Would our Founding Fathers have "conditioned" Free Speech had they been aware there would be a PAPARAZZI?

Question

When you consider photography had not been invented yet, I kind of wonder what those who drafted the Bill of Rights would have had to say if they realised that the 1st Ammendment would make the kind of antics the Paparazzi likes to pull permissible. I'd be inclined to think they would have worded it differently!
What do you think??...and does anything need ammending here?

I can't believe that NO ONE has an opinion on this!

BTW---I firmly believe that Princess Diana would still be alive today had it not been for the Paparazzi....one of them should have been charged with involuntary manslaughter at the very least.

ps to Mike---actually, it was the way I just saw them ganging up on Brad Pitt while he's in the middle of trying to deal with his wife's mother's recent death.

Answer 1

I also believe Princess Diana would be alive today if not for the paparazzi and I don't think by being a public figure it entitles people to shove cameras in their face,terrorize their children and sit with telescopic lenses miles away to get that perfect shot.Everybody in this world is entitled to privacy and I think its about time the laws change,maybe they could copyright their own images so that paparazzi cant make money from them and all proceeds go to charity.Some people do put themselves in the public eye but that doesn't make them fair game remember how they made Jacqueline Kennedy's life hell and she was not a movie star nor was Diana.

Answer 2

I doubt that the Founding Fathers would have "conditioned" Free Speech if any of the sleazy, sensationalism were around back in their day. I think that the Internet, blogs and gossip sites hiding under the guise of "free speech" are a bane to our society.

No one is held accountable for what they say anymore and more and more "real" news outlets are reporting gossip as fact because no one checks facts any longer and more and more AP news stories are just being passed around. When Newsweek and CBS News start citing gawker.com as a news source it is time that things need to change and the paparazzi fit right into this too, especially with the prolific use of photoshop.

Answer 3

Why, so you can "protect" publicity-hungry stars? These people who claim they are "harrassed" by paparazzi are full of it; how come there are so many stars who are never in the tabloids? How often do you see Glenn Close showing her nude private area? Zero. Meanwhile, it "accidentally" happens to Britney Spears about four times in a month.
Celebrities need paparazzi, or nobody would pay much attention to celebrities. The ones who want to live in privacy can and do; like Julia Roberts moving to Santa Fe, NM. Nobody bothers her there.

Answer 4

The whole point of free speech is to allow ideas and such to be spread around. Paparazzi, though annoying as they may be, have the same desire for the dispersion of ideas and pictures. Unfair as it may seem to the many stars who are seemingly attacked by such photographers, the question really should be why they keep putting themselves out there! If they really did not want to be photographed or bothered, stay inside. With privilege comes responsibility, and they need to suck it up and deal.

Answer 5

i do no longer think you're being honest. i've got chanced on liberals to be people who frequently motel to censorship tries while their fallacies are puzzled, like this censorship attempt I won in an digital mail this morning from a liberal who spoke back this "question" and calls himself Bush Lied tens of millions Died: "Message: you're a valueless piece of ****. fortunately for actual people like myself you valueless products of **** haven't any potential what so ever. once you progression out of your mom and dad residing house and get a actual activity you would be attentive to how issues artwork in the actual international. Now wipe the spuge off your face and close the **** up!" As you may needless to say see, this liberal hates freedom of speech, as do each and all the liberals i've got seen shouting down conservatives at infinite college campuses. Your inference that Conservatives are predominantly people who hate freedom of speech is laughable. and that i only observed which you do no longer enable people to deliver you emails. this is being only somewhat a hypocrite...