So, do you think that celebrities should have the right NOT to be followed around by the paparazzi, taking pictures, etc....or do you feel that they have chosen to be in the public eye, and that they get heavily compensated by the salary that they bring in...so they should just learn to live with it?

I think they should have complete privacy

Just cause they choose to be in the public eye doesn't mean they should be in the spotlight 24/7.  I tell ya, if I was a celebrity and some photographers were snapping pics of me all the time, I'd be smashing cameras left and right lol

If someone took pictures of me, everywhere I go, I wouldn't be happy.

I wouldn't go Sean Penn on them, though.

Im for complete privacy.  Celebrities are people too.  HOWEVER I think for the most part some celebrities seem to ask for the attention and cherish.  But if you notice, marginally to low talented celebs get most of the attention.  This group include Britney, Christina, Paris, Lindsay, Pamela Anderson and, Jessica Simpson to name the main ones.  They may say they dont want the paparazzi around but deep down thats the only way they know how to stay popular since they cant do it on skill and ability alone.

Now also notice that the more highly talented celebrities may occasionally show up in the tabloids (usually when they are at awards shows or make some sort of major screw up) but dont usually have a swarm of paparazzi trailing them 24/7 like the before mentioned people.

In this group Ill include Al Pacino (whom from what I understand is VERY introverted), Tom Hanks, Meryl Streep, Jack Nicholson, Laurence Fishburne, Gary Sinise, Gene Hackman, Robert Duvall and Clive Owen for a few examples. 

See what Im getting at???

I think when they are in public, they are free game.  In the privacy of someone's home (be it theirs or someone else's), I think they should be left alone.  Like it or not, publicity is a big part of WHY someone is/isn't famous.  That's why PR people make the $$ they do.....

Complete privacy

After all, they are human too

I think when they are in public, they are free game.  In the privacy of someone's home (be it theirs or someone else's), I think they should be left alone.  Like it or not, publicity is a big part of WHY someone is/isn't famous.  That's why PR people make the $$ they do.....


That's the way I feel, however I think that the paparazzi could use more common sense when snapping photos.

I don't think that you should be followed around and have no privacy just because you chose to act in a movie or make a hit song...

I think when they are in public, they are free game.  In the privacy of someone's home (be it theirs or someone else's), I think they should be left alone.  Like it or not, publicity is a big part of WHY someone is/isn't famous.  That's why PR people make the $$ they do.....



My opinion, too. When you walk out in public (whether you are "famous" or not), it is basically public domain. Anyone can take a pic of you on the street. However, if you are in your backyard and someone takes a pic of you-then it is call voyerism, stalking, a peeping Tom, whatever, and it is illegal. However, I think some of the paparazzi are a bit wacko. If a person can't get into their car or whatever because they are being surrounded by the press-then I think it is a matter of physical safety. There should be a law saying that the press cannot get within so many feet of a person unless they have that person's premission (i.e. an interview).



Cat

Myself, I say some privacy.

As long as they are in a "normal person mose", then they should be given the privacy of everybody else.  If they go to McDonalds, they should not be swarmed by publicity leeches.

However, if they are going someplace as "John Jones - Famous Actor" (like a movie premiere or glitery party), then they are fair game.

One of the biggest chores that my friends in Hollywood complain about is the lack of privacy.  They often go to extreme lengths to try and get some privacy.  One of them went to McDonalds a few weeks ago with his step daughter, and was finally recognized just as he was about to leave.  Now he has no problems talking to fans, but when they are being rude, it is a different matter.

And I do not view Paparazi as fans.  The vast majority can only be loosely called "Independent Photojournalists".  In short, they try to capture shots that are "news worthy", and sell them to trash publications.

I believe that Paparazi belong at premiere events, parties, and other public events.  They do not belong at the children's school, resteraunts, clothing stores, or doctors offices.

Stars are just like me.  They pull their pants up one leg at a time, and are entitled to their privacy.

I'm for "some privacy" too. 
If you're celebrity everbody recognizes, you're going to get more attention in public than Joe Shmo.  Comes with the territory. 

As others have said, I don't think papparazzi have any business peering over the fence at the pool or waiting around corner for an ambush. As for pushy media gossips who shove cameras and mics at celebrities when they're just trying to go about their business, I have know sympathy when they get belted in the face. 

If everybody was like me (heaven forefend), celebrities would get all the privacy they want and more, because I don't give a d@mn! 

The reason the papparazzi and the gossip columnists do what they do is because it sells.  Apparently, millions of people have nothing better to do than study Branjelina!
:P

I'd have to agree with Sean Penn on his opinion. At a movie premiere, or other event, then it is fine, but when trying to take a pee in a public washroom, or something is kinda rude.

I agree with the "keep a certain distance" concept as well as them staying away in public restrooms, schools, etc.

When I was kid, my mother worked in theatre. This one theatre she worked at was "theatre in the round" so you can see when people are ready to come on stage. The play starred Jack Gilford (not too sure how many of you remember him-he was in the movie Caveman, A Funny Thing Happened on the way to the Forum, and was in the old Cracker Jack commercials). He was just about ready to go on stage and bent down to tie his shoe. Some woman put a program in front of him to sign for her.  ::)  That was bit ridiculous if you ask me. Can't remember if he actally signed it then or not.



Cat

They have a right to privacy, but not when they're out being what they are.  If I'm some big shot movie star and I'm shopping on Rodeo Drive, I expect to be photographed and can't really complain when I am.  Now if I'm having a party with friends and family (all non-celebs) in my backyard and someone's in a tree with a telephoto lens, that's a different story. 

I've heard of celebrities being accosted when they're out with their family, children.....that goes too far, IMO. 

Yes, they should have some privacy, but they can't expect complete privacy.

Im for complete privacy.  Celebrities are people too.  HOWEVER I think for the most part some celebrities seem to ask for the attention and cherish.  But if you notice, marginally to low talented celebs get most of the attention.  This group include Britney, Christina, Paris, Lindsay, Pamela Anderson and, Jessica Simpson to name the main ones.  They may say they dont want the paparazzi around but deep down thats the only way they know how to stay popular since they cant do it on skill and ability alone.

Now also notice that the more highly talented celebrities may occasionally show up in the tabloids (usually when they are at awards shows or make some sort of major screw up) but dont usually have a swarm of paparazzi trailing them 24/7 like the before mentioned people.

In this group Ill include Al Pacino (whom from what I understand is VERY introverted), Tom Hanks, Meryl Streep, Jack Nicholson, Laurence Fishburne, Gary Sinise, Gene Hackman, Robert Duvall and Clive Owen for a few examples. 

See what Im getting at???
No Christina Aguilera is not high profile like Jessica, and Britney. Pamela Anderson she's in the press but I think of her as so 1990's because of" Baywatch".

I think they should have some privacy. I mean if I was an actor(which I might want to do in the future) I wouldn;t want somebody snapping photos of me outside my house or if I was on the beach in Jersey I wouldn;t want somebody snapping photo's of me on my free time. If I'm at movie premier(if I was an actor)or at some awards show its fair game you can take pictures.

Once you had motion pictures, you had coast to coast gab about everybody who was anybody in them. 
Before the 20th century?  Celebrities?  Yes, but very little name/face recognition by the masses everywhere!
For decades after that, taking a photo was not so easy.  Hard papparazz around when you have to pull the cord, wait five seconds, and then flashbulb explodes!