Should the papperazzi be banned from following celebs when they are not working?

Question

They killed Princess Di, and I can forsee Britney and her baby getting into more serious danger with 20 cameras in her face swarming her and her vehicle every time she goes out.

I enjoy red carpet photos of celebs, but I don't need to see someone looking like crap going to get thier starbucks.

Answer 1

Banned? Absolutely. They cause dangerous situations that are way out of reasonable expectations. I realilze that they have no expectation of privacy as they walk around, but it becomes harrassment when a celeb gets mobbed trying to buy a gallon of milk!

Answer 2

No one has the right to inpede a public walkway. If these morons block a public right-of-way, they should be cited. Multiple citations should result in mandatory convictions. This crap is just getting too out of hand because everyone with a camera wants to make a buck! The Media isn't helping. They seem to be funding it! Since the Public won't boycott (it probably would have little effect), the local government agencies need to start prosecuting these sidewalk terrorists! I am a Native Californian & I can tell you that it is a real problem when you just want to use public transportation & find yourself sitting next to a person who jumps over you to get a shot of someone who they "think" is a movie star, or just looks like one. It endangers everyone.

Answer 3

The first thing to consider is freedom of the press. That is where it is going to end for any judge. On the other hands there are laws against harrassment, and I have often wondered why celebs don't apply for restraining orders against the worst offenders. It may sound like an awful lot of trouble since you'd be doing this every day at first; but it really is no trouble at all since celebs usually can afford to hire others (lawyers) to do this for them. Steve Martin used to talk about a small atom bomb he kept up his nose. Maybe the threat of that would work.

Answer 4

If people (the public) stopped buying the mags and rags that publish the photos there would not be a problem.

The paparazzi are only satisfying the public appetite for their trash

Answer 5

Yes. The celebs have a life too! Papperazzi are so rude. Their only excuses are, people have a right to know and "I'm only doing my job.

Answer 6

you do not seem as if any of them yet what do you care? you probable seem better like your grandmother or your mom at the same time as they were youthful and they're going to be there for you once you want them, no longer some celebrities who couldn't care a lot less about you. boost up and get over the acceptance stuff.

Answer 7

yes
and do not buy that freedom of speech issue
as getting hard to get shot are not freedom of speech as the constutional framers saw it intent wise, they wanted freedom of speech so that we as citezen could be critical of government without reprisal unlike other countries around the where the press is controlled by the governments. the stalkarazzi are not journalists and thus should not enjoy 1st ammendment rights

Answer 8

they are pathetic human beings but i'm afraid that would be interferring with their rights...although if they're crowding around somebody to the point where they impede their movement then they are interferring with that persons rights too. and...they need to stay off of private property too. otherwise i think the best thing to do is to boycott the publications which use the material they collect if possible.

Answer 9

In my opinion yes i think it is an invasion of privisy. They have a right to live their life,without someone peeking at their every move. After all they are only human too.i

Answer 10

i think the press should only follow celebs on certian days of the week.

mon celebs with last name a-e
tues f-j
wed k-o
thurs p-t
fri u-z

everyone should get the weekends off and holidays too, this way celebs get to do their personal errands, and the press get their pix.