Privacy Laws for GB and celebs?

One of my buddies is an attorney and like all of my buddies they are now sucked into these GB/Hollywood gossip discussions. I am always the bad influence in my circle of friends but I think everyone has figured that out by now.

Someone on the board mentioned that they think GB's life should be private and the focus should be on his acting. That's a good point but looking at all celebrities and not just GB, let's be honest. It's shameful but I think that more people read People Magazine than Time. Sandra Bullock went to People when she revealed she had adopted a child.

Then there's the Internet. We have all read the rumors and innuendo. I would be mad as hell if someone went on a gossip site and made a comment about me that I know was a crock of crap. But most celebrities don't even address any of the rumors and innuendo. BTW, the Internet is a cesspool of gossip, IMO.

Of course, gossip rags have been around forever. I am reading a great book on the history of Hollywood gossip (Thank you Gerard Butler for opening up my world to the sleaze of HW gossip).

Okay, people are interested, the stories sell magazines and get hits online and the stars get publicity. !But when does it go to far? And how can celebrities ask for privacy when in many cases they so often court the publicity themselves? My friend said he read in a law journals that for years that there were talks by some lawmakers about enacting some new privacy laws regarding celebrities. He is going to send me some articles. I would love to cover those Congressional hearings if those laws were debated!

What do you think?

fact is that all the gossip sites and rags exist coz "we" want them. it's all part of the fame game, and celebs use them to get their name in the public. sometimes....the 'razzi are even called and "alerted" to when and where some celebs are going to be....by the celeb's own PR team.

i was the one who said it was a shame that we couldn't just focus on his acting and i still feel that way. but...on the other hand....if gb wasn't in the gossip mags....we wouldn't have much to talk about at all, would we??? seems that nearly 90 percent of what we post, read and hear about him is the gossip type of stuff.

they (celebs) have to take the bad with the good, i guess. and considering how some do manage to stay "below the radar"...it kinda makes it seem that those who are constantly IN the rags love it. (gman!) after all...what is it they say? there is no such thing as bad publicity??

I think there is such a thing as bad publicity. I would hold GB in much higher esteem if he would just quit the silly publicity! But as someone said, he has fans who could see him shoot a man in cold blood and find a way to blame the dead guy.

Okay, they are going to kill me for telling this but all of my friends are now "following" a celebrity and we have "contests" to see who has the most outrageous stuff said online about them on the gossip sites. My friend that follows Paris Hilton discovered that there was a sex tape in the past and was greatly upset. I think he is beginning to have a crush on her. Okay my attorney friend said Paris should not have expected to have kept that quiet because she is a public figure and has no expectation of privacy. I strongly disagree unless she put that tape online herself.

>>But as someone said, he has fans who could see him shoot a man in cold blood and find a way to blame the dead guy.


don't remember who said it, but they are correct! i've seen it happen too much lately, and it's disheartening. i've been a fan longer than most, but lately it's trying to continue to be one...if i let myself pay attention to the fans.

Celebrities are public figures in the the eyes of the law. There are already laws regarding public figures. Basically, if you are a public figure you have to prove "malice" when invoking the defamation laws. I don't think that celebrities need any higher protection than any other public figure, for example, politicians. The reason for the higher burden of proving malice is to protect free speech, and our ability to question, criticize and challenge our leaders. Therefore, I doubt you will ever see a law passed regarding the media and celebrities, because it will never be possible to give them more protection than any other public figure. It would be struck down as unconstitutional.

As for other forms of privacy invasion, i.e. the paps etc., all states have tort laws that cover the range of abuses that the paps may inflict. The problem is that celebrities, like the average joe, must avail themselves of the civil (and sometime criminal) courts in order to get releif. That can be time consuming and expensive. But that is true for all other citizens. You might see a state (like California) try to enact specific tort laws to protect celebrities, for example some restriction on following a celeb in a vehicle etc. But I can see problems with defining "celebrity" as well as other specifics with those types of laws -and thus the law could be stuck down for vagueness among other issues. Again, there are laws already to protect celebs (and anyone else) they just need to be enforced.

The greatest power that celebs have is the power to boycott certain publications and interviewers who use people that cross the line. Celebs can cooperate with publications or refuse to. George Clooney has done so in the past with success. However, celebrities need the media as much as the media needs them. That is why they tolerate it. They play the game and in turn know that they must put up with some inconveniences and irritation.

Very good points Dallas!

I think the key word here is "public". Even though celebrities of any sort are entitled to their privacy, once they become public figures and walk out on to a public street, they are public domain. Now where the law should step in is when they are photographed on their own private property, like hanging in a tree while they are sun bathing in the nude in their own back yard.

But here's the thing that always confused me. Sometimes when you see a show or a news piece on TV, some faces that are caught in it may be pixilated or obscured. I always thought that was because they would not give their permission as a "private" citizen to be photographed. Is that true? It can all be very confusing.

I guess when you become public, it's open season on many things that are not allowed when you are a private citizen. If someone wrote something about me in a local paper saying something about me that wasn't true and it could harm my character, I could sue them for defamation.

Celebrities can have it coming at them from all sides to the point they couldn't keep up with the lawsuits so they just let it go or try to do damage control by giving the media the side they want to project. Somehow I don't think Gerry has learned that lesson yet or maybe he doesn't care.

It's one of the down sides of celebrity.

Ger

"Somehow I don't think Gerry has learned that lesson yet or maybe he doesn't care."

I would say the second Ger.
Great point of all of you here !