Mass Debate: Team Artest vs Team Weis

[The Host]

Topic: Media intrusion, do the paparazzi go too far?

Team Artest will be the affirmative, Team Weis will be the negative

Make all of your posts in this thread.

The way the task works, is that the debate will be fought out on the forums in public view... which means if you think you can contribute to your team with an argument, then post it. You don't necessarily have to consult your teammates on everything you do, because you're all arguing the same thing so feel free to post whenever you want as long as it's on the topic etc.

Any questions ask in the NRS Second Task thread

[Tuomas]

I'll start this off with this:

Everybody should act the way that their actions shouldn't be able to be judged. What I mean is, when media "murders" someone, we lose our respect to the poor guy. We should all act the way that we couldn't be judged and then media could be free.

[Username123]

Those paparzzi people are just wierd ppl. They hide in trees so they can take pictures of people and stuff. They simply have no life, they invade privacy. If you dont belive me, just watch the movie Paparazzi and you will know.

[Colin]

The paparazzi routinely go too far in trying to catch celebrities in the act of anything. Yes, celebrities do give up some of their privacy in becoming a celebrity. But that's no excuse for some guy with a camera to sneak onto their property and take pictures of them through their windows. No one should be able to disrupt a person's life at all times, just because that person happens to have a TV show, or was in a movie. Go ahead and hang out at that fancy restaurant in Beverly Hills and snap a few while their dining on a patio. But if you are waiting outside the gates of their house for them to open up, you are a crimminal. Paparazzi hare not photographers. They are stalkers.

[8-Hype]

Paparazzi are normal people, that just help other people to understand what it's like to live the "life of the rich and the famous". They just show the celebrities in real life. In fact, they even help celebrities get more famous, because they show pictures of them that the celebrities "don't" want to be published (actually they want, so that trash talk is about them).

[Drex]

Oh, this is easy as fuck

[Colin]

Paparazzi are normal people, that just help other people to understand what it's like to live the "life of the rich and the famous". They just show the celebrities in real life. In fact, they even help celebrities get more famous, because they show pictures of them that the celebrities "don't" want to be published (actually they want, so that trash talk is about them).

The paparazzi are not 'helping' anybody. They are 'helping' over-curious and insecure people that probably have some mental problems, get their fix of celebrity gossip, or see celebrities without make-up so they don't feel so bad about their ugly mug. There are plenty of shows like "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" and "Cribs" that show how and where celebrities live. How would you feel if you looked out your window right now and there was a stalker out there snapping pictures of you? A little worried. Just leave the celebrities home alone. Let them relax.

[Username123]

And the show "Fabulous life of ..." Anyway the celebrities dont like having those paps around them. There were lots of cases of celebs assulting paps because they were really getting on thier nerves. If i had a pap running around me and stalking me i would just show the finger and shoot at them or something.

[AlwaysWhat,NeverWhy]

Oh, this is easy as fuck

Hmmm, you might want to think twice on that.... I'll prepare a case file and be back tomorrow for the presentation... Worry not Team Weis, we'll get this one!

[Cameron]

http://www.nbaliveforums.com/ftopic22148.php&highlight=entertainment+tonight Well, we have Jae on our side..

I know, I know, entertainment tonight isn't the same as the papparrazi. But it's quite a similar idea; the media is invading these celebrities' lives just so we as the general public can get a tiny glimpse of their off-camera looks and personalities. It's really none of anyone's business, just as your personal lives are no one's business.

All these people are are entertainers, nothing more. Just because their jobs fall under the public eye, doesn't mean their lives need to as well. Although it is sometimes fun to see what they're like outside of their jobs, the decision to let the public in should be up to them, not invasive people trying to make some bucks for photographs.

[Cameron]

And the show "Fabulous life of ..." Anyway the celebrities dont like having those paps around them. There were lots of cases of celebs assulting paps because they were really getting on thier nerves. If i had a pap running around me and stalking me i would just show the finger and shoot at them or something.

Just as a separate follow up point to this, I wanted to point out that is widely known that Princess Diana's death was caused by intrusive Paparazzi.

[Username123]

Paparazzi are just photographers you must think, but actually there are not. If you think they don’t invade peoples privacy then you need to look up the word “privacy”, and how you define privacy yourself.

I for one think if anyone takes candid pictures of someone, which is not right. How would you feel if someone takes pictures of you without you knowing? There is no confidentiality in your life then, when someone is always after you and taking pictures of you at private places or public places.

Paparazzi are the ones to be blamed for Princes Diana’s death; they were the ones taking pictures of her when her car crashed. I am not sure if any of the paparazzi got convicted, but it was there fault for chasing her down which caused the accident. Lots of celebrities retaliated when they were really annoyed by the paparazzi, Tommy Lee Jones almost had a fist fight with one, the guy from Friends “Ross”(don’t know real name) had almost ran a paparazzi over with his car, also Pamela Anderson’s dad got angry because a paparazzi was taking pictures of Pam’s birthday party from a tree. [Source: A show I saw 5 years ago]

The invasion of privacy is a major downfall for the paparazzi, sure they take pictures other than the candid ones, they take pictures at the red carpet and they also take pictures hiding in trees in front of celebrity homes.

I don’t know what else to say, other than the fact they invade privacy and no one likes them for their actions. I might be repeating my self but I would say it again they invade confidentiality.

Whoo, I never typed that much in my life so this is my longest NLSC post

[8-Hype]

The only reason for Princes Diana's death is a bad driving mistake, which did not have any cause except drunkness etc.

[Colin]

Three things caused her death, a bad crash, not wearing seatbelts, and paparazzi standing around taking pictures instead of getting help. It was not one reason.

[8-Hype]

Paparazzi are also people who need money, and they get this money for pictures. That's like every other job. They just watch the people, they don't disturb them. Most of the celebrities are just snobs and feel offended when someone takes a picture of them in times they don't want anybody to see them. But on the other hand, there's those who like that. But for those who don't: They're overreacting and taking it all too serious. They just have too much money, and lost their brains because of this reason. You all know, "mo' money mo' problems". And they just want to blame the poor Paparazzi for that.

[Tuomas]

Paparazzi is just a normal job and they are trying to work as good as they can, who doesn't want to excel at their profession?

And celebrities, they should act properly so they can't be judged, because the burden they have chosen to carry is that they are role models for the normal peoples. If they screw up, it's twice the trouble.

[Jowe]

Despite what their reasons are, despite how famous the people they are following are. Despite how much the 'stars' are public figures.

It doe not give them the right to stalk, prod , and poke around in the lives of the rich and famous. If looks like stalking, smells like stalking, it is stalking.

No one has the right to obtain and release information about other peoples divorce papers, or taking pictures of people going shopping.

Just because they have 'press' acreditation doesn't give them the right to follow people, hide in the bushes or try to run people off the road taking photos.

[AlwaysWhat,NeverWhy]

Three things caused her death, a bad crash, not wearing seatbelts, and paparazzi standing around taking pictures instead of getting help.

Okay, since the whole paparazzi issue was elevated to a whole new level after the princess' death, with the people's main gripe againts the photo boys being that they did not assist her after the crash, I'm going to start off from here and gradually move on to the main issue of media intrusion.


The death of Princess Diana quickly prompted calls for new laws, specifically Good Samaritan laws and restrictions on the activities of celebrity photographers. Both ideas should be rejected.

The paparazzi allegedly photographed Diana instead of helping her in that tunnel along the Seine in Paris. But before sympathy for Diana clouds our judgment, we should recall that the Western philosophy of jurisprudence does not permit the government to impose positive obligations on citizens.

Each person is the owner of his life. As such, he has no positive legal obligations to others that are enforceable by government except those that are voluntarily accepted. All that government can require of you is that you abstain from violating the rights of others by subjecting them to force or fraud. Thus, even if you believe that morality requires you to help an accident victim, that requirement is not enforceable by government. A theory of individual rights could have no other outcome.

people typically help accident victims, not because the law forces them to, but because they are motivated by good will. In a free society, where people do not look to government to take care of them, good will is the exception not the rule. In the early days of the republic, Alexis de Tocqueville visited from France and marveled at how active people were with their neighbors. Americans, Tocqueville said, had associations for every conceivable purpose. No law forced them to participate. They did it because they wanted to be involved with their communities and wanted to have a place to turn when they were in distress. They didn't look to government to do what they thought they should be doing for themselves.


This whole issue arose when certain political and media figures required that new laws should be instated in order to force paparazzis to assist their subjects first before photographing them, thus making a legal case against the ones who refrained from helping Lady D during her accident. The whole argument above proves that we cannot use the law in such a side and misdirecting way in order to negate paparazzis effect on the life of celebrities...


As far as the main intrusion issue, the argument is something in the likes of the one below:

Many people have expressed their feelings for the paparazzi in various ways. Those who claim the paparazzi are stalkers say they have gone too far by trying to get that exclusive shot. It has been said that they "make a career out of pushing their way into other people's lives in a way that makes them repugnant." Such actions have given them the title of "modern-day bounty hunters," carrying cameras instead of guns, who go where the stars are in search of a photo that will sell.

Those who express disgust for the paparazzi have made extensive pleas to the government by lobbying for laws that will make it a misdemeanor to publish photographs taken without permission. Their argument for such laws reflect the ideal of equality, testifying that public figures are human beings also, and they deserve the right to privacy like everyone else. Furthermore, they shout that the paparazzi frequently use illegal actions to gain admission into the private lives of many celebrities. Such violations include breaking and entering, the use of trickery, impersonation, fraud and disguise.

Those who defend the paparazzi say they have a first amendment right to take photos of any celebrity. It lies within that realm of journalism we call "newsgathering," which is protected within the clause of "freedom of the press." But there are some photojournalists who contend that the paparazzi are not real journalists.

"The majority of professional photojournalists,including the ones so called 'paparazzi', are highly educated, not only in the use of a camera, but also in journalism skills. Their training includes classes on communication, law and, most importantly, ethics.... "

In defense of the paparazzi, many journalist figure that celebrities voluntarily surrender their right to privacy as part of an unwritten contract with the members of society who pay their salaries as fans. David Cuthbert, a reporter for The Times-Picayune in New Orleans, said that both celebrities and the paparazzi feed off each other. In other words, one doesn't exist without the other.

"Celebrities preen for photographers only when it suits their purpose. When it does not, they hide their faces, engage in public prowls and haul photojournalists into court. Each needs the other, but it's a love-hate affair, a dance lit by strobe light.

Paparazzo Alan Zanger said that photographers are not at fault, but instead, celebrities invite the paparazzi attention through lavish lifestyles.

"These people earn lots of money. They are very promiscuous with their love affairs. That leads to these pictures being taken," Zanger said. "We don't provoke their affairs. We photograph it."

[Username123]

OMG!!! This guy wrote a whole essay

[[Q]]

I think the paparazzi are refreshing in a way because they show sides of celebrities that we'd probably never see. We always see them on TV, seeing them all perfect, but with these pictures we see that they're not that much different from us, minus a few million dollars...

[Colin]

That's great you wrote so much Dweaver, but you sepnd most of the time telling us what our opinion was.

Throughout that whole opening spiel on Diana, you danced around in circles (Circles full of a nice vocabulary, mind you. Jurisprudence is now part of my vocabulary) without setting down on one side of the arugment. That was especially evident in your comments on Diana, but that doesn't mean it wasn't there in the next section. So I'm going to take out everything you repeated, and everything that was industry-biased (quotes from a reporter and a paparazzo.)

Those who defend the paparazzi say they have a first amendment right to take photos of any celebrity. It lies within that realm of journalism we call "newsgathering," which is protected within the clause of "freedom of the press." But there are some photojournalists who contend that the paparazzi are not real journalists.

"The majority of professional photojournalists,including the ones so called 'paparazzi', are highly educated, not only in the use of a camera, but also in journalism skills. Their training includes classes on communication, law and, most importantly, ethics.... "

In defense of the paparazzi, many journalist figure that celebrities voluntarily surrender their right to privacy as part of an unwritten contract with the members of society who pay their salaries as fans.

That's what I'm left with. Now, to continue.

Yes paparazzi have a right to take photos of any celebrity, but certainly they are not given the right to break and enter, stalk their cars and boats, and wreak havoc with their privacy. And why do pictures of celebrities not work the same way as a civilian? There's a reason candid shots of the faces of civilians are blurred out in magazines, why does this not apply to a celebrity. More people know who this is and have their opinion of the person changed.

And the reason I bolded that selection of text. It should be obvious. How trained are these paparazzi in all those other subjects if they routinely ignore any--if there really is any--training in their pursuit of celebrity. It is wrong what they do, and no 'unwritten contract' can give permission for commiting the crime of stalking.

[Username123]

Paparazzi are not refreshing, they take candid pictures of celebrities so us people can see how they really live thier lives. Its really not refershing, if you want to see a celebrity just watch ET or something. Ivading someones privacy so people can see thier pictures at private places is certinly not refreshing.

[AlwaysWhat,NeverWhy]

Topic: Media intrusion, do the paparazzi go too far?

Since the topic itself mentions media intrusion in general, we should probably bring this generalized issue into view in this debate, not focusing strictly on paparazzi's good- or mal- doings.

Especially, we should not only focus on the obvious moral issues that occur, byt also on th elegal ones that surface every now and then due to increased media activity.

Each of the following could represent a major legal problem:

-a TV news report quoting a police officer about a drunk driver who caused a fatal accident


-a mistake that associated the wrong name or home address with criminal wrongdoing


-a record bought at a local store that's used as background music for a commercial


-a TV drama based on the life of a well-known person


-publishing controversial excerpts on a web site from a new novel


-a TV cameraman who accompanies the police into a home during a drug raid


-a photo from a web page used in a student newspaper


-announcing that a local businessman has contracted AIDS


As you can see, there are a number of occasions when the media are ALLEGEDLY intruding, with paparazzi activity being only a minor, non-focal point in the larger scheme of things.

The U.S. Constitution DOES NOT talk about a right of privacy or invasion of privacy, and this is very important from a legal point of view.When it comes to invasion of privacy, the law makes a distinction between private and public individuals.Once individuals enter the "public spotlight" (either intentionally or through accidental circumstances), they are afforded much less legal protection, and this not just by gaping 'holes' in the legal system, but intentionally through and through.

Let's just contemplate on the following examples:

-If a man is convicted of child molesting, can he claim it's private information? If so, does he have a right to keep the press from disclosing that information (and the people in the neighborhood where he lives from knowing about it)?

-If a politician is found guilty of sealing money from the public treasury, do we have a right to know it (especially before the next election)?

-If a respected and married evangelist who regularly preaches against illicit sex has sexual affairs, can he claim that this information is private and should not be publicly disclosed?

In these cases, many people feel that not only does the public have a right to know these things, but that in a democratic society they must know them in order to make informed choices. Thus, the responsibility of a free press is to bring such things to the public's attention.


Another, different example to portray a different side of the issue:


Let's assume you are a journalist.If you were televising a public event and wanted to show general shots of the audience in attendance, there would be no problem, even if one of the members of the audience was well known. Individuals in this case are considered "background."

But, if one of the people in the audience was a well-known person and you appeared to go out of your way to bring this fact to the attention of the audience, you could be guilty of trying to "cash in on" the person's prominence. At the same time, stations and networks know that few prominent people sue in these circumstances; and, in fact, many appreciate the publicity.

This goes to show that the very nature of 'media intrusion' is in fact indefinable, depending itself upon many variable factors, such as the current mood of the people being 'victimized'. So what do we do in such cases? Hold another Holy Inquisition and deny the press its basic rights in order to protesct a few pampered celebrities that woke up on the wrong side of their bed that morning? Because that is the only way to 'achieve' total and guaranteed privacy. But at what cost? Is it worth it?

[Colin]

You keep bringing laws into this, being that you are a lawyer this makes sense. The topic isn't "Are paparazzi legal?" We all know the answer to that one. They are doing it with out prosecution, therefore it is legal. But that's that not the question. The question is "Do the paparazzi go too far?" Now let's see you answer it without dancing in circles.

I don't think you can. You even said "that the very nature of 'media intrusion' is in fact undefinable", that leads me to believe you don't in fact have a true response. Why? Because you know that there is no reason to believe that paparazzi do not go too far. The only points you have made are: It's legal (and in the process brought up all kinds oif unrelated examples to prove a known fact. You don't need to tell us that 1 + 1 = 2, to help prove that 2 +2 = 4. It's a law.), and you quoted a few members of the industry who are making money off these pictures. You can't expect people pullin gin big bucks to give you an honest answer now, can you?

[J@3]

Hmm my girlfriend told me about Jurisprudence a while ago, she's doing law at uni though. Anyways, carry on, great debate guys