Is it sensible to protect celebrities from the paparazzi with a designated personal safety zone?

  • They're still people.

    Just because people like their work doesn't mean these celebrities are just things you can just photograph whenever you want like it's nothing. They are still people who need personal space and deserve to establish boundaries. Show some damn respect. Being "famous" doesn't make them any less human, or any kind of "superhuman" So just let them be.

  • Personal Space should be protected

    If someone was in front of my house taking photos with a zoom lens I would call the police and I have no doubt my local law enforcement would advise the person to leave or have the person removed. The public loving the music or films you make should not mean your personal space is any less protected than mine.

  • Poopy mama taylor swift

    Uy ;i8 yo8u ' owijf; oeiaf eofjeof8 eiojfoewiufoe wuiofu eou' jwiorje w'ije'pf ue'pe 9ewfu eouf [oef u09eu 0[opufoer uc[u[4[i [98u[89euf e[98 [u jiojf;oij uio ujeio jw ewiou eriou ioewu roiewru eiuowr iuoew ieuowr ieuowr eirwou ewiruo ewriou ewroiu ioewru ewirou oiewu ewiour ewroiu ewiour ioewu uioew ueoiwr ewuiro weiuoo ewiou

  • Celebrities deserve personal space

    Celebrities need to have the privacy of what normal people do, they cant do anything without the paparazzi knowing where they are and I think it is important for the paparazzi to take a back and give the celebrities their personal space, being followed around all the time can be tough and puts a lot of pressure in people nobody should have to deal with that. We all get personal space, so why shouldn't these celebrities I mean for at least 80% of people they have a celebrity idol and I don't think they would want their idol to be pressured and I just think its disgusting the way these people invade these celebrities space it's just not needed

  • Why do paparazzi do this?

    Celebs don't deserve to be mistreated by paparazzi. I don't get why paparazzi can't take pictures from far away. We have that kind of technology! Paparazzi need to have some rules for taking pictures. I'm not a celeb but I would want cameras flashing in my face every time I went out in public.

  • Celebrities have growing families.

    Too much camera flashes or the brightness can damage the eyes. These photographers should know that about growing children and how their eyes are still growing. Why should innocent children deal with such privacy taken away from them just because of their parents? Isn't everyone similar and possibly need the same things?

  • No for paparazzi

    Yes for against paparazzi Celebes's are humans they have to have their own privacy they are humans will you be happy if your friend s takes a picture of you and show it to everyone else? This is epically for paparazzi think of people let them live their own lives!

  • Famous, but no need for humiliation

    Okay, some celebs just ask for it, and so they do something very stupid like deliberately get drunk or something.
    However, despite what many seem to believe, the famous are people too. They like their privacy, and some would prefer that while continue to do what they love, they don't have to be harassed by paparazzi when ever they go out of their house.
    What is worse is when there is a tragedy that occurs, and then refuse to leave them alone. Think about it: a mike in your face when you just got finished bawling, and someone pounding on your door screaming for a comment when you just lost your loved one. Does anyone really need that?

  • Celebrities get stressed out beyond what me and you could handle

    If when i arrived at the airport and 20 people were chaseing me and flashing cameras nonstop while shouting at me, i would freak out too.. This is just tooo much to allow people to stalk someone just because they make money doing so.. If i were saying that fans posed the same problems then take a look at the tactics that paparazzi use,, THey routinely show no humanity the way they chase celebs around

  • Harassment or Freedom of the Press?

    I may not like some of the snobby celebs these days but I know that if it was me with paparazzi all up in my face I would probably hurt one of them. Like give them some space! They make these cool lenses these days use them! Its getting ridiculous.

  • Is it the paparazzo's fault?

    The amount of money paid for pictures is what sets the attitudes of the photographers. If you could gain millions of dollars by simply getting a picture of something or someone, wouldn't you do what it takes to get that picture? The number of laws that are already in place attempting to restrain photographers is outrageous. Clearly they aren't working.

    To suggest more laws would just be petty and honestly, stupid. The roll played by the paparazzi needs to be restrained indirectly by not falling into the consumer world. The consumers are the ones that cause the paparazzi to intrude on what some people think is the celebrities' right to privacy. Magazines have doubled the percent of celebrity-related articles and the percent of national affairs has dropped. This is where celebrities can be stopped, not by creating more and more laws that are just disagreed on and argued against.

    Celebrities accept the world of paparazzi when they become famous and popular. Some celebrities even hire photographers to follow them around, so why would we protect them from innocent people that are just trying to make a living?

  • They don't need one.

    Celebrities who are most at risk of attack already have certain things in place to protect themselves and so a safety zone would be a pointless practice as they already know what they're getting into. Being hounded by cameras will be a part of their job.
    I'm not condoning the invasion of privacy at all, as this is a different matter, but in terms of safety if you're a big star, you already have your security.

  • I do not think it's sensible to protect celebrities from the paparazzi with a designated personal safety zone, because they choose to live their lives in the public eye.

    I think that if celebrities wish to protect themselves from the public, while out in public, they should have do so of their own accord and expense. If I needed security for some reason, like if I was feeling unsafe when out in public, it would be my problem and my problem only to deal with. If someone breaks the law and is violating a celebrity's rights, then it's up to the police to protect that person. But, otherwise, it should be left up to the celebrities to deal with. If you don't like all the attention, you chose the wrong career.

    Posted by: VagueWiley89
  • No, because there is no way to enforce a personal safety zone for celebrities.

    Most celebrities have their own bodyguards if they feel threatened by the paparazzi. If there were to be some type of law about this, then every celebrity would have to have a bodyguard, hired by the government at ridiculous taxpayer expense, in order to create this personal safety zone for them. This simply does not make sense.

    Posted by: MariaR
  • It is not sensible to protect celebrities from the paparazzi, because celebrities make a knowledgeable choice to be where they are.

    If celebrities want to be protected from paparazzi, then they should hire someone to do this. It is unfair for taxpayers to pay for their protection, when the celebrities make a knowledgeable choice when deciding to become a celebrity. They know all that is involved when it comes to this and, in addition to this, they also have the money they need to hire someone to protect them. Our country is in too much debt to worry about protecting them and spending money on passing laws for them, and then the court cases, to enforce this.

    Posted by: eyeslikethat
  • It is not necessary to have a personal safety zone for celebrities because they should be responsible for their own safety.

    Celebrities are aware that they are putting themselves in front of the public due to their career choice. If they don't want to be in front of the media, they can avoid crowded and busy places. If they are concerned about their safety of privacy they can have a bodyguard or protector. I think they should be able to take care of their own safety and should not be shielded from the public.

    Posted by: EImerN4th
  • A safety zone would not stop the paparazzi from harassing celebrities or taking pictures.

    Even if there were a law that stated that photographers had to keep a certain distance from celebrities, they would still take photographs with telephoto lenses. There are often pictures in tabloids of celebrities on the beach or on a boat and you can tell that the photos were taken from a long distance. Celebrities really can't even be safe from paparazzi on their own private property unless they're indoors with the drapes closed. It must be hard to live like that, but I don't think there's anything that can be done about it as long as people are obsessed with celebrities.

    Posted by: N Schroeder 60
  • Celebrities do not deserve any protections beyond what is given to the average citizen.

    Celebrities are public people by the nature of the professions they've chosen. It is not the responsibility of the public to provide them with special consideration or use public funds to protect them. A benefit of being a high profile individual is that they are often wealthy as well. Let them use their personal wealth to hire security to provide them with protection and privacy.

    Posted by: SportsTim
  • Celebrity has both good and bad aspects, and paparazzi is one of those things you have to deal with.

    In America, freedom of speech and the press are two of the most important freedoms we hold dear. These freedoms also mean the freedom to approach and ask celebrities questions. So long as the press allows celebrities freedom of movement and don't physically assault a celebrity, then asking them questions and taking their photos is just part of being a celebrity. Of course, we also have criminal statutes to punish paparazzi who go too far by blocking passage or hitting celebrities, and they need to be enforced just as they would be if someone was harassing someone who isn't a public figure. With freedom comes responsibility, after all.

    Posted by: 54uIIan
  • Celebrities should not be protected from the paparazzi. Dealing with paparazzi is just a minor downside for a celebrity when compared to being rich and famous.

    Celebrities do not need to be protected from paparazzi. Celebrities who whine about paparazzi really need to get a grasp on the fact that they are incredibly lucky and fortunate and the vast majority of the general public would die to be in their position. The paparazzi poses no physical threat to these celebrities so there's no need for a "personal safety zone".

    Posted by: TwoVic

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.