Ha ha funny funny... :)Britney..on crack?So as I was randomly channel surfing I happened to come across this thing on the news. They were saying how some people like the LAPD are trying to propose a "Britney Law" so paparazzi have to leave a certain space around celebrities while taking pictures, for the safety of the celebrity. Also another reason is because when Britney Spears had a freak out drugged-out incident when they had to take her from her home in an ambulance, the LAPD spent 25,000 dollars just on that one night to make sure there were enough cops on motorcycles and in a helicopter to make sure she was safe from paparazzis. Some people say to inact a Britney law would be in violation of the 1st ammendment.... any opinions on this?
3 comments:
Dear RFM,
I have a dichotomy on this one. The reason for this is because one of the values of the protection of the freedom of speech is promoting tolerance. It has been argued that freedom of speech, especially through our practice of extending protection to speech that we find personally upsetting, teaches us to become more tolerant in other aspects of life--and that a more tolerant society is a better society. I would say that if it materializes the so-called Britney Law would be in violation of the Papparazi's right to freedom of press.
But then come to think of it, Lady Diana got killed because the Papparazis were so free to harass her. So, I don't know... maybe this bill will never be introduced in Congress, but if something like it becomes a reality someday, I would say that journalists will have to think twice and would probably realize what impact they have on other people's lives. Oh, how so true that our freedom comes with responsibility.
Comment by
freespeechcomesalive.blogspot.com
Well well well I really don't know what to say about Brit period..... But I do think that passing the "Britney Law" would violate the paparazi's right to the freedom of press. And as annoying, and vilolating the papparazi can be to celebs i have to say that it is what comes with the territory of being famous. It all goes together being famous= everyone getting into your personal life, you are constanly followed and watched under a microscope! But then again also by being famous and a celebrity you get protection that everyday people don't get..... So I guess that I don't think the law would be a just law because of freedom of press, I just wish the press would not be so consumed with celebrities and would focus more on imporant issues that our society faces, not if brit shaved her head again or if she is on drugs etc.....
I think the Brittany law is a great idea, im all for restricting photographers. They really do get out of hand, and i've never bought their claim that "its JUST there JOB and they're JUST making a living. . . " They made a conscious decision to be overbearing snakes. i know there are plenty of good respectable people among the paparazzi, but i think this bill/law is needed to insure that the rest don't cross the line.
Post a Comment