Should There Be a Law Against Paparazzi? Essay Example
How about creating a law against the use of telephoto lens and parabolic listening devices? How about creating a new crimeOne that will penalize those persisting and persuading photographers, the Paparazzi also known to celebrities as stalkarazzi who follow the rich and famous for the thousand dollars snapshot that reveals some special, intimate moment or an embarrassing one. Should there be a law rebuking such act? Should there be strict laws preventing press photographers (paparazzi) from pursuing persons who do not want to be photograph?
<br>
<br>I believe there's a symbolic relationship that exists between celebrities and photographer; they need each other to create the aura that feeds them both. And the general public needs that aura to feed its dream and fantasies. Without the paparazzi and the tabloids that sell better than an item greatly reduced in its sale price, the famous wouldn't be famous. The glitter would fade away into gray mist like a fog. The famous gave up a large measure of privacy for the brighter, larger world of glitter. It's living globally, everyone knows where you are and when and also every gritty little detail of your personal lifestyle. Privacy is not part of language.
<br>
<br>Photographers do have the right to follow public figures, newsmakers, and celebrities in order to snap their photos. A line should be drawn as to peering over a wall or chasing a limo to get a picture of a celebrity. But if someone (like Princess Diana) is doing something on a front lawn and there's no wall or security, that's a different. A law or Bill against paparazzi is unnecessary because there are already laws against trespassing, against stalking, against reckless driving ( as in pursuit of a celebrity) and against harassment. These laws are available to everyone, not just celebrities.
<br>
<br>Furthermore, by creating a bill or law against paparazzi, it's not attempt to save the rich and famous. The famous still want the attention and limelight, but
<br>
<br>I believe there's a symbolic relationship that exists between celebrities and photographer; they need each other to create the aura that feeds them both. And the general public needs that aura to feed its dream and fantasies. Without the paparazzi and the tabloids that sell better than an item greatly reduced in its sale price, the famous wouldn't be famous. The glitter would fade away into gray mist like a fog. The famous gave up a large measure of privacy for the brighter, larger world of glitter. It's living globally, everyone knows where you are and when and also every gritty little detail of your personal lifestyle. Privacy is not part of language.
<br>
<br>Photographers do have the right to follow public figures, newsmakers, and celebrities in order to snap their photos. A line should be drawn as to peering over a wall or chasing a limo to get a picture of a celebrity. But if someone (like Princess Diana) is doing something on a front lawn and there's no wall or security, that's a different. A law or Bill against paparazzi is unnecessary because there are already laws against trespassing, against stalking, against reckless driving ( as in pursuit of a celebrity) and against harassment. These laws are available to everyone, not just celebrities.
<br>
<br>Furthermore, by creating a bill or law against paparazzi, it's not attempt to save the rich and famous. The famous still want the attention and limelight, but