I think that if a celebrity really wanted privacy, they wouldn't have lunch at The Ivy or even live in L.A.
Actresses and singers don't have to be celebs... They're human, so if they want privacy, I think they have a right to it- like if they move to Stillwater, MN they should be left alone. But if they live in L.A. and are always out and about at the typical places where paps go, then they're obviously wanting it.
2007-08-27 18:46:39
·
answer #1
·
answered by odette82 2
·
5⤊
1⤋
I totally agree with you that celebrities chose this lifestyle and pursued this career. Celebrities are not how they used to be when Hollywood was just starting to rise for a majority of America to see and to be entertained by. However, celebrities are a fixation with everyone because it's all we see. Celebrities are people too and they can choose weather their life is in the spotlight or not. In the old days, Elizabeth Taylor and Marilyn Monroe were celebrities that enjoyed the spotlight but nowadays because its their choice, every celebrity is in the headlines while the other movie stars laid back in their houses until another movie deal came along. A celebrity can easily strike a deal with the paparrazi or pay them off so they wouldn't be bothered, but do you see them doing that - No. Until they stand up for themselves, yes, it'll continue to be the consequence of fame.
2007-08-28 03:00:24
·
answer #2
·
answered by Dimples 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes they deserves to have a right to privacy. Theyre human beings just like everyone else. Theyre not gods to be put upon a pedestal and hero worshipped. I agree with you also that their lack of privacy is also a consquence of their fame as well. Unfortunately for famous celebs lack of privacy goes along with the territory of being famous
2007-08-28 12:18:41
·
answer #3
·
answered by mystic rain 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think you mean actors and musical artists, not celebrities. Anyone can be a celebrity.
So absolutely, they have a right to privacy. Actors have a job: acting. Musical artists have a job: singing and playing songs. Its when the general population becomes obsessed with the image these actors and artists allow the public to see that the general population thinks they are entitled to know what's going on in their personal lives.
Get over it, people. Actors and artists are just doing their jobs, they don't owe you anything.
Do you think world renowned doctors "owe" their patients for making them famous? Of couse not, they're just doing their jobs, well, and thus get praise for it. How does that equate to a lack of privacy?
2007-08-27 18:48:53
·
answer #4
·
answered by ima.bubble 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
We should all have the right to privacy, except when we are being investigated by the law. BUT many of these people live off the press they get. That is their life blood. That is why people like Brittany shave their head, or Lindsey gets drunk and drives. They have the choice to do stupid things and get covered, or to be normal people and stay out of the media. If the really, deep down, wanted to be free they would be.
2007-08-28 03:58:13
·
answer #5
·
answered by christopher s 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Everyone has a right to privacy, but celebs seek recognition. So if you cut out the people who document their every move (paparazzi/Perez Hilton), not only would they have more privacy, but we'd be a lot better off as a nation without hearing about every stupid thing they do. We could use a lot less Paris, Lindsay and Britney, that's for sure!!
2007-08-28 03:59:41
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I hate the way so-called journalists will go to any length to get photos of celebrities. Also, on going through the check-outs in stores you see the most despicable pictures and headlines regarding celebrities. Can you imagine what it must be like to have lies, or facts that have been distorted beyond the bounds of decency. I never believe any of it. I have seen celebrites from time to time and I would not think of going up to them and disturb them. I feel they deserve the privacy to go out with their families and not be hounded by the yellow press or fans.
2007-08-27 18:49:03
·
answer #7
·
answered by Lean on Me 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
yes, of course they should. true they bring themselves into the limelight, but at the same time they should still have some degree of privacy. you've only got to look at what the press are doing to Lewis Hamilton at the moment. to say he is being hounded is an understatement. He is even thinking about quitting the UK for some peace and quiet.
2007-08-27 19:25:41
·
answer #8
·
answered by val f1 nutter 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Everybody has the right to privacy to a certain extent - if you're Matt Damon walking around in public and you pick a wedgie out of your *** you should expect that to be photographed by someone; if you're sitting in your living room watching a movie with your kids, you should expect that no one is looking over your shoulder.
2007-08-27 18:50:16
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
I think that they deserve privacy, just like we do, however some celebs ask for it. Paris Hilton will call paparazzi beforeshe goes out and inform them where she is going. Sometimes she gets paid $20 000 for this. Other Celebs, however have their lives invaded unasked by paparazzi and I don't believe that is fair. For the most part though, I think the celebs you hear about the most are the ones that have asked for it. Hope this helps. Bon Chance!
2007-08-27 18:46:36
·
answer #10
·
answered by Treefaerie 2
·
1⤊
2⤋