Login/Sign Up




Should stricter laws be in place to protect celebrities (particuarly children) from paparazzi?
Media


Rowling loses battle over photo
Harry Potter author JK Rowling has lost a High Court action seeking to ban the publication of a picture of her son. ...
vancam
Aug 07, 2007
7 votes
5 debaters
2
2
1
1


+ Add Argument

4
Yes


jjc
Aug 07, 2007
2 convinced
Rebuttal
When I first read this topic my reaction was, "screw the celebrities, they make a good living being famous". You know, take the bad with the good. I don't make millions a year being famous and if I did I wouldn't complain if someone took my kids picture. Then I read the posted article. It is about JK Rowling, author of the "Harry Potter" books. She is hardly a publicity seeking wannabe like Paris Hilton. She is an author who has met with phenomenal success and has subsequently become famous. I read several years ago about a lawsuit by Paul Newman in which he sued some papparazi. The judge ruled in Newman's favor because, as I remember it, Newman was an actor but did not regularly engage in publicity seeking behavior. Since he wasn't calling the photogs everytime he went to the drugstore like some of these cheap celebities do, the judge said that his right to privacy was still intact. People like Madonna, who play the media (masterfully) for $ then turn around and complain when they fly over their garden party for pictures have sort of forfieted their right to complain.

JK Rowling does not fit into the publicity slut category and should be protected from unwanted intrusion, just as any other citizen would be protected.

 
juggernaut
Aug 07, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: gogopoet Show


Paparazzi harass celebrities. Harassment is against the law. I believe nobody should be harassed. No matter who they are.

 
Brett Stubbs
Aug 07, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: gogopoet Show

JK Rowling isn't a "star", she's an author. She writes books for a living. It's a bit of a difference between her and tom cruise.

 
+ Add Argument

3
No


gogopoet
Aug 07, 2007
2 convinced
Rebuttal
The stars need to quit whining. That's just part of the job. If they don't like it, they should do something nice and safe like driving a cab, or working at a liquer store.

 
cancerfish
Aug 08, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
No - I would offer a different alternative; people should stop caring about celebrities as much as they do.
They are, after all humans like you or I, maybe more successful, but not really more important. There isn't any reason why their lives need to be documented at all times, for people to revel in. Celebrities shouldn't need to be protected from the paparazzi, because their exploitation is a gross perversion of priorities.
It really doesn't matter if celebrity X goes to a store, or sits on their front porch - this serves no purpose to our society, nor is it any different from you or I in the same situation.
So no, there shouldn't be any laws protecting celebrities, but at the same time, their lives should not be regarded as any more important. They provide entertainment, simple as that.

 
gogopoet
Aug 08, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: juggernaut Show

People harrass cabbies and liquer store clerks too, even kill them. I guess that's irrelevant though since they don't make huge fortunes for their service.

 
gogopoet
Aug 09, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: Brett Stubbs Show

If you think writers don't want stardom you may not know many writers. Every writer I know dreams of becoming the next JK Rowlings.

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

censorship Fox News law media news tv vancam