First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
What are your opinions on Paparazzi?
Posted 12/21/10 , edited 12/21/10

Now others may argue, that no one, even a celebrity should not have anyone "legally" stalking them. But then again, some people will say that it could lead to a violation of freedom of speech and press, so they shouldn't be banned.


People always try to advocate the First Amendment for the stupid shit that they do. There's a thin line between Freedom of Press and just plain harassment. I see some huge double-standards.
Posted 12/21/10

Godamie wrote:
What if one of them is a pedophile or just some real psycho?


If they really are a pedophile or a psycho, then they'll do this even if they aren't getting paid as paparazzi.
Maybe as a hobby.
Posted 12/21/10


...are you full now?
Posted 12/21/10

otaku_125 wrote:



...are you full now?


I'm not the kind of person who sets out bait and wait for someone to take it.

I put a gun to their head and force them to feed me.
5406 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F / NY
Offline
Posted 12/21/10

otaku_125 wrote:



Godamie, don't feed the troll >.<


Don't worry, I just made this one to see what other people think in general since there are so many different viewpoints and arguements that will contradict each other. So I thought it was interesting. Like I mentioned, I'm just more of, "There should be slightly more control if not at all". Though wasn't really getting a direct "side", but Gheydeer does make some interesting points though he can be less abrasive.
Posted 12/21/10

Godamie wrote:


otaku_125 wrote:



Godamie, don't feed the troll >.<


Don't worry, I just made this one to see what other people think in general since there are so many different viewpoints and arguements that will contradict each other. So I thought it was interesting. Like I mentioned, I'm just more of, "There should be slightly more control if not at all". Though wasn't really getting a direct "side", but Gheydeer does make some interesting points though he can be less abrasive.


Why thank you.
Posted 12/21/10
They should expose corporate BS that ruins an artist, rather than help ruin the artists.
Posted 12/21/10
I'm surprised some of them aren't harmed or dead yet. The way many of them act by stalking, trespassing etc. I think some actors would've snapped and just impale them with something sharp.
Posted 12/21/10 , edited 12/21/10

mystic17 wrote:

I'm surprised some of them aren't harmed or dead yet. The way many of them act by stalking, trespassing etc. I think some actors would've snapped and just impale them with something sharp.


well they try to escape but as you know when you become famous, you usually sign your soul. You can try to leave the business but you as a product you are too valuable at that point, if you try to leave because they are restricting your personal art, they then stalk, pressure, get public scrutiny against said artist, and the artists actually do go insane.

Look at michael jackson before he died. in 2002-2003, he decided to go freelance and left sony, and basically said sony didn't give a shit about fine art, but they wanted to milk his name. They didn't even care about his new songs, they just wanted to recycle the oldies. So when he left, they tried to destroy his new album. After completely out of sony, he was getting many death threats, stalkings, suspicious followers, threats to family members, ect.

It drove him INSANE. This is why he was so reclusive and 'odd', and why he barely could talk to people, but when he did, he sounded afraid, but very nice. During the 2005-2009 period before he died, you wouldn't hear him mentioning what sony had done at ALL. He was too afraid, he had already spoken his mind against sony's bottom line before, and look what it did. His life was really on the line at this point, and when he finally got his balls in gear and decided to make some new indi songs, HE DIED!!! Coincidence? I don't know but it's a compelling link. Also the new songs he was making were themselves anti corporate because they spoke of selling his soul to the devil, and also dying for you.

No doubt in my mind, a corporation will do ANYTHING for their bottom line, and when artists go against that. I don't think there's a limit to what people would do to keep their assets.
26423 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F / Under your bed
Offline
Posted 12/21/10
They're like predators getting ready to attack their prey. 0__0
Posted 12/21/10

varnlestoff wrote:

well they try to escape but as you know when you become famous, you usually sign your soul. You can try to leave the business but you as a product you are too valuable at that point, if you try to leave because they are restricting your personal art, they then stalk, pressure, get public scrutiny against said artist, and the artists actually do go insane.

Look at michael jackson before he died. in 2002-2003, he decided to go freelance and left sony, and basically said sony didn't give a shit about fine art, but they wanted to milk his name. They didn't even care about his new songs, they just wanted to recycle the oldies. So when he left, they tried to destroy his new album. After completely out of sony, he was getting many death threats, stalkings, suspicious followers, threats to family members, ect.

It drove him INSANE. This is why he was so reclusive and 'odd', and why he barely could talk to people, but when he did, he sounded afraid, but very nice. During the 2005-2009 period before he died, you wouldn't hear him mentioning what sony had done at ALL. He was too afraid, he had already spoken his mind against sony's bottom line before, and look what it did. His life was really on the line at this point, and when he finally got his balls in gear and decided to make some new indi songs, HE DIED!!! Coincidence? I don't know but it's a compelling link. Also the new songs he was making were themselves anti corporate because they spoke of selling his soul to the devil, and also dying for you.

No doubt in my mind, a corporation will do ANYTHING for their bottom line, and when artists go against that. I don't think there's a limit to what people would do to keep their assets.


It's sad that it's like that for people of celebrity status, it upsets me. Michael didn't deserve that or any other famous person. I wish they'd make it illegal for the paparazzi to even come within 100ft without the person's consent. but I know it won't happen. -.-
Posted 12/21/10

mystic17 wrote:


varnlestoff wrote:

well they try to escape but as you know when you become famous, you usually sign your soul. You can try to leave the business but you as a product you are too valuable at that point, if you try to leave because they are restricting your personal art, they then stalk, pressure, get public scrutiny against said artist, and the artists actually do go insane.

Look at michael jackson before he died. in 2002-2003, he decided to go freelance and left sony, and basically said sony didn't give a shit about fine art, but they wanted to milk his name. They didn't even care about his new songs, they just wanted to recycle the oldies. So when he left, they tried to destroy his new album. After completely out of sony, he was getting many death threats, stalkings, suspicious followers, threats to family members, ect.

It drove him INSANE. This is why he was so reclusive and 'odd', and why he barely could talk to people, but when he did, he sounded afraid, but very nice. During the 2005-2009 period before he died, you wouldn't hear him mentioning what sony had done at ALL. He was too afraid, he had already spoken his mind against sony's bottom line before, and look what it did. His life was really on the line at this point, and when he finally got his balls in gear and decided to make some new indi songs, HE DIED!!! Coincidence? I don't know but it's a compelling link. Also the new songs he was making were themselves anti corporate because they spoke of selling his soul to the devil, and also dying for you.

No doubt in my mind, a corporation will do ANYTHING for their bottom line, and when artists go against that. I don't think there's a limit to what people would do to keep their assets.


It's sad that it's like that for people of celebrity status, it upsets me. Michael didn't deserve that or any other famous person. I wish they'd make it illegal for the paparazzi to even come within 100ft without the person's consent. but I know it won't happen. -.-


I know it sucks, but I still defend the 1st amendment ruthlessly, I would never condone those restrictions. Besides regulation and laws that are passed always make your life even more invasive from outside troubles, never the other way around.
Posted 12/22/10

varnlestoff wrote:

I know it sucks, but I still defend the 1st amendment ruthlessly, I would never condone those restrictions. Besides regulation and laws that are passed always make your life even more invasive from outside troubles, never the other way around.


Yeah it truly does seem that way about certain laws. -_-
Posted 12/22/10
They annoy the shit out of me. =____=

I once saw a double page spread about a famous woman (can't remember who) who had her trousers tucked into her sock...
THE HORROR.
11277 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Iloilo City, PH
Offline
Posted 12/22/10 , edited 12/22/10

GheyDeer wrote:



I'm not the kind of person who sets out bait and wait for someone to take it.

I put a gun to their head and force them to feed me.



First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.