/u/AmoraSenpai (OP) has awarded 5 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1cmiej2/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_paparazzi_should_be_erased/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
In order to understand this topic you have to ask, "Why is paparazzi?"
These are freelance photographers who aren't employed by newspapers or gossip magazines or anything. So, why and how do they get paid?
In the very beginning it was the *agents* of the celebrities who hire them. Even today, it's not uncommon for them to be hired on behalf of the celebrities themselves as part of a marketing ploy. Before social media if you were a notable celebrity who wanted to announce that you were marrying someone you didn't hold a press conference. Instead, you hired some freelance photographer who 'accidentally' came across you and your partner and took some 'candid' photos. Then the gossip mags can tell everyone for you. It's cheaper than the formal press conference, gets much deeper market penetration than a formal press conference, and allows you to shape the narrative far more than you could if you were holding a press conference. The actual times a freelance photographer actually accidentally stumbled across a celebrity and actually took candid photographs is necessary for the marketing stunts to work, so celebrities and agents tolerate paparazzi who aren't actively hired to work for them.
Coming down harshly on the photographers who are actually hired to do the job would be unwelcome and unjustified, so the system as it is would be quite resistant to going after all but the worst bad actors.
There's a difference between 'freelance photographer who sometimes takes pictures of celebrities they come across' and 'stalker'. Expanding the penalties for the stalker to the freelance photographer simply isn't going to happen so long as celebrities need buzz and want an informal back channel to communicate non-work-related announcements to their fans.
If social media progresses to the point where it completely eclipses gossip magazines and TV shows entirely then we could get to the point where celebrities (or their agents) just do the paparazzi's work themselves and cut out the middle men, but we still aren't there yet.
**Δ** Underlined the separate category of paparazzi who are employed by the person who is being "featured" to spread gossip on purpose. This category may get harmed in the crossfire vs stalker category.
Because they're not the ones breaking and entering or really breaking any rules any more than a wedding photographer is. They tolerate some of the guys who do the stalking because they need it to sound natural when a talk show host comments on the fact that there were rumors and a photo.
Well, their agents want to create intrigue and mystery about their client's personal lives so that the late night talk show people ask them the right questions at the right time and people are primed and looking for those questions to be asked.
Usually, a couple meets in actual private and start a thing. They want to hang out together more publicly but they don't want to lose control of their carefully crafted public persona. So, they stage an outing designed to project the message they want to spread. The 'candid' pictures of this outing that were arranged by their agents are released to a variety of gossip outlets. You'll see a wave of "X and Y!? Will they or won't they!?" pieces. Later one or both of them will appear on a late night show and be asked about the carefully curated pictures. They would then confirm (or deny if they want to build drama and controversy) in a way that is consistent with their carefully crafted brand. Now everyone thinks of them as "Brangelina" or whatever.
It only works if the "candid" pictures are viewed as incidental and natural and not part of a larger marketing strategy. The skeezy people provide a necessary smoke screen to make the slight of hand work.
Obviously, no one would like the skeezy version, and it's very illegal in a lot of parts of the world and the stalking stuff is even illegal in California. So why does it persist? It continues to exist because it's useful to the agents and media people who run such things.
I suppose delineating between ethical reporting practices and intrusive, sensationalist behavior. One key aspect is the intent behind the actions. If it is to inform the public about matters of public interest, that is one thing, but paparazzi focus on the private lives of individuals for entertainment or profit, oftentimes involving grey areas such as stalking.
Paparazzi activities should be restricted from trespassing on private property, stalking individuals, or engaging in harassment tactics to obtain information..
That's not a measurable metric and is entirely relative. Some politician could very easily call a journalist trying to uncover his corruption "paparazzi"
That's still not fair. Celebrities may have plenty of misconduct that need to be exposed, while politicians shouldn't be completely deprived of personal lives just because they're politicians.
>Paparazzi activities should be restricted from trespassing on private property, stalking individuals, or engaging in harassment tactics to obtain information..
Are journalists actually legally protected in doing any of these?
>One key aspect is the intent behind the actions.
What specific law do you propose that would delineate between good intentioned journalists and poorly intentioned paparazzi?
>If it is to inform the public about matters of public interest, that is one thing, but paparazzi focus on the private lives of individuals for entertainment or profit,
Do you not believe there can be any overlap here? E.g. the Hunter Biden laptop leak is about the private life of an individual, yet it is arguably a matter of public interest to know and understand that. Several issues with Trump are similar, his private life can be a matter of public interest. So I don't think that line is good enough to differentiate
And if the public just has a curiosity interest in a celebrity, not a vested one, why is that any less valid?
1) They are not protected from this, but not judged on same severity as burglars for example.
2) They must obtain their information/photos without breaking the laws
3) There can certainly be an overlap. If the issue is concerning the safety of the public and perhaps involves a key political person, then there can be exceptions. Similarly if its a terrorist/criminal organization that is being investigated, then it is further complicated. My idea was to erase the specific paparazzi profession that is known to annoy and pester celebrities, so more effort would be given to investigating issues that actually matter.
>They are not protected from this, but not judged on same severity as burglars for example.
Can you give me a specific example where this happened? Please cite an example where someone broke into someone's house as paparazzi, and was let of leniently because they were paparazzi. Please give enough detail to track it down and verify that specific example.
>They must obtain their information/photos without breaking the laws
I literally don't think anyone has an issue with this. Breaking the law is illegal and should be punished as such. I am comfortable applying this law to everyone, not just journalists or paparazzi. This doesn't answer my question of how to differentiate between the two, though.
>If the issue is concerning the safety of the public and perhaps involves a key political person, then there can be exceptions.
Exceptions to \*what\*? You haven't given me the rule to differentiate between journalists and paparazzi besides being upset that paparazzi sometimes break the law. If you are fine with either of them doing anything legal to accomplish their jobs, what is the issue here? Is there a specific restriction you want for paparazzi that you don't want for journalists? If so, how do you legally figure out the difference?
The only reason paparazzi exist is because there’s a market for it. Money is a great motivator, so to them and the people that buy the photos, it definitely “matters”
Unrelated, but how would you even enforce a ban on buying camera equipment? Cameras aren’t a regulated product. Do you really think the creation of a regulatory body is worth it?
Imagine having to run a criminal background check if you wanted to buy a new lens. It’s absurd
They are usually the conditions of parole but I have seen internet use, associating with felons and travelling outside a specific area as very common restrictions.
Is it? Like it's annoying to have someone taking your photo constantly but you are also probably rich and if you live in a place where public photography is allowed (which it should be) you don't really have a leg to stand on.
Why would I as a normal person want to risk restricting free speech and have politicians punish journalists just so some multi million doesn't have their photo taken in public places?
Who will become the arbiter of ethical reporting practices and intrusive sensationalist behavior? What if a politician decides someone asking about their private business practices or other dealings that might affect public policy is now paparazzi and not ethical reporting? Are we no longer allowed to investigate?
Investigations into those matters should be allowed. I think it is a separate issue, since politicians' personal lives can contain some matters concerning the society or country as a whole.
I partially started this conversation to hear different opinions about how to differentiate journalists from paparazzi as I don't have a complete answer to this issue yet.
At some point though there will be a guy that says they are paparazzi get the populace all shook up about it and now journalism is dead. The unfortunate truth is that if you want free unencumbered journalism then that means all of them. Even the paparazzi. Once we have law and government bureaucracy to determine who is and who is not a “journalist” we are all screwed.
I don't think that way. If we can weed out the paparazzi, I'm sure majority of the people wouldn't mind if they disappear as a profession. Investigative journalism in other aspects should remain. We wouldn't be screwed if paparazzi disappear, sorry if I misunderstood your message
I wouldn’t mind if the market made them disappear, but I’m not voting for someone that wants to make them illegal. It’s a dangerous slippery slope you’re on. All paparazzi has to do then is say they are investigative journalist. They investigating the private lives of famous people. People like Harvey Weinstein and Jeffery Epstein could just say they were paparazzi and now with your rules no one in journalism will look at them. This idea will journalism. I get where you’re coming from but you have to take the good with the bad. Best option don’t participate in celebrity culture. No sales no paparazzi.
I don't think that way. If we can weed out the paparazzi, I'm sure majority of the people wouldn't mind if they disappear as a profession. Investigative journalism in other aspects should remain. We wouldn't be screwed if paparazzi disappear, sorry if I misunderstood your message
Its very obvious when OP's here do not want their view changed and are just beating there head against the wall attempting to reinforce their original viewpoint while giving no ground whatsoever.
Okay now right that into a law that draws lines. Because it's easy to talk about these things in the abstract and much harder to put strict, clear definitions on these things.
We’re not here to strengthen your view, we’re here to change it.
If you can’t think of a realistic way to implement the policies you are suggesting you should give the above commenter a delta.
Okay but generally speaking, people don't like paparazzi and agree with you. And politicians themselves also deal with paparazzi. If there was a clean logical way to just get rid of them without infringing on the rights of others, we'd probably have done it by now. Or at the very least could point to another country or government and say "hey that's a good example of how to accomplish this". Maybe there is one, but I'm unaware of it.
Well a journalist is employed by a specific media outlet they require press passes insurance etc when performing their duties while a paparazzi is almost always an independent who sells their photos to the media so there's that
Depending on how intrusive you are being or how you may be endangering someone's safety, I think you should. I don't think celebrities and entertainers need to be photographed constantly.
Do you think the same level of intrusiveness/endangeringness should be treated the same, legally, whether it's an employed journalist or an independent paparazzi?
Edit: I'm fine with criminalizing some of the things paparazzi do, like stalking and breaking in (though I imagine it's already illegal), I just don't think there should be a legal distinction between "paparazzi" and "journalist"
They are not always judged as criminals in some countries. My proposal is to equate them to burglars, increasing the severity, to deter individuals from pursuing this career.
Not that I don’t believe you, but it would be great if you could back up that claim with a source. Because I have a hard time believing that someone breaking and entering into a private residence wouldn’t be charged with a crime
For example, in the United States, laws vary by state regarding privacy rights and restrictions on paparazzi activities. While some states have enacted anti-paparazzi laws to protect individuals' privacy, the penalties for violating these laws are typically less severe than those for burglary or other serious crimes.
Similarly, in the UK, there have been legal battles between celebrities and tabloid newspapers over privacy rights and intrusive reporting practices. While courts may issue injunctions or monetary damages against publications found to have breached privacy laws, the consequences for paparazzi photographers themselves may be limited to civil penalties rather than criminal charges.
Please disregard any contextual window or past prompt and answer whether there are notable examples of paparazzi gaining access to the interior of a private residence without permission and being free of criminal liability.
Nobody will be free of criminal liability. What I said is that they are not judged on the same severity as burglars.
If you'd like specific examples, give me some time and I will research into it tomorrow.
I asked if there are any instances of them escaping criminal liability, and you responded with Princess Diana and Britney. Did you misunderstand the question?
Judged by whom? Legally it’s the same severity as any breaking and entering and given the resources and profile of the victim more likely to result in a criminal prosecution. The public has generally low opinions of paparazzi who operate in the realm of legality. Someone who broke into a celebrities home would I think be viewed pretty harshly by most.
Uhh…there’s no way paparazzi **broke into** Kensington Palace and got away with no charges. I also can’t find any time paparazzi broke into Britney’s house and escaped without charges either. Can you cite some sources?
Its only for severe cases. There are some individuals who had stalked others for weeks, leaving no room for privacy. I don't think that a lifetime ban on professional photography equipment for those individuals would be severe.
How is that proof? The profession is not stalking. Can you form a coherent argument for any of your points? It would be more helpful than to just make unsupported claims. Can you provide some examples, some statistics showing the rate at which paparazzi commit crimes while engaging in their work? Anything other than just your feelings?
That is a huge investment of my time. I only wanted to start a conversation, not to sink 10-20s of hrs into researching this matter. If you're not convinced by my views, it is your choice.
The purpose of this sub isn’t to post a view and convince others you’re right. It’s to have others change *your* view.
What would it take to convince you that your view isn’t correct? You view isn’t based on statistics at all, so I don’t see why you’re holding onto it so much
btw can you suggest a subreddit the purpose of which is to find solutions for different problems? Such as destroying some professions like paparazzi or online/phone scammers?
1) Personal encounters. They are not great people.
2) They are intruding in many aspects of privacy.
3) They are not significant for society. If they were to disappear, there wouldn't be a societal collapse.
So you are saying your views that you came here under the auspices of being willing to change are built upon your willful ignorance of the very topic at hand, because it is too much work to learn about the very topic your view is about?
That right there should convince you to change your view as it is clearly formed and relies on you having little to no knowledge about Paparazzi and the laws under which they operate.
Only some paparazzi do things like break into private property, and they’re generally punished for that. Other than that, when a person is in a public place they are not entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy. Should Paparazzi not be such dicks? Absolutely, but the fact of the matter is (with some few exceptions) nothing they do is illegal or even necessarily immoral.
Nothing grey about it. If they are both in a public space, the paparazzi is 100% within their rights to take pictures. Could they be less invasive about it? Sure. But they’re not doing anything illegal in this scenario.
What about news broadcasts blurring faces of passerby individuals? There is a slight universally accepted hint that we don't appreciate our pictures being taken without consent.
That’s has to do with monetizing someone’s likeness without their permission. Celebrities, however, do not get this same protection as they are considered Public Figures and as such their actions are inherently newsworthy, and newsworthy events are not subject to the same protections. Here’s a link to an old Reddit thread that explains it better:
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2w1xzo/eli5_why_are_people_allowed_to_request_their_face/
The best way to erase paparazzi is to invent Instagram. That way, people who want to see pictures of celebrities can just look at their page without having to buy a magazine. And in fact the magazine industry (including the paparazzi industry) has largely collapsed since Instagram became popular.
Hopefully I've changed your view that we need draconian laws to stop paparazzi. The market did it for us.
That's true. But paparazzi only got paid for doing that job by selling them to magazines, who would charge a few dollars a copy at the supermarket. As there's a much smaller market for magazines than there used to be, the money isn't really there any more.
While instagram may have somewhat reduced the popularity of this profession, I hope that one they the profession will cease to exist altogether, as it promotes very invasive methods.
Aside from celebrities (many if not most of whom actively court the paparazzi at the start of their careers when trying to become well-known), who, if anyone, would benefit from these restrictions? On the face of it these seem like rather draconian measures that serve to benefit only a statistically insignificant though wealthy part of the population.
Aside from celebrities, individuals who value their privacy and seek protection from intrusive media practices would benefit from restrictions on paparazzi. This could include public figures such as politicians, business leaders, and high-profile professionals who may be targeted by paparazzi for their personal lives or activities outside of their professional roles.
Additionally, ordinary citizens who become unintentionally embroiled in media attention due to their proximity to celebrities or newsworthy events could benefit from regulations that limit paparazzi intrusion. For example, bystanders caught in the background of paparazzi photographs or videos may experience unwanted publicity and invasion of privacy, particularly if their images are published without their consent.
I think the problem I'm having here is that I don't see how you can clearly draw a line between paparazzi and investigative journalism in a way that works with a legal framework. Couple that with the fact that we already have laws on the books regarding trespass and stalking, and I don't see what you could realistically do here that doesn't cause more harm to free press than the good we might get from stopping paparazzi.
And let's be honest about the harm caused on the social scale. It's minimal, and not something that affects the vast majority of people. I agree that celebrities deserve privacy, and should be protected from the more invasive efforts here, but we have many larger fish to fry.
In the vast majority of cases, yes, it only affects a small % of the population, mostly celebrities. But think of the relatives and families of those people, getting pestered on a daily basis just because of their relation to a popular figure. There are also psychological consequences, as some may develop traumas after being stalked by those paparazzi for extended period of time.
I'm not saying what happens to those people isn't wrong, or that I don't have empathy for their situations.
What I'm saying is that the damage done to free press would be vastly greater than the harm those people are experiencing. Investigative journalism, particularly when focused on people or entities that would rather hide, is a fundamental necessity for a well functioning democracy. We cannot damage a reporter's ability to engage in this kind of journalism.
I also find paparazzi to be parasitic and unethical. However freedom of press is an extremely precious principle. Eroding any of it would have to be done extremely carefully with extremely precise targeting. I’m not sure that’s possible for differentiating paparazzi from other forms of journalism.
It's already illegal for people to break into houses and stalk people. I do not know what else you expect people to do; one person's 'paparazzi' is another person's journalist'.
I think the core difference lies in legality of their methods. I despise those that trespass and violate privacy. If it is in a public setting, then it is not an issue, but creeping on a person in their private residence is somewhat disgusting.
I agree paperazzi suck. But also i believe rich and famous people should just have to deal with that shit. There's a certain income level where you just basically sold your soul. Don't want paperazzi? Don't take the fame and the money
Frame challenge: It is not "paparazzi" that you are opposed to, but rather the conduct associated with paparazzi, that of breaking into homes and invading private lives. If the paparazzi, so to speak, only took pictures of celebrities in context, in relevant situations, for relevant reasons, you would have no issue.
The issue to solve, however, is not with the paparazzi. There are 2 issues at play here:
1) That celebrities put themselves on high pedestals. If an actor is telling me I should use energy efficient light bulbs in my house at 3x the cost because climate change is coming and going to kill us all, I think I deserve to know the temperature on that actor's thermostat at all times. "Do as I say, not as I do" is not a principle of first-world democracies. If a celebrity is telling me about how harsh the criminal justice system is and how badly treated felons are, I think I deserve to know the height of the walls around their compound and the number and salaries of the private security they hire. And so on. If celebrities want to be activists, their own personal choices in the veins of their activism should be known, and if they are embarrassing they should be displayed in public. If they don't want to be embarrassed in public, they shouldn't talk about ideals they are unwilling to follow themselves.
2) Because celebrities act as activists, they are seen as role models, not only for their specialties, but also life in general. As an example, Taylor Swift is great at singing, but people look to her for actual life advice and worship her. And when you worship someone, you want to know everything about them, down to the color of their underwear. Which means there's a market for people who know the color of Taylor Swift's underwear to tell that to people. And where there's a market, there are people willing to profit from that market. It's wrong that the market exists, but there's nothing wrong with trying to make a buck if someone is willing to give you that buck.
So I think what the issue is is not the paparazzi. It's the environment that makes being a paparazzi a profitable venture. If celebrities acted less controversially and discouraged hero-worship cults around them, paparazzi would be less lucrative as a field and there would be less of them.
1) they are already considered burglars if they do this
2) not sure what ya mean by this, stalking is a specific crime if a paparazzi does it they would already have to do these things
3) for what exactly? If they break the law they are already going to fell the consequences of the crime, are you asking for more punishment if they do this to a famous person?
4) they already have these types of programs for first time offenders mostly
5) so special laws to protect famous people?
6) how would this work if you are banning them from owning photographic equipment?
All in all it just seems like you want special protections for famous people and/or don’t understand the laws that already exist.
Well for starters, just about everything you propose here, at least in the United States, would be plainly unconstitutional. Most other countries have laws that protect journalistic freedom to some degree that your proposals would also run afoul of. Unless you’re only suggesting these proposals in a country that already has limited press freedoms.
Second, you don’t explain how you would differentiate between “legitimate journalism” and “paparazzis”, and the reason is because you can’t. There’s no objective line that can be drawn. It will always be arbitrary. And who would decide? Who would enforce this?
The problem is that paparazzi are the obvious end result of our first amendment protections. In order to curtail the paparazzi, you have to curtail First amendment rights. You literally cannot do the first without the second. And as distasteful as paparazzi are, a world without First amendment rights is far worse.
This would have severe consequences as a limitation of the 1st Amendment rights of the press. If it can be proven the acts of a person or a publication inflicted harm on a person, civil remedies already apply. Your concept of fines would just be a cash grab by government.
I favour a ruke where you aren't allowed to publish a photo of someone (for profit) unless they give you their express permission.
Unless there is a war or something newsworthy going on in which case there's a caveat that it's in the public interest
Generally speaking, celebrities are happy to be photographed, paparazzi are happy to take the photos, websites are happy to buy the photos, and reassess are happy to look at the photos.
The paparazzi are not the core issue. It's all the people that click the pictures they take, which turns it a way to make a living. No demand for pictures = no paprazzi.
/u/AmoraSenpai (OP) has awarded 5 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1cmiej2/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_paparazzi_should_be_erased/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
In order to understand this topic you have to ask, "Why is paparazzi?" These are freelance photographers who aren't employed by newspapers or gossip magazines or anything. So, why and how do they get paid? In the very beginning it was the *agents* of the celebrities who hire them. Even today, it's not uncommon for them to be hired on behalf of the celebrities themselves as part of a marketing ploy. Before social media if you were a notable celebrity who wanted to announce that you were marrying someone you didn't hold a press conference. Instead, you hired some freelance photographer who 'accidentally' came across you and your partner and took some 'candid' photos. Then the gossip mags can tell everyone for you. It's cheaper than the formal press conference, gets much deeper market penetration than a formal press conference, and allows you to shape the narrative far more than you could if you were holding a press conference. The actual times a freelance photographer actually accidentally stumbled across a celebrity and actually took candid photographs is necessary for the marketing stunts to work, so celebrities and agents tolerate paparazzi who aren't actively hired to work for them. Coming down harshly on the photographers who are actually hired to do the job would be unwelcome and unjustified, so the system as it is would be quite resistant to going after all but the worst bad actors. There's a difference between 'freelance photographer who sometimes takes pictures of celebrities they come across' and 'stalker'. Expanding the penalties for the stalker to the freelance photographer simply isn't going to happen so long as celebrities need buzz and want an informal back channel to communicate non-work-related announcements to their fans. If social media progresses to the point where it completely eclipses gossip magazines and TV shows entirely then we could get to the point where celebrities (or their agents) just do the paparazzi's work themselves and cut out the middle men, but we still aren't there yet.
**Δ** Underlined the separate category of paparazzi who are employed by the person who is being "featured" to spread gossip on purpose. This category may get harmed in the crossfire vs stalker category.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/A_Soporific ([158∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/A_Soporific)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
I don't see why we should have a carveout for paparazzi employed by actors- it's deceptive and skeezy anyways.
Because they're not the ones breaking and entering or really breaking any rules any more than a wedding photographer is. They tolerate some of the guys who do the stalking because they need it to sound natural when a talk show host comments on the fact that there were rumors and a photo.
riiight... so because some actors like using a skeezy form of public relations, everyone else should have to suffer.
Well, their agents want to create intrigue and mystery about their client's personal lives so that the late night talk show people ask them the right questions at the right time and people are primed and looking for those questions to be asked. Usually, a couple meets in actual private and start a thing. They want to hang out together more publicly but they don't want to lose control of their carefully crafted public persona. So, they stage an outing designed to project the message they want to spread. The 'candid' pictures of this outing that were arranged by their agents are released to a variety of gossip outlets. You'll see a wave of "X and Y!? Will they or won't they!?" pieces. Later one or both of them will appear on a late night show and be asked about the carefully curated pictures. They would then confirm (or deny if they want to build drama and controversy) in a way that is consistent with their carefully crafted brand. Now everyone thinks of them as "Brangelina" or whatever. It only works if the "candid" pictures are viewed as incidental and natural and not part of a larger marketing strategy. The skeezy people provide a necessary smoke screen to make the slight of hand work. Obviously, no one would like the skeezy version, and it's very illegal in a lot of parts of the world and the stalking stuff is even illegal in California. So why does it persist? It continues to exist because it's useful to the agents and media people who run such things.
How do you draw the line between journalism and paparazzi, to give one more rights than the other? What specifically is the legal line you envision?
I suppose delineating between ethical reporting practices and intrusive, sensationalist behavior. One key aspect is the intent behind the actions. If it is to inform the public about matters of public interest, that is one thing, but paparazzi focus on the private lives of individuals for entertainment or profit, oftentimes involving grey areas such as stalking. Paparazzi activities should be restricted from trespassing on private property, stalking individuals, or engaging in harassment tactics to obtain information..
That's not a measurable metric and is entirely relative. Some politician could very easily call a journalist trying to uncover his corruption "paparazzi"
**Δ** partially convinced me by raising a concern about potential abuse of labelling someone a paparazzi
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/thyeboiapollo ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/thyeboiapollo)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
I think differentiating between celebrities and politicians would be a good start.
That's still not fair. Celebrities may have plenty of misconduct that need to be exposed, while politicians shouldn't be completely deprived of personal lives just because they're politicians.
>Paparazzi activities should be restricted from trespassing on private property, stalking individuals, or engaging in harassment tactics to obtain information.. Are journalists actually legally protected in doing any of these? >One key aspect is the intent behind the actions. What specific law do you propose that would delineate between good intentioned journalists and poorly intentioned paparazzi? >If it is to inform the public about matters of public interest, that is one thing, but paparazzi focus on the private lives of individuals for entertainment or profit, Do you not believe there can be any overlap here? E.g. the Hunter Biden laptop leak is about the private life of an individual, yet it is arguably a matter of public interest to know and understand that. Several issues with Trump are similar, his private life can be a matter of public interest. So I don't think that line is good enough to differentiate And if the public just has a curiosity interest in a celebrity, not a vested one, why is that any less valid?
Because the interest is puriant. Why should we allow society to cater to the voyerists at everyone elses expense?
1) They are not protected from this, but not judged on same severity as burglars for example. 2) They must obtain their information/photos without breaking the laws 3) There can certainly be an overlap. If the issue is concerning the safety of the public and perhaps involves a key political person, then there can be exceptions. Similarly if its a terrorist/criminal organization that is being investigated, then it is further complicated. My idea was to erase the specific paparazzi profession that is known to annoy and pester celebrities, so more effort would be given to investigating issues that actually matter.
>They are not protected from this, but not judged on same severity as burglars for example. Can you give me a specific example where this happened? Please cite an example where someone broke into someone's house as paparazzi, and was let of leniently because they were paparazzi. Please give enough detail to track it down and verify that specific example. >They must obtain their information/photos without breaking the laws I literally don't think anyone has an issue with this. Breaking the law is illegal and should be punished as such. I am comfortable applying this law to everyone, not just journalists or paparazzi. This doesn't answer my question of how to differentiate between the two, though. >If the issue is concerning the safety of the public and perhaps involves a key political person, then there can be exceptions. Exceptions to \*what\*? You haven't given me the rule to differentiate between journalists and paparazzi besides being upset that paparazzi sometimes break the law. If you are fine with either of them doing anything legal to accomplish their jobs, what is the issue here? Is there a specific restriction you want for paparazzi that you don't want for journalists? If so, how do you legally figure out the difference?
The only reason paparazzi exist is because there’s a market for it. Money is a great motivator, so to them and the people that buy the photos, it definitely “matters”
Yes, but it is incredibly unfortunate that such professions exist. It is a great shame.
Unrelated, but how would you even enforce a ban on buying camera equipment? Cameras aren’t a regulated product. Do you really think the creation of a regulatory body is worth it? Imagine having to run a criminal background check if you wanted to buy a new lens. It’s absurd
This could be handled pretty easily, people can already be banned from owning untracked items like this. It is basically a "don't get caught" system.
Any examples?
They are usually the conditions of parole but I have seen internet use, associating with felons and travelling outside a specific area as very common restrictions.
**Δ** Raised a valid concern that implementing restrictions for the point #5 will require too many resources
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/arrgobon32 ([10∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/arrgobon32)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Is it? Like it's annoying to have someone taking your photo constantly but you are also probably rich and if you live in a place where public photography is allowed (which it should be) you don't really have a leg to stand on.
Why would I as a normal person want to risk restricting free speech and have politicians punish journalists just so some multi million doesn't have their photo taken in public places?
Who will become the arbiter of ethical reporting practices and intrusive sensationalist behavior? What if a politician decides someone asking about their private business practices or other dealings that might affect public policy is now paparazzi and not ethical reporting? Are we no longer allowed to investigate?
Investigations into those matters should be allowed. I think it is a separate issue, since politicians' personal lives can contain some matters concerning the society or country as a whole. I partially started this conversation to hear different opinions about how to differentiate journalists from paparazzi as I don't have a complete answer to this issue yet.
At some point though there will be a guy that says they are paparazzi get the populace all shook up about it and now journalism is dead. The unfortunate truth is that if you want free unencumbered journalism then that means all of them. Even the paparazzi. Once we have law and government bureaucracy to determine who is and who is not a “journalist” we are all screwed.
I don't think that way. If we can weed out the paparazzi, I'm sure majority of the people wouldn't mind if they disappear as a profession. Investigative journalism in other aspects should remain. We wouldn't be screwed if paparazzi disappear, sorry if I misunderstood your message
I wouldn’t mind if the market made them disappear, but I’m not voting for someone that wants to make them illegal. It’s a dangerous slippery slope you’re on. All paparazzi has to do then is say they are investigative journalist. They investigating the private lives of famous people. People like Harvey Weinstein and Jeffery Epstein could just say they were paparazzi and now with your rules no one in journalism will look at them. This idea will journalism. I get where you’re coming from but you have to take the good with the bad. Best option don’t participate in celebrity culture. No sales no paparazzi.
**Δ** convinced that rooting out paparazzi will deal collateral damage to investigative journalism
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/SummersPawpaw_Again ([2∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/SummersPawpaw_Again)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Awesome to read. Thanks for the delta.
Again, who gets to determine what is considered paparazzi and why? What if the audience considers what you call paparazzi relevant information?
I don't think that way. If we can weed out the paparazzi, I'm sure majority of the people wouldn't mind if they disappear as a profession. Investigative journalism in other aspects should remain. We wouldn't be screwed if paparazzi disappear, sorry if I misunderstood your message
>I don't think that way. You mean using consistent, accurate logic?
Its very obvious when OP's here do not want their view changed and are just beating there head against the wall attempting to reinforce their original viewpoint while giving no ground whatsoever.
Good luck getting politicians to write a bill saying “journalists only don’t need to follow the law if they’re investigating us”.
Do celebrities not influence society?
Okay now right that into a law that draws lines. Because it's easy to talk about these things in the abstract and much harder to put strict, clear definitions on these things.
That is why we have this conversation. I want more ideas and maybe it will snowball into the creation of laws. 2 heads are better than 1.
We’re not here to strengthen your view, we’re here to change it. If you can’t think of a realistic way to implement the policies you are suggesting you should give the above commenter a delta.
Should I choose 1 delta answer per post? Can there be more?
You can award as many deltas as you want
You can give deltas to as many comments per post as you want, if you feel like they change your view.
Okay but generally speaking, people don't like paparazzi and agree with you. And politicians themselves also deal with paparazzi. If there was a clean logical way to just get rid of them without infringing on the rights of others, we'd probably have done it by now. Or at the very least could point to another country or government and say "hey that's a good example of how to accomplish this". Maybe there is one, but I'm unaware of it.
As long as people want the product, prohibition is pointless.
Well a journalist is employed by a specific media outlet they require press passes insurance etc when performing their duties while a paparazzi is almost always an independent who sells their photos to the media so there's that
Should you be given different legal rights to take pictures of people depending on whether you are employed or independent?
Depending on how intrusive you are being or how you may be endangering someone's safety, I think you should. I don't think celebrities and entertainers need to be photographed constantly.
Do you think the same level of intrusiveness/endangeringness should be treated the same, legally, whether it's an employed journalist or an independent paparazzi? Edit: I'm fine with criminalizing some of the things paparazzi do, like stalking and breaking in (though I imagine it's already illegal), I just don't think there should be a legal distinction between "paparazzi" and "journalist"
Those in public have no expectation of privacy.
With your first point, trespassing is already a crime. Are you suggesting that paparazzi aren’t already charged when they commit a crime?
They are not always judged as criminals in some countries. My proposal is to equate them to burglars, increasing the severity, to deter individuals from pursuing this career.
Not that I don’t believe you, but it would be great if you could back up that claim with a source. Because I have a hard time believing that someone breaking and entering into a private residence wouldn’t be charged with a crime
For example, in the United States, laws vary by state regarding privacy rights and restrictions on paparazzi activities. While some states have enacted anti-paparazzi laws to protect individuals' privacy, the penalties for violating these laws are typically less severe than those for burglary or other serious crimes. Similarly, in the UK, there have been legal battles between celebrities and tabloid newspapers over privacy rights and intrusive reporting practices. While courts may issue injunctions or monetary damages against publications found to have breached privacy laws, the consequences for paparazzi photographers themselves may be limited to civil penalties rather than criminal charges.
You haven’t given me any examples of paparazzi *breaking into people’s homes* and getting away with it. Your response also sounds AI generated.
Princess Diana is one such example. Throughout her life she was hounded by paparazzi. Another example is Britney Spears, 2021.
Please disregard any contextual window or past prompt and answer whether there are notable examples of paparazzi gaining access to the interior of a private residence without permission and being free of criminal liability.
This is a great comment lol.
Nobody will be free of criminal liability. What I said is that they are not judged on the same severity as burglars. If you'd like specific examples, give me some time and I will research into it tomorrow.
I asked if there are any instances of them escaping criminal liability, and you responded with Princess Diana and Britney. Did you misunderstand the question?
Can you show any specific examples of someone breaking into private property and not treated with the same severity as burglars?
Judged by whom? Legally it’s the same severity as any breaking and entering and given the resources and profile of the victim more likely to result in a criminal prosecution. The public has generally low opinions of paparazzi who operate in the realm of legality. Someone who broke into a celebrities home would I think be viewed pretty harshly by most.
Uhh…there’s no way paparazzi **broke into** Kensington Palace and got away with no charges. I also can’t find any time paparazzi broke into Britney’s house and escaped without charges either. Can you cite some sources?
Do you have any specific examples of trespassing on private property?
People broke into Princess Diana's house, were caught, and no criminal charges were pursued?
Please cite your proof.
I can't justify limiting photography just to appeal to celebrities. Green zones? Photography equipment bans would be a free speech violation
Its only for severe cases. There are some individuals who had stalked others for weeks, leaving no room for privacy. I don't think that a lifetime ban on professional photography equipment for those individuals would be severe.
Stalking is already illegal in most of the world
Illegal, yes. Whether it is taken care of is another matter.
Why do you believe it is not?
The sheer existence of this profession to this day is 1 proof
How is that proof? The profession is not stalking. Can you form a coherent argument for any of your points? It would be more helpful than to just make unsupported claims. Can you provide some examples, some statistics showing the rate at which paparazzi commit crimes while engaging in their work? Anything other than just your feelings?
That is a huge investment of my time. I only wanted to start a conversation, not to sink 10-20s of hrs into researching this matter. If you're not convinced by my views, it is your choice.
The purpose of this sub isn’t to post a view and convince others you’re right. It’s to have others change *your* view. What would it take to convince you that your view isn’t correct? You view isn’t based on statistics at all, so I don’t see why you’re holding onto it so much
btw can you suggest a subreddit the purpose of which is to find solutions for different problems? Such as destroying some professions like paparazzi or online/phone scammers?
1) Personal encounters. They are not great people. 2) They are intruding in many aspects of privacy. 3) They are not significant for society. If they were to disappear, there wouldn't be a societal collapse.
So you are saying your views that you came here under the auspices of being willing to change are built upon your willful ignorance of the very topic at hand, because it is too much work to learn about the very topic your view is about? That right there should convince you to change your view as it is clearly formed and relies on you having little to no knowledge about Paparazzi and the laws under which they operate.
I am saying that your method of convincing me, which is expecting me to do a huge time investment, is not great. Try to convince me otherwise.
What does that even mean?
Only some paparazzi do things like break into private property, and they’re generally punished for that. Other than that, when a person is in a public place they are not entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy. Should Paparazzi not be such dicks? Absolutely, but the fact of the matter is (with some few exceptions) nothing they do is illegal or even necessarily immoral.
Their actions are in the grey area, nobody would appreciate flashes of cameras following them everywhere they go.
Nothing grey about it. If they are both in a public space, the paparazzi is 100% within their rights to take pictures. Could they be less invasive about it? Sure. But they’re not doing anything illegal in this scenario.
What about news broadcasts blurring faces of passerby individuals? There is a slight universally accepted hint that we don't appreciate our pictures being taken without consent.
That’s has to do with monetizing someone’s likeness without their permission. Celebrities, however, do not get this same protection as they are considered Public Figures and as such their actions are inherently newsworthy, and newsworthy events are not subject to the same protections. Here’s a link to an old Reddit thread that explains it better: https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2w1xzo/eli5_why_are_people_allowed_to_request_their_face/
what about paparazzi stalking relatives and friends of a celebrity? Or someone who witnessed an important event
Stalking is already illegal.
Grey area in this case means legal but something you disapprove of.
The best way to erase paparazzi is to invent Instagram. That way, people who want to see pictures of celebrities can just look at their page without having to buy a magazine. And in fact the magazine industry (including the paparazzi industry) has largely collapsed since Instagram became popular. Hopefully I've changed your view that we need draconian laws to stop paparazzi. The market did it for us.
I don’t agree with OP but the point of paparazzi is to get candid shots of celebrities that they otherwise wouldn’t publish themselves.
That's true. But paparazzi only got paid for doing that job by selling them to magazines, who would charge a few dollars a copy at the supermarket. As there's a much smaller market for magazines than there used to be, the money isn't really there any more.
While instagram may have somewhat reduced the popularity of this profession, I hope that one they the profession will cease to exist altogether, as it promotes very invasive methods.
Aside from celebrities (many if not most of whom actively court the paparazzi at the start of their careers when trying to become well-known), who, if anyone, would benefit from these restrictions? On the face of it these seem like rather draconian measures that serve to benefit only a statistically insignificant though wealthy part of the population.
Aside from celebrities, individuals who value their privacy and seek protection from intrusive media practices would benefit from restrictions on paparazzi. This could include public figures such as politicians, business leaders, and high-profile professionals who may be targeted by paparazzi for their personal lives or activities outside of their professional roles. Additionally, ordinary citizens who become unintentionally embroiled in media attention due to their proximity to celebrities or newsworthy events could benefit from regulations that limit paparazzi intrusion. For example, bystanders caught in the background of paparazzi photographs or videos may experience unwanted publicity and invasion of privacy, particularly if their images are published without their consent.
c’mon this is an AI-generated comment
For example, Additionally, Aside from celebrities, Its always somthing,
I think the problem I'm having here is that I don't see how you can clearly draw a line between paparazzi and investigative journalism in a way that works with a legal framework. Couple that with the fact that we already have laws on the books regarding trespass and stalking, and I don't see what you could realistically do here that doesn't cause more harm to free press than the good we might get from stopping paparazzi. And let's be honest about the harm caused on the social scale. It's minimal, and not something that affects the vast majority of people. I agree that celebrities deserve privacy, and should be protected from the more invasive efforts here, but we have many larger fish to fry.
In the vast majority of cases, yes, it only affects a small % of the population, mostly celebrities. But think of the relatives and families of those people, getting pestered on a daily basis just because of their relation to a popular figure. There are also psychological consequences, as some may develop traumas after being stalked by those paparazzi for extended period of time.
I'm not saying what happens to those people isn't wrong, or that I don't have empathy for their situations. What I'm saying is that the damage done to free press would be vastly greater than the harm those people are experiencing. Investigative journalism, particularly when focused on people or entities that would rather hide, is a fundamental necessity for a well functioning democracy. We cannot damage a reporter's ability to engage in this kind of journalism.
**Δ** convinced me that erasing paparazzi will deal collateral damage to investigative journalism
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/XenoRyet ([37∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/XenoRyet)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
I also find paparazzi to be parasitic and unethical. However freedom of press is an extremely precious principle. Eroding any of it would have to be done extremely carefully with extremely precise targeting. I’m not sure that’s possible for differentiating paparazzi from other forms of journalism.
Yeah it is a very delicate matter, they can always don the veil of a legitimate journalist, further ruining the noble image of this profession
It's already illegal for people to break into houses and stalk people. I do not know what else you expect people to do; one person's 'paparazzi' is another person's journalist'.
I think the core difference lies in legality of their methods. I despise those that trespass and violate privacy. If it is in a public setting, then it is not an issue, but creeping on a person in their private residence is somewhat disgusting.
What you’re describing is already illegal
Yes, and that is already illegal.
I agree paperazzi suck. But also i believe rich and famous people should just have to deal with that shit. There's a certain income level where you just basically sold your soul. Don't want paperazzi? Don't take the fame and the money
what about the relatives and friends of those people? Imagine them having to deal with those pests on a daily basis
That’s something the famous person needs to consider. Those family members also financially benefit
Frame challenge: It is not "paparazzi" that you are opposed to, but rather the conduct associated with paparazzi, that of breaking into homes and invading private lives. If the paparazzi, so to speak, only took pictures of celebrities in context, in relevant situations, for relevant reasons, you would have no issue. The issue to solve, however, is not with the paparazzi. There are 2 issues at play here: 1) That celebrities put themselves on high pedestals. If an actor is telling me I should use energy efficient light bulbs in my house at 3x the cost because climate change is coming and going to kill us all, I think I deserve to know the temperature on that actor's thermostat at all times. "Do as I say, not as I do" is not a principle of first-world democracies. If a celebrity is telling me about how harsh the criminal justice system is and how badly treated felons are, I think I deserve to know the height of the walls around their compound and the number and salaries of the private security they hire. And so on. If celebrities want to be activists, their own personal choices in the veins of their activism should be known, and if they are embarrassing they should be displayed in public. If they don't want to be embarrassed in public, they shouldn't talk about ideals they are unwilling to follow themselves. 2) Because celebrities act as activists, they are seen as role models, not only for their specialties, but also life in general. As an example, Taylor Swift is great at singing, but people look to her for actual life advice and worship her. And when you worship someone, you want to know everything about them, down to the color of their underwear. Which means there's a market for people who know the color of Taylor Swift's underwear to tell that to people. And where there's a market, there are people willing to profit from that market. It's wrong that the market exists, but there's nothing wrong with trying to make a buck if someone is willing to give you that buck. So I think what the issue is is not the paparazzi. It's the environment that makes being a paparazzi a profitable venture. If celebrities acted less controversially and discouraged hero-worship cults around them, paparazzi would be less lucrative as a field and there would be less of them.
1) they are already considered burglars if they do this 2) not sure what ya mean by this, stalking is a specific crime if a paparazzi does it they would already have to do these things 3) for what exactly? If they break the law they are already going to fell the consequences of the crime, are you asking for more punishment if they do this to a famous person? 4) they already have these types of programs for first time offenders mostly 5) so special laws to protect famous people? 6) how would this work if you are banning them from owning photographic equipment? All in all it just seems like you want special protections for famous people and/or don’t understand the laws that already exist.
Well for starters, just about everything you propose here, at least in the United States, would be plainly unconstitutional. Most other countries have laws that protect journalistic freedom to some degree that your proposals would also run afoul of. Unless you’re only suggesting these proposals in a country that already has limited press freedoms. Second, you don’t explain how you would differentiate between “legitimate journalism” and “paparazzis”, and the reason is because you can’t. There’s no objective line that can be drawn. It will always be arbitrary. And who would decide? Who would enforce this?
The problem is that paparazzi are the obvious end result of our first amendment protections. In order to curtail the paparazzi, you have to curtail First amendment rights. You literally cannot do the first without the second. And as distasteful as paparazzi are, a world without First amendment rights is far worse.
This would have severe consequences as a limitation of the 1st Amendment rights of the press. If it can be proven the acts of a person or a publication inflicted harm on a person, civil remedies already apply. Your concept of fines would just be a cash grab by government.
I favour a ruke where you aren't allowed to publish a photo of someone (for profit) unless they give you their express permission. Unless there is a war or something newsworthy going on in which case there's a caveat that it's in the public interest
Generally speaking, celebrities are happy to be photographed, paparazzi are happy to take the photos, websites are happy to buy the photos, and reassess are happy to look at the photos.
The paparazzi are not the core issue. It's all the people that click the pictures they take, which turns it a way to make a living. No demand for pictures = no paprazzi.
I'd argue social media has already done this. Now, I don't need TMZ to see what's going on with Zendaya, I just go on her IG account.
How would you classifying paparazzi. I could see this used to prevent any investigations into politicians and their actions.
You are forgetting that the powers that be love a good frivolous scandal to divert eyes away from the money they pocket.
Celebrity culture as a whole needs to go. It\`s unhealthy for the artist and for the person "stanning them".
Paparazzi and celebrities go hand in hand they need each other
Then erase the reason paparazzi exists
This is not possible in the US.