people using this right. The press have spent their career trying to get their audiences the inside story of celebrities’ public and private lives. Celebrities should be able to keep their private lives safe and out of the press.
Being in the spotlight itself can have a negative effect on celebrities. Celebrities have had negative psychological effects due to being in the spotlight of the media, paparazzi, and their fans.According to Dr. Christina Villarreal, celebrities suffer no privacy, lost sense of self, loss of challenges, imposter syndrome – the feeling of being an imposter because one does not feel they deserve their success – and the quest for media spotlight immortality.Celebrities end up in a negative state of mind about themselves or have no privacy outside of their homes or have the fear of fading away in the eye of the media.Jennifer Lawrence was quoted, “I knew the paparazzi were going to be a reality in my life. . . . But I didn’t know that I would feel anxiety every time I open my front door, or that being chased by 10 men you don’t know, or being surrounded, feels invasive and makes me feel scared and gets my adrenaline going every day.” (“Should Celebrities Have Privacy? A Response to Jennifer Lawrence”)Anxiety is distress or uneasiness of mind caused by fear of danger or misfortune, which Lawrence was quoted having just from opening her front door.
Jennifer Lawrence suffers from anxiety from lack of privacy outside of her home. Lawrence isn’t the only celebrity, and isn’t the only one who suffers from lack of privacy just because their . No human should suffer from their job.
There are laws about taking pictures about normal everyday people.In some states you can not take pictures or personal information of people without their permission, which does not seem to have any effect on the paparazzi.”Missouri recognizes three separate types of violations of the right of privacy pertinent to photography: intrusion upon seclusion, public disclosure of private facts, and misappropriation of a person’s identity.” (“Legal Issues In Photographing People”) Missouri is one of the states that have regulations on photographing and the private information of the ordinary person. According to “Legal Issues in Photographing People,” In the state of Missouri, photographer will be liable in a civil action if he or she takes a photograph of a person and in doing so violates that person’s right of privacy, takes and uses a photograph of a well-known person, or be held responsible for trespass if he or she onto the property of another without permission to take a photograph of a person – even if the photographer could have taken the same photograph from public property. There are specific regulations that any photographer needs to follow when taking pictures of people. Celebrities deserve to be treated like any other person on the street, though for celebrity photographs it seems the paparazzi and press have put regulations aside.
Celebrities’ private lives might peek interest in the press, media, and the public eye, but that doesn’t given anyone the right to intrude to get the pictures and stories of celebrities’ private lives. There is still the debate of rather or not the first amendment protects press and paparazzi showing and telling the private lives of celebrities. The right to press and the right to speech are both given to us American citizens, though never says the photography is part nor a need of either one of those.”Newspapers and books are speech, yet they are sold too. What if one wanted to sell a non-consensual photo taken of a Congressperson caught red-handed in a crime? We would likely not want to restrict that. Maybe we can limit the law to non-consensual photos that are not of legitimate public concern” (“Should Celebrities Have Privacy? A Response to Jennifer Lawrence”). Professor Solove mentions that the limit of non-consensual photographs, when not legitimately a concern to the public eye, could be limited. In all reality non-consensual pictures with no true public concern should be limited. “Former Friends star, Jennifer Aniston, found herself unknowingly baring it all back in 1999 when she was sunbathing topless in her own backyard. An overzealous photographer decided to scale her neighbor’s fence and take pictures of Aniston using a high-powered lens. He then sold the photos and they were eventually published in several magazines” (“10 Times When the Paparazzi Truly Crossed the Line”).
Jennifer Aniston’s privacy was intruded on by the paparazzi, the fact she was in her backyard was no true public concern. The first amendment gives American citizens the right of speech and press, but if it is of no legitimate concern to the public photographs and stories taken without consent should not be okay.
Celebrities shouldn’t have to worry about the press or the paparazzi in their private lives.
There have been a multitude of times where the press and the paparazzi have gone too far to get the story and/or picture of a lifetime.According to Camille Moore these are a few cases where paparazzi truly crossed the line. Chris Brown And Tori Spelling: While in two separate places and separate situations, the two celebrities were both victims of being in a car chase with the paparazzi and ending each with the respective celebrity crashing into a wall in an attempt to get away. Arnold Schwarzenegger: Schwarzenegger and his wife were boxed in the car they were driving by the paparazzi and were trapped for hours while the paparazzi took as many pictures as they could. Justin Bieber: In 2014, a photographer was killed after being struck by car while chasing a car he thought to belong to Bieber. Nicole Kidman: Kidman was hit by a paparazzo on his bike going 20 MPH when he could not stop fast enough after following Kidman’s car. Lindsay Lohan: While trying to get a photograph of Lohan, a paparazzo sped through traffic and purposely crashed his car into hers. While not all paparazzi and photographers are this desperate to get their pictures, it does show that many have stepped the line and,in some cases, got themselves and/or others harmed. “The story of Princess Diana’s fatal run in with the paparazzi is perhaps the most tragic of them all. In 1997, Princess Diana and her friend, Dodi Fayed, were followed by a group of photographers. Although her driver attempted to lose the group, he lost control of the car and crashed in the tunnel. The crash resulted in the death of Princess Diana, Dodi Fayed, and the driver.” (“10 Times When the Paparazzi Truly Crossed the Line”) The story of Princess Diana’s death, and the fact that the paparazzi just stood and took pictures, is the ultimate proof that around the world celebrities’ private are put in harm’s way, causing worry about their lives away from the public. Many celebrities have been in harming or, in some unfortunate cases, fatal outcomes with press. The private life of anyone should be one that is safe.
The spotlight life of a celebrity can have negative effects on any and each celebrity. There are laws about taking pictures about normal everyday people, which should be followed for celebrities too. Celebrities’ private lives might peek interest in the press, media, and the public eye, but that doesn’t given anyone the right to intrude to get the pictures and stories of celebrities’ private lives. Celebrities shouldn’t have to worry about the press or the paparazzi in their private life. In conclusion, Celebrities should be able to have a private life that stays safe and private.
Gerdelman, Bernald W. “Legal Issues in Photographing People |.” St. Louis Divorce Attorney. Paule, Camazine & Blumenthal, P.C., 09 May 2016. Web. 06 Feb. 2017.
Moore, Camille. “10 Times When the Paparazzi Truly Crossed the Line.” Celebrity Toob. Celebrity Toob, 28 July 2015. Web. 09 Feb. 2017.
Solove, Daniel J. “Should Celebrities Have Privacy? A Response to Jennifer Lawrence.” TeachPrivacy. TeachPrivacy, 04 Aug. 2015. Web. 06 Feb. 2017.
Villarreal, Christina. “The Psychological Impact of Being in the Spotlight the Emotional Struggle of Celebrities.” Dr. Christina Villarreal. Dr. Christina Villarreal, 26 Mar. 2010. Web. 02 Feb. 2017.