Social Question

NerdyKeith's avatar

Do the paparazzi really have any right to complain, when celebrities get violent with them?

Asked by NerdyKeith (5479points) February 25th, 2016

It seems to me that they are bound to get attacked and they pretty much get what is coming to them.

It’s like a member of the mafia complaining for being shot in the leg. If you make it your occupation to attack or harass members of the public (even celebrities) most will not accept this peacefully and will fight back.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

14 Answers

stanleybmanly's avatar

That’s pretty much where my sympathies lie as well.

Cruiser's avatar

If the attack was unprovoked the I would say yes. Both sides of the camera know the rules of the game and most are on a first name basis. But more often than not in these violent instances the paparazzi are ruthless and intrusive aggressively invading privacy and personal spaces and IMHO get what they deserve and should accept their black eye without whining about it or suing.

Jak's avatar

Pretty much. This whole “people have a right to know” is a crock of shit. People have a right to privacy. But if everyone would mind their own fucking business and not buy People magazine or watch any of those stupid shows then the paparazzi would maybe go and get real jobs. ...what? It could happen.

ucme's avatar

No, but they will because they have an overblown opinion of their role in the celebrity circus.
They’re the clowns, annoying, cream pie in ya face, unfunny bastards, know your place & fuckoff.

Strauss's avatar

Any photographer who gets cold-cocked by a star has a right to complain, and even press charges. Celebrities, for the most part, choose a life in the public eye. It’s entirely possible to be a star and still live a very private life. Paparazzi choose their role in providing the fame. In that type of business there is no such thing as bad publicity, either for the star who is being photographed or the photographer who is recording it. They feed off each other, and they should all recognize the symbiosis.

Zaku's avatar

Seems like self-defense to me, in the cases where the paparazzi are hounding and harassing.

I’d prefer a society where performers can be just performers and opt out of the “celebrity” and/or paparazzi experiences if they want.

Strauss's avatar

@Zaku, Oh, but they can. It might take a little extra effort on their part, especially to negotiate with their talent management, but it can be done.

Coloma's avatar

No, and, as a matter of fact I saw a little documentary recently where Halle Berry and another actress were at the CA. state legislators office asking for penalties for harassing celebrities children. I think following and harassing the children, looking for pictures when they are at their schools, out with mom and dad at an amusement park, ice cream shop, whatever is completely off base and if I were one of those parents I’d probably throw a few punches myself.
There was a great clip of Julia Roberts getting in a photographers face in his car in a parking lot, she was awesome! Said ” Turn that camera off we are going to have a TALK, how dare you invade my childrens privacy at their school! ” lol

Strauss's avatar

@Coloma, I agree with you as far as it goes for the children, including children who are celebrities. They are not responsible for any decisions which made/make them famous.

janbb's avatar

I understand the anger but I don’t condone violence. Children should be off-limits for sure.

Earthbound_Misfit's avatar

Celebrities have the right to complain and even take legal action to prevent invasive behaviour from paps, but they don’t have the right to get violent or abusive.

Also, there are many celebrities, very popular and famous celebrities, who you never see in the news in pap shots. The only time you see them is on the red carpet and the like. I suspect that’s because they don’t go to places where celebrities hang around. Yet the paparazzi seem to be a major problem for certain people and I do find myself wondering if they’re not putting themselves in that situation. You know the old ‘any publicity is good publicity’ issue. They tend to be the same people who then jump up and down and carry on about the media attention.

I do believe children should be off-limits. I still don’t condone violence.

SecondHandStoke's avatar

^ The reason you don’t see certain celebrities in the tabloids is because they have decided they don’t need the publicity. Typically their work speaks for itself.

Jodie Foster is left alone because early on she took actions that made being pursued not worth the photographers’ time and effort.

She sued a couple times and got the ‘rattzi leave her alone.

Any celeb can take this route if they desire. The Sean Penns and Jennifer Annistons of this world could disappear from the media if they so desired.

NerdyKeith's avatar

@SecondHandStoke You make a very valid point there.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther