MysticsOcean wrote:What a great topic to discuss, and one I find very interesting.
I never really thought about the paparazzi until I started to become part of the Twilight universe. I was interested in all the actors, and when doing some scouting online and youtube to find out who they were I was shocked by what they go through everyday. I do not agree with the common belief that as actors they are somehow inviting the harassment, and therefore it is impossible to protect their rights. However, that is my opinion and many different people believe differently.
It is important to look at the line that the paparazzi crosses. If you look at things from a legal and Constitutional stand point what the paparazzi's rights are protected by the Constitution. The 1st Amendment strictly enforces a freedom of the press. However, privacy is not protected under the Constitution. This is not definitive as many people use different Amendments to support their belief that privacy is expressed in the Constitution. However, nowhere does it explicitly state that people have the right to privacy in this country. The paparazzi is protected by freedom of the press.
Things get tricky when people consider rather or not what the paparazzi does is harassment. I think most people can agree that it is harassment, and they would be blind not to. I know that Rob had a run in with the paparazzi because they would not stop following him, and he was desperate for them not to find out where he lived/staying. He approached the cops, and they were unable to do anything. I think it is clear harassment, and everyone is protected from it with state laws. The Constitution is a federal law though, and that trumps every other law in place. Therefore, actors rights in regard to privacy are trumped by the Paparazi's right for freedom of the press.
What I believe needs to be discussed is what needs to be done to make sure this is not a reality. Most people have already said it on here. It starts with the demand. The more people demand the magazine articles, social networking pictures, youtube videos, and shows like TMZ. Lots of shows on E! are very guilty of reporting things from paparazzi sources, and rather or not Perez Hilton wants to admit it - he is a pap. I fear it will be impossible to get the demand down until the Twilight saga's popularity has died down. Even then, they will still get the occasional picture by the paps. It is hard to convince people who put their heart and soul into Twilight. As a huge fan of Kristen Stewart I even find myself looking at the occasionally paparazzi video just enticed by who they are. I have done my best to not look at those videos that involve unwanted pictures.
It is unfortunate because the three of them have to deal with this, especially because they deal with it so well. Everyone is right that Kristen gets the worst end of the deal. I am not sure it is because she is a female, or there is any gender biased in the media, I know the paparazzi would love to dig into Robert Pattinson - they would think of the sales. I think it is because Kristen has a different personality than most people. She is much more brisk, and straight forward. Most girls are more gossipy and like to put on wide smiles. Kristen is not like that. I thinks he is the smartest and most mature of all of them in the series, but other people do not see it that way. She was unaware of how to deal with fame, and put on the happy face like all the others do. She was an easy target because she is openly awkward during interviews
It is a shame that the three have to deal with this. I think they would be a lot more open about their lives, things like: music, family, friends, favorites, etc. However, they feel like they have to protect themselves, and have to worry about what others think. Unfortunately, if anything does not change regarding higher federal laws, this is what they will have to endure for a few more years - possibly even their lifetime. Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt are a high profile couple who can not even leave their home. The paparazzi are out of control.
And this is why I'd love for the paps to get caught on an Army or Navy or USAF base--they'd be on US Government property, and the signs usually say "NO TRESPASSING" or "NO UNAUTHORIZED PERSONNEL", followed by the admonishment of "Use of deadly force is/may be authorized", or "Trespassers may be shot". I know that may sound cruel and such, but I'd just love to have some soldiers or sailors pound the crap out of these guys and lock them up.
And I think that their mentality reflects badly upon them as pests, parasites, and people with no scruples and no limits in their amoral pursuit of money. And I do know that they are putting others in danger, and maybe that they're doing the same, because they know that they PO these people's fans, and that if they get too rough, they might incite a riot, because most of the world hate these people for what they do and for who a lot of them are.
But then again, the anti-pap laws are like firearms laws in the US--there in reality is very little Federal regulation, just the National Firearms Act, which says that you have to pay a $200 tax to own an automatic weapon, short barreled rifle or shotgun, and $100 for a sound suppressor. Basically, unless you're a convicted violent felon, or are deemed to be excessively emotionally or mentally unstable, or deemed to be "criminally insane", there's nothing that the Feds can legally do to prevent an average citizen from buying a gun as long as he passes a background check. That's where the states come in, and 99% percent of firearms regs are state and local laws. There's nothing in the Second Amendment that explicitly states that at the Federal level that firearms ownership is a god-given right, but it does say that the US Government cannot impede firearms ownership except in the limited circumstances I've given.
Same goes with the paps--there's no real Federal law on the books to prevent what the paps do, and, like gun regs, they leave that mostly up to the State and Local governments.
The way I see it, there's only two ways to stop the paps and such, one being for the feds to enact laws and restrictions, and for the states and local govs to take matters into their own hands and restrict their activities, and arrest some of these people and make it easier to sue them like in the UK where some people have won lawsuits and injunctions and restraining orders against them, or to cut off their money supply, which the governments can do, too--if they can do it to terrorist, they can do it to these cretins--or the public has to wake up and realize what's going on.
I'm a huge Kristen Stewart fan and I feel the way that the advocacy groups reacted to her comments about a year ago was a huge, embarrassing showing of stupidity and ignorance and shows how much some people have let the media dumb them down, and, of course, most pressure groups can't resist getting their names in the paper as opportunist--like the paps are--instead of doing honest work for their cause.
As long as there are stupid, jealous, ignorant people out there who are willing to part with cash for what I consider only to be suited as toilet paper, this will continue unabated.
And of course, being a history buff, I feel that freedom isn't free, and it shouldn't be abused like this--mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, family, friends, and above all else, people have died for such freedoms, and they need not to be trudged on by morons out to make a quick buck.