Celebrities’ Rights to Privacy

A celebrity is not a person known for his/her talent or achievement, but an individual recognized for his/her reputation created by the media. The phase of stardom is slippery, and media may choose to represent celebrities varying from exaggerated admiration to mockery. The three texts chosen, movie "Sunset Boulevard", feature article "Over the Hilton" and television show "Celebrity Uncensored Six" are texts presenting different perception of celebrities than their usual images - either corrupted by the encircling media, overloads oneself with self-indulgence, or just mocks celebrity in a broad spectrum. Such media items empower and impresses the audience by perceiving celebrities as people who pay the price of privacy to gain well

Once upon a time, I woke up in the morning and decided to turn on the television and switch the channel to the news. I instantly regretted the decision. Recently, the validity of news sources has grown noticeably questionable. With lies and mistruths swarming around such an industry, it is only natural to question various aspects of the industry as a whole. Upon further analysis, celebrity stories strike me as an aspect that needs to be disposed of. News sources should not publish celebrity stories since the numerous costs of the stories are much greater than is permissible.

The boundary between publicity rights and the First Amendment rights is the main legal issue being called into question in this case. There has been a struggle to clearly articulate where the line separating publicity and free speech lies. Arguments can be made on both sides and many famous cases have come about from this issue, most of them going in favor of the first amendment. There is a definite conflict between a celebrity’s right of publicity and the public’s right to free expression represented in the

The question of paparazzi threatening privacy and First Amendment rights is often to situational to argue in a conventional manner, but certainly there are many facets of the issue which can be addressed in a quite straightforward manner. Celebrities who feel they have the right to privacy in public places often muddy the waters of this issue. Oddly enough, those celebrities who have chosen to speak out against what they feel are violations of their privacy most always begin their campaigns with a large press conference. In other words, they gather together those people they wish to not only suppress but also berate in hopes that these people will use their positions and skills to

Consequently, by conducting these actions, we are taking away their first amendment right. The value of the first amendment right is really grandiose and perhaps the most crucial right to have. For instance, the first amendment right has shaped the U.S.A to be distinctive from other countries. The first amendment gave everyone, not just common people, the entitlement to freely express themselves. However, with social media watching and judging their every move, it's hard to be a part of everyday life. Even going to the supermarket might have to require a distortion for the media. It's as though celebrities are being trapped in a prison. This is unjust because they never signed a contract agreeing to surrender their lives for the public. It's as if we are making people , who give up their privacy, like robots and force these "robots" to be on top of a cliff overlooking embarrassment and fear. All these people ever asked was to be open to public about his or her talent, not giving up their invaluable privacy. According to (Source A), it states,"It seems somewhat unfair to say that because a person's gift lies in acting, basketball, or singing, rather than, for example, engineering, architecture, or computer science, that he or she has somehow " chosen " to give up all of his or

A celebrity is defined by the media and society through characterisations; the introduction of various on-line and print media platforms enhance the presence of celebrity culture, such for advertising, activism, different genres of television (e.g. reality, gastronomical), and even political avenues as well (Driessens). Their fame is developed based on prominence cum establishment in the entertainment industry that transforms their recognition into a popular culture. In Graeme Turner’s Understanding Celebrity, he discusses the effects of contemporary popular culture representing celebrity as an icon of cultural change (Turner Understanding Celebrity). The power of a celebrity uses his status and popularity to create discourse with the public and media; how each present themselves to an audience in performances or marketing, these functions as general tokens of success in their glamourous lives (Driessens). The discursive effect in the celebrity contemporary culture aligns close to religion, with some qualities credited to particular celebrities and religious figures. The way some fans admire their celebrity figures reflects a spiritual experience, as fans view their idol as a person with immortal talents and influential qualities. This phenomenon is linked to how the media glorifies the celebrity and thus, produces a celebrated figure with an astounding influence amongst the public (Turner Understanding Celebrity). As a result, the celebrity’s economic value is

The case study I chose to do is “Tom Cruise, Katie Holmes and Suri Cruise: Do Celebrities Have Privacy?” This case study discusses the very public divorce of actor Tom Cruise and actress Katie Holmes. The two were forced to play out much of their relationship so that the world could see. This bring up a multitude of ethical issues as far as a person’s right to privacy and dealing with their personal lives.

Celebrities should always be mindful that the public is still observe closely on how they live, either public life or private

It has been argued by Giles and Rockwell (2009) that celebrities who gain sudden fame and fortune are often ill-equipped to cope with the loss of privacy. In their

The media often uses censorship as a form of persuasion. Media is obsessed with how the public reads into certain things. Sean Redmond observes this concept through the mention of how celebrity and media interacts with the public: “the aim of public relations is ‘the deliberate, planned and sustained effort to establish and maintain mutual understanding between an organization and its publics’”

Currently, there is a noticeable interest of the media for the lives of celebrities, who include politicians, sports people and TV and music stars. Although it is acceptable a larger exposure of their lives in newspapers, magazines and TV shows than of an ordinary citizen, I believe that there are some arguments that support the idea that these public personalities also deserve a minimum level of privacy.

Paparazzi are a living nightmare for the celebrities. Imagine living in a place where you cannot control on how much you wanted to expose yourself, just because you are a celebrity. There are always two sides of a coin and being a celebrity has its pros and cons. Does life as a celebrity with its fame, glitter and wealth is worth the price of privacy? The answer would likely be no. When signing a contract to become a celebrity, unintentionally a person is letting go one of the most crucial aspects in life and that is privacy. Being a celebrity is just the same as any other occupation such as doctors, lawyers, engineers and so on. Unfortunately, the right of privacy had been taken from the celebrities’ grasp even without their consent. Thus, celebrity's privacy should be protected as there is lack of respect in the privacy rights of an individual, personal enjoyment is not a justification for harming others and some paparazzi are extremely aggressive.

Celebrities have a right to have their own privacy, and the paparazzi had better not be allowed to restrict their lives. Furthermore, photographers and journalists must not be permitted to make news that can influence celebrities' success adversely. The rights of celebrities for privacy have always been abused, so they need to defend their rights, despite their profession. Though they are public figures, this does not mean that the publish of every detail of their private lives is justifiable. It is legitimate to take pictures when they are at the stage or on the red carpet, yet most cases they must be left alone. However, the media always inclines to release both sensational and negative news to public. The latest pattern is the Chris Brown and Rihanna domestic abuse scandal ("Chris Brown and Rihanna: A Dangerous Relationship" 1). This really influenced Chris

Additionally, breaking and entering or using trickery, impersonation, fraud and disguise to gain admission to a private area are illegal. Even though these acts are illegal, some members of the media still break the law to get the picture or story they want. Often times,

Whether we admit or not, many have a fascination with those in the public eye. We want to know about their secret to success, the skeletons in their closet and if they really are human like the rest of us.