Paparazzi Rhymes With Invasion of Privacy

Say cheese!

When you hear the word 'Paparazzi', you think of the invasive people with cameras who hide behind bushes and spy on famous people to take their pictures in their most intimate personal time. Really, these people make a living with snapping their camera to capture celebrities' embarrassing moments (that could very well ruin their careers), but not without invading their privacy and risking a restraining order for them. There are mixed opinions about the morality of this profession.

In a way, I both agree and disagree with paparazzi's treatment of celebrities (maybe slightly leaning towards the 'disagree' side). Sure, it's a breach in privacy and it violates people's rights--catching celebrities in the process of ummm dressing up, eating messily and unsophisticatedly or exploding at a random, no-name civilian--but it's through these people that we see the dirt of the celebrities we like (or don't like). We see them do normal-people-stuff, see them be more like an ordinary person than someone higher than us. Also, undeniably, we enjoy it when pictures taken by paparazzi uncover infidelities, hidden relationships and deep, dark secrets. Well, okay, these things don't change the wrongs, but they make the paparazzi profession somewhat accepted by society.

Of course, there are limits to how much paparazzi could do to be acceptable to society and not downright immoral. I don't think stalking celebrities to their homes hiding in their bushes is, in any sense, decent. This is what I would consider a total invasion of privacy and lawsuit-worthy. And just very creepy. It's bad enough that they have all eyes on everything they do, much worse for aggressive people to intently watch them in the safety of their own home (where they expect to be safe from these kinds of things).

The media and the cyber-community, all of us included, play a big role in the paparazzi's line of work. After all, taken controversial pictures are useless if no one sees them. The paparazzi-stalking industry wouldn't be as popular and disputable without their networks to spread pictures all over the world--on the news and the Internet. This isn't right though, because what has been posted on the Net is as permanent as history itself. Once it's up there, it cannot be erased, and there is no control over it.

One of the biggest scandals (caused by paparazzi) of 2012 is undoubtedly Kristen Stewart's cheating scandal with Snow White and the Huntsman director Rupert Sanders. Paparazzi spotted the two in a car (in a secluded place) being...touchy with each other. Photos came out in Us Weekly, exposing the two of their secret affair. It doesn't help that both had relationships (Stewart dating long-time boyfriend Pattinson, and Sanders married and having kids) before the fling. I can't say what the paparazzi did was completely justifiable, but I'm not saying that I'll hold what they did against them. It's still invading privacy, but if the paparazzi hadn't done what they did, we wouldn't have known this dirty secret. Heck, poor Pattinson and Sanders' wife wouldn't have known about the cheating of their significant others behind their backs without the photos taken by the paparazzi. In a way, what the paparazzi did, no matter what the intentions behind were, could both be good and bad.

Any invasion of privacy is not taken well. No one would want their secrets exposed for the whole world to see (this is why they're called secrets and not simply facts). If this happened to me, I would be angry, distraught, embarrassed, sad, ashamed, furious and any other negative feelings you can think of. We only let people we trust see our private side. It's not for everyone to see, because being judged can't be helped. There's always judgement and unpleasant comments and criticisms, and this is the reason why invasion of privacy can never be acceptable. Because it exposes people to the bad side of freedom of expression.