In the sentence immediately preceding the questions you seem to take issue with, I said:
I made a statement and posed questions to elaborate. No nefarious ploy requiring some affected descriptor.
And in a prior post I said:
I made my sympathies quite clear. I did not need to “Just Ask Questions” to imply something I had expressed quite plainly.
That’s what I think everytime a trump story comes up. Not only do we know well enough what he looks likes, it’s appetite spoiling as well. The trump diet plan! A scam he didn’t think of.
Ok. So, for a moment, let’s ignore things like expectations of privacy or legal rights (or lack thereof) of photographers and their unwilling subjects and look at where that line should be drawn as opposed to how far it can be pushed.
And to even out the playing field, let’s assume celebrity status isn’t allowed to play into it. In other words, pretend it’s about you or me.
Should a photographer be allowed to take your picture while you’re walking down the street?
Should they be able to get pictures of you in a moving vehicle?
Can they do these things while actively following you in order to make sure they can keep taking pictures of you?
Should they be able to sit in their car, parked in front of the private residence or business you’re in, so they can take more pictures of you as soon as you exit?
What if it’s not a photographer, it’s 10 photographers?
What if they’re selling the pictures?
I have a difficult time believing most people would be okay with getting treated like this. I think most people would snap after a while.
In fact, go back to the neighbor thing from earlier in the thread. How would you feel if one of your neighbors followed you every time you drove anywhere. They’re not actually doing anything wrong (in an ‘i’m not touching you’ way), but even the most reasonable person is likely to make increasingly drastic attempts to get them to stop.
Having said that, I don’t think it would be a terrible idea to explore options that puts limits on your ability to exploit my lack of any expectation of privacy simply because I’m on public property. Where those limits are, I’m not sure, but I think it needs to be before photographers have a chance to get aggressive or harassing or before they’re making the situation dangerous.
Now, wherever you mentally settled on all of that, should celebrities also be allowed to enjoy that same level of protection?
My point is that I’m allowed to touch him. If you don’t dispute that, then you’re just whining. And if you do dispute it, I’d like to hear your argument.
People may be allowed to now. I think they shouldn’t. I don’t think anyone should be recognizably photographed without obtaining their specific, explicit permission (verbal is fine).
OK, so you’re whining about perfectly legal activities. I would ask you about the consequences of putting strictures such as you advocate in place, but I don’t think this thread is the place for that discussion.
I can see carving out an exception for trials, arrests etc.
But yes, photojournalism as currently practiced can go hang for all I care. Both Old Glory and Terror should only have been published after a signed waiver was obtained. It’s how we treat professional models, and also how my hobbies handle photographing people at large events.
For things that are newsworthy, I vehemently disagree.
Are the Sussexes the second, and not the first? I would agree with the argument that they are not. However, I see no way to separate the public’s interests in them in a way that could be effectively litigated.
This is IMHO. While both “screed” and “whining” refer to posts, they are intended to insult the poster, as well. Please keep the tone a mite friendlier.
Paparazzi in general are not the problem. If you are a public figure, you’ve got to accept the public gawking at you. It goes with the territory.
What is a problem is the shear rabidness and disregard for any personal space (which everyone is entitled to), that the paparazzi has evolved into in order to feed the ubiquitous trash tabloids. They go too far, and dig too deep to get the scoop.
Paparazzi have been around a long time, but in days gone by, they weren’t nearly as hyper-intrusive as they are now. For example, John Kennedy’s affairs, Franklin’s and Eleanor’s paramours, and Warren Harding’s mistress and secret daughter, were mostly hands off by the press. They weren’t considered newsworthy.
Well, paps wouldn’t exist if the public weren’t obsessed w/ celebs, no? And how is it that some major celebs seem to avoid this sort of kerfuffle?
I readily admit that it would be unpleasant to have photogs hounding you, but isn’t one way to avoid the worst of it to simply not do things that will set them off? I’m not sure photos of fully clad celebs just going about their business are in huge demand. And - yeah - it would be a bit of a drag that you couldn’t do your grocery shopping, hang out in the local park, or stop off at McD’s without someone taking a picture. But if you were rich and famous, you could have other people take care of your fast food runs and grocery shopping. And the hoi polloi aren’t invited to exclusive galas, resorts, and private parties, so there is that upside.
I have not a single positive thing to say about the sort of paps who hounded H/M or who supply People, etc. But for those who favor some restriction of their activities - what specific restrictions do you propose, and how will they be implemented?
OK - guess it shows how little interest I have in such things. So, how many photographers follow an A-lister in NYC as he/she walks down the street, maybe doing some shopping? Or, if they are driven, following their cars to catch a shot of them walking from a car into a store?
I obviously know little about the lives of celebs - or the media in which photos of someone walking down the street are a big draw.