Amazon.com Widgets
  • It's part of the job.

    I think the paparazzi should be allowed to photograph underage actors. After all, they have made this choice, and they are getting paid a lot of money to do their job. Publicity just comes along with it. I would say that the CHILDREN of actors might need protection, since they have not chosen this life for themselves.

  • Paparazzi should be allowed to photograph underage actors

    Of course, paparazzi should be allowed to photograph underage actors. These actors have no problem with showing their faces all over the silver screen. There is not one bit of difference between still photography and video photography. Want to be in the business...then buck up and take the bad with the overwhelming good.

  • No, consent should be required for any underage access.

    No, the paparazzi should not be allowed to photograph underage actors. In general, if adults would like to gain some sort of access to underage individuals, they should do so with the consent of the individual, in this case, the actor, along with the actor's parents or guardians. The paparazzi's occasionally underhanded tactics to obtain photographs of underage actors would inappropriately violate the privacy that this actor deserves at this point in his or her life.

  • The paparazzi should not be allowed to photograph underage actors.

    No, the paparazzi should leave underage actors alone. There is enough pressure on child-actors already that impedes their normal social development that they shouldn't on top of that be stalked by adults with cameras capturing their every movement. Children need time and space to grow and learn from their mistakes. They do not need these publicized in every instance.


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