we see it all the time the relentless persuit of stars and celebrities.
If I had someone in my face all the time i think i would snap.
2007-02-26 01:54:44 · 14 answers · asked by letsget_dangerous 4 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Magazines
Yes i do
2007-02-26 01:57:25 · answer #1 · answered by Dr Universe 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If people stop buying the paparazzi magazines where these photos are published, they will soon be out of a job... People are the responsible ones for these bozos going on their relentless ways to get magazine cover copy photos at ANYBODY's risk, even their own safety is put in jeopardy...
Yes, I think there should be a limit to invasion of privacy of celebrities. They are people after all that want to have a private life.
2007-02-26 02:00:04 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
That's not the price of fame. The price of fame is sign an autograph at the gas station or shaking hands not being stalked by jerks with cameras. If that's the case then celebrities have no rights when you stake out someones house or fly to were someones having a vacation you should be breaking the law. Let alone block people in there car while a million idiots blind you with flash bulbs is just wrong.
2007-02-26 02:18:09 · answer #3 · answered by redjake 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
All people should should have a right to privacy. , and even if you are a celebrity, you still deserve respect.
Some places ( Mueseums, Amuesment Parks) claim they have devices that set off strobe lights to prevent pictures from being taken. I think something like that should be mounted in celereties cars to foil the flashes of Papparazzi. Maybe a strobe for lapels that would ruin shots, necklace lasers or something.
These people need to be left alone.
2007-02-26 09:03:52 · answer #4 · answered by bumppo 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely. Anna Nicole Smith and Britney Spears are prime examples of what the media hounds can do to a person's psyche. The stalkerazzi think that celebrities are fair game and can be photographed whenever because they're famous, but come on. Courts need to take a celebrity's mental health into their decisions of allowing the stalkerazzi to continue terrorizing these people. We would have a lot less tragedy in the celebrity world if the courts would draw the line between the media doing their job of reporting the news and stalking celebrities.
Yes, they're celebrities, but they're also human.
2007-02-26 05:44:40 · answer #5 · answered by Carrie's Protege 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I have not have been given any project with what human beings do of their very own united states of america; my in hassle-free terms project is while they attempt to establish alien platforms in this united states of america. Our government sells hands to Saudi Arabia, and the Saudis have rather a great variety of oil, so i do no longer think of we will have too a lot to declare approximately human rights themes in Saudi.
2016-09-29 22:35:04 · answer #6 · answered by lichtenberger 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually it is the price you pay for being famous.
If the paparazzi were restricted, The stars would be the first to raise hell!
They thrive on their egos.
2007-02-26 01:59:50 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
yes they give everyone a hard time and i think that nobody has the right to someones private life, even though i am addicted to People and 17 mag! lol
2007-02-26 12:28:31 · answer #8 · answered by Stasia 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes,because everyone has a right to go out in public without being harassed.
2007-02-26 01:59:43 · answer #9 · answered by Melissa C 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Who cares. The moment celebs stopped being noticed and fussed over by the 'razzi , they will call their agents, whine and complain to them that they need more press coverage and that nobody loves them anymore.
2007-02-26 08:10:14 · answer #10 · answered by murkglider 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, I think celebs these days need more privacy so they can live normal lives
2007-02-26 10:29:27 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋