Fred Greissing wrote:
Anyone here that is siding with the Paparazzi are furthering this kind of abuse against children.

Gary Melton wrote:
How in the hell anyone can see videos like this and defend the paparazzi for one second for any reason is beyond me!

Kevin Connery wrote:
You're missing the point.

I don't see anyone siding with the Paparazzi or defend[ing] the paparazzi. I do see people objecting to someone being given a social free ride for performing felonious acts just  because of the class of the person being robbed.

You've cited some instances where paps violated the laws; punish them. You've indicated that more laws are needed; write them. But you've also indicated that someone should be able to rob, damage, and steal. That last part is what I find objectionable.

Give the paparazzo his punishment for any/every law he's broken, but don't permit a private citizen (insofar as a kardashian is "private"--their choice) to violate laws willy-nilly because you dislike what legal acts they're performing, or how they do it, as far as it's legal.

What Odam did was unlawful. It doesn't matter if he stole the camera from a paparazzi or a pulitzer prize winning photojournalist: he did damage property he didn't own after entering someone else's vehicle without permission to do so, and drove away with that property.

'Sorry, but IMHO, YOU are the one missing the point.  The point is that the sorry paparazzi get away with crap EVERY day.  If the police or legislature would do something to stop their nonsense, then it wouldn't be necessary for the victims of the paparazzi to DEFEND themselves.

Believe me, I am NO fan of Odom.  Seriously, when he was a Dallas Maverick, he was a disgrace of an excuse for a basketball player.  He whined and complained about not being a Laker anymore the whole time he was here, and basically just goofed off...he didn't BEGIN to earn the big salary he was being paid.

However...Odom does not deserve to be harassed and attacked (and have his family insulted) by the paparazzi.  I repeat - I APPLAUD what Odom did in this instance...I wish more of the celebrities would grow a couple and fight back themselves before innocent bystanders get hurt.  If Odom had started it, then I would be blasting him - but it was the paparazzi who started it, Odom was just trying to get the guy to knock it off by getting his attention (because it apparently takes a lot to get the paparazzi's attention).

In Odom's shoes, I would have done the same or something similar.  If it meant jail or a lawsuit - so be it!  If anyone was a hero in this scenario - Odom was much closer to being one than the scumbag paparazzi.

The last time I looked, this is a model/photograper website...I don't see how the frickin' paparazzi have anything in common with ANY of us here.  I just don't understand why people here think they should be defended like they are our "brothers in photography" or something.  They aren't MY brothers!!!

I'm done here...I've made my position very clear on where I stand with the vermin paparazzi!

Gary Melton wrote:
I repeat - I APPLAUD what Odom did in this instance.

You're applauding felonious behavior. Would you applaud a thief and vandal if they stole from someone else you disliked?

Equal protection under the law doesn't mean that we get to pick and choose which laws to enforce or who is entitled to be protected by them simply because we dislike them, or consider them despicable, obnoxious, asshats. (IF they're not violating the law themselves.)

Kevin Connery wrote:

You're applauding felonious behavior. Would you applaud a thief and vandal if they stole from someone else you disliked?

If a thief and vandal stole from someone like Bernie Madoff...they'd be applauded by a LOT of people.

RKD Photographic wrote:
*sigh* More Press phot-bashing from those who've obviously never tried it themselves...
'Paps' as you call them are simply professional photographers who service an identified demand - some are good at what they do, some are not, just like every other profession - take away the demand and they'll probably be happy to photograph internet models for fun.
But that doesn't put bread on the table does it?

Some of you should try making a living working a Press-Scrum before being so utterly charmless about other photographers.

Agreed.

What the press did was not illegal.

What the moronic celeb did was illegal.

It really does start and finish there.

Drew Smith Photography wrote:

Agreed.

What the press did was not illegal.

What the moronic celeb did was illegal.

It really does start and finish there.

You beat me to it.

Remember they don't hire these turds because they are intelligent off the field, rather just because they are hoodlums who can play the game.

Like papiz or not... until they have a law against shooting in public, tough #$@%...

Christopher Hartman wrote:
staged for TV...?

Ah, the age old question:  If a camera falls in the street, but no one sees it, does it make a picture?

Gary Melton wrote:
If the police or legislature would do something to stop their nonsense, ...

Ahhh, but there is one itsy bitsy problem to deal with first - - -

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Bizzzzzt        Try again!

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:
Ahhh, but there is one itsy bitsy problem to deal with first - - -

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Bizzzzzt        Try again!

Studio36

Sorry, but stalking, terrorism and bullying are NOT protected by the First Amendment...in much the same way that yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater is not protected as free speech.

Also, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people."  Some people (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.

So...


Bizzzzzt        Try again!



Edit:  It appears to me that the majority of the people here who are defending the paparazzi are basically saying that the paparazzi have all the rights in the world to take photos of the celebrities, regardless of how obnoxious (or destructive) they are being...but that the celebrities have NO rights - they are just supposed to  lay down and take whatever is dished out to them!

I would love to see the people who defend the paparazzi spend a couple of days in the shoes of celebrities who get constantly harassed by them...they would SO change their tune if it was THEM getting terrorized!!!

Gary Melton wrote:
I repeat - I APPLAUD what Odom did in this instance.

It is funny how publicity and endorsements are correlated.

Yeah, paparazzi are a pest... but endorsements for players are also determined by their popularity and media appearance.

We and the celebrity "victims" can demonize the paparazzi as much as we want... the people who make more money because of them are in fact the celebrities themselves.

Gary Melton wrote:
[snip]
Edit:  It appears to me that the majority of the people here who are defending the paparazzi are basically saying that the paparazzi have all the rights in the world to take photos of the celebrities, regardless of how obnoxious (or destructive) they are being...but that the celebrities have NO rights - they are just supposed to  lay down and take whatever is dished out to them!

I would love to see the people who defend the paparazzi spend a couple of days in the shoes of celebrities who get constantly harassed by them...they would SO change their tune if it was THEM getting terrorized!!!

And it appears to me that some here fail to understand that we either live by rule of law, or surrender to the rule of bullies and thugs.

I am not defending the paparazzi. I will strongly support changes in the law to prevent the abuses of civil rights. I would support more vigorous enforcement of current laws as well.

But I will not support some thug (Odom) blatantly violating the law.

Being exasperated, frustrated, whatever does not give him the right to be a criminal. If the paps broke the law, call a cop. These celebs benefit greatly by the "notoriety" the tabloids provide them, Odom knows that and gleefully "cashes the checks" (so to speak) that the publicity gets him.

I hope he is criminally charged.

Two "wrongs" do not make a "right".

Gary Melton wrote:
I would love to see the people who defend the paparazzi spend a couple of days in the shoes of celebrities who get constantly harassed by them.

Once again, because you seem unable (or unwilling) to understand the difference, I'm NOT defending the paps...

However, I'll certainly take a couple of days in Brad Pitt's shoes if it means taking on his conjugal duties too! 





Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Gary Melton wrote:

Sorry, but stalking, terrorism and bullying are NOT protected by the First Amendment...in much the same way that yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater is not protected as free speech.

Also, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people."  Some people (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.

So...


Bizzzzzt        Try again!



Edit:  It appears to me that the majority of the people here who are defending the paparazzi are basically saying that the paparazzi have all the rights in the world to take photos of the celebrities, regardless of how obnoxious (or destructive) they are being...but that the celebrities have NO rights - they are just supposed to  lay down and take whatever is dished out to them!

I would love to see the people who defend the paparazzi spend a couple of days in the shoes of celebrities who get constantly harassed by them...they would SO change their tune if it was THEM getting terrorized!!!

I'm not defending the paparazzi ... I'm condemning the celeb ... serious difference there. Where were the police while he DESTROYED AND STOLE PRIVATE PROPERTY? Where is the TMZ report on this idiot's arrest for destruction of private portperty, break and enter and grand larceny? Two sets of laws ... laws for the common folk and laws for celebs.

studio36uk wrote:
Ahhh, but there is one itsy bitsy problem to deal with first - - -

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Your First Amendment rights are nullified when your actions go beyond the rights guaranteed by free speech, reckless or malicious speech, or an action whose outcomes are blatantly obvious. That is how the US Supreme Court has ruled on this topic. So you do not have the right to free speech when you are exercising that right to commit another crime, which is exactly what most paparazzi do these days.

Shot By Adam wrote:

Your First Amendment rights are nullified when your actions go beyond the rights guaranteed by free speech, reckless or malicious speech, or an action whose outcomes are blatantly obvious. That is how the US Supreme Court has ruled on this topic. So you do not have the right to free speech when you are exercising that right to commit another crime, which is exactly what most paparazzi do these days.

Wrong. The paparazzi is free to photograph anyone in public. He is free under the first amendment to say whatever he wants to say to Odom. Politicians do it every time. What you are describing is a totally different topic.

me voy wrote:
Wrong. The paparazzi is free to photograph anyone in public. He is free under the first amendment to say whatever he wants to say to Odom. Politicians do it every time. What you are describing is a totally different topic.

You could not be MORE wrong:

The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 9-0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. It held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] ... have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."

So a photographer (or anyone else) cannot say things to others like "F*** you!" or "F*** your mother!" or "F*** you N******!"...as those would be considered "fighting words".

...Look it up!! (ie: google "fighting words")

robert b mitchell wrote:
Couldn't care less about the "paps". They  are just parasites and vermon!

That is a very stupid thing to say. Some of them go to the extreme to get a shot but that doesn't mean that they are ALL "parasites and vermon".

Gary Melton wrote:

You could not be MORE wrong:

The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 9-0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. It held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] ... have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."

...Look it up!!

Again, you are talking about something totally different. The paparazzi was asking stupid questions. He did not use "fighting words" against Odom. Why? Because Odom is twice his size.

me voy wrote:
Again, you are talking about something totally different. The paparazzi was asking stupid questions. He did not use "fighting words" against Odom. Why? Because Odom is twice his size.

Accusing Odom of cheating on his wife could ABSOLUTELY be considered "fighting words"! (especially given the way the paparazzi kept saying it in a "goading" way)

Also, above you said "He is free under the first amendment to say whatever he wants to say to Odom." but the "fighting words" doctrine clearly says that he cannot!

Gary Melton wrote:

Accusing Odom of cheating on his wife could ABSOLUTELY be considered "fighting words"!

Also, above you said "He is free under the first amendment to say whatever he wants to say to Odom." but the "fighting words" doctrine clearly says that he cannot!

There is a difference between saying "You are cheating on your wife" from the distance than saying it right in your face. Like boxers right before a boxing match.

Seriously, we see politicians saying stuff about each other on TV commercials all the time. They know that they are protected under the first amendment. If you say it in a way where you are ready to fight someone, then that is considered "fighting words".

me voy wrote:
Wrong. The paparazzi is free to photograph anyone in public. He is free under the first amendment to say whatever he wants to say to Odom...

See...what you've just said here - in a nutshell - is exactly what I cannot understand for the life of me!

What you are saying is that the photographer can pretty much do and say whatever he wants to a celebrity, and the celebrity has no recourse...must just sit there and take it.  Why do you (and others) have so little regard for your fellow human beings?  Why don't you think celebrities and their families are entitled to the same respect from others that you expect for yourself and your family?

If you and your family were constantly harassed by insults, by being crowded by swarms of photographers, by being boxed in by cars, by being stalked and followed...you wouldn't do something about that...you wouldn't defend yourself and your family like a tiger?!  Really?!  I find it really hard to respect someone who won't stand up for themselves and their families!

The paparazzi is the one who instigated this incident - he "assaulted" Odom (look up the legal definition for "assault").  Odom was simply defending himself...and I think, furthermore, was trying to get the paparazzi's attention...as in "ALL of you paparazzi need to back off if you don't want some of this yourself!"

Seriously, if you think that what the paparazzi did was totally not criminal, but what Odom did was...then I don't see where you have much respect for your fellow man.  What's wrong with you people?  Do you really think it's okay for others to be bullied and terrorized?  Really?

I try to treat others the same way I would like for them to treat me...which is why I would NEVER harass, threaten, terrorize or stalk anyone to get photos the way that many of the paparazzi do!

me voy wrote:
Bottom line is Odom broke the law. The paparazzi didn't. Odom could have answered that he is not cheating on his wife, walked away and ignored the paparazzi.

And see - this is another part of it that I don't understand...even if what you are saying were TRUE (and IMHO, the paparazzi was NOT within his legal rights)...SO THE F*** WHAT?  That is NOT what bothers me.

What I'm talking about more than anything else is having respect for your fellow man.  The paparazzi CLEARLY disrespected Odom and his family ...and by doing so, he took his chances, and he paid his price!

I just don't understand why people can't see that being hounded and stalked by the paparazzi is NOT fun, is often dangerous, and is disrespectful!

If YOU were being terrorized by the paparazzi like many of the celebrities are - you would be yelling bloody murder...but, no, since it's NOT you that's being hounded - it's easy for you to have no compassion for the victims of the paparazzi.  VERY sad state our world has come to...(though fortunately, I run into a LOT more people who agree with me on this than disagree with me...maybe there is hope for people yet!).

Gary Melton wrote:

Fred Greissing wrote:
Anyone here that is siding with the Paparazzi are furthering this kind of abuse against children.

Gary Melton wrote:
How in the hell anyone can see videos like this and defend the paparazzi for one second for any reason is beyond me!

'Sorry, but IMHO, YOU are the one missing the point.  The point is that the sorry paparazzi get away with crap EVERY day.  If the police or legislature would do something to stop their nonsense, then it wouldn't be necessary for the victims of the paparazzi to DEFEND themselves.

Believe me, I am NO fan of Odom.  Seriously, when he was a Dallas Maverick, he was a disgrace of an excuse for a basketball player.  He whined and complained about not being a Laker anymore the whole time he was here, and basically just goofed off...he didn't BEGIN to earn the big salary he was being paid.

However...Odom does not deserve to be harassed and attacked (and have his family insulted) by the paparazzi.  I repeat - I APPLAUD what Odom did in this instance...I wish more of the celebrities would grow a couple and fight back themselves before innocent bystanders get hurt.  If Odom had started it, then I would be blasting him - but it was the paparazzi who started it, Odom was just trying to get the guy to knock it off by getting his attention (because it apparently takes a lot to get the paparazzi's attention).

In Odom's shoes, I would have done the same or something similar.  If it meant jail or a lawsuit - so be it!  If anyone was a hero in this scenario - Odom was much closer to being one than the scumbag paparazzi.

The last time I looked, this is a model/photograper website...I don't see how the frickin' paparazzi have anything in common with ANY of us here.  I just don't understand why people here think they should be defended like they are our "brothers in photography" or something.  They aren't MY brothers!!!

I'm done here...I've made my position very clear on where I stand with the vermin paparazzi!

Agreed. The paparazzi are narcissistic, self entitled douchebags at best and a danger to society both physically and mentally at worst. These assholes basically fuck with celebrities and make their days a little bit worse for a living rather than develop any actual skill. Maybe if they get their asses kicked a few (hundred) times this shit will actually slow down. Nobody here should be aligning themselves with these bottom feeders in some kind of retarded brotherhood. Fuck that guy and fuck his camera. Sick of no talent assholes like that chipping away at society and what's worse is anyone having sympathy for them. Yes the Kardashians and everything related to them are bottom feeders as well, this time they just happened to be on the right side of the ledger.

OMA Design wrote:
Nobody here should be aligning themselves with these bottom feeders in some kind of retarded brotherhood.

Nobody is or has.

Some people here are aligning themselves with, applauding, and supporting one individual's theft of another's property, and others are aligning themselves with the law, and castigating the individual who stole the property.

All citizens and permanent residents have the right to be protected by all of the laws of the U.S., the state, and so-on, including narcissistic, self entitled douchebag bottom feeders and narcissistic, self entitled celebrities.

Gary Melton wrote:
It appears to me that the majority of the people here who are defending the paparazzi are basically saying that the paparazzi have all the rights in the world to take photos of the celebrities, regardless of how obnoxious (or destructive) they are being...but that the celebrities have NO rights - they are just supposed to  lay down and take whatever is dished out to them!

I would love to see the people who defend the paparazzi spend a couple of days in the shoes of celebrities who get constantly harassed by them...they would SO change their tune if it was THEM getting terrorized!!!

You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means.

If you read my most recent post, in fact, you'll notice I said nothing about the person whose property was stolen; my focus in this entire thread has been on the unlawful actions of Odam.

Perhaps he was provoked. Perhaps he was abused. Perhaps a lot of things. What was captured on video, however, was grand theft by larceny.

You can insist that  the people who disagree with you are "defending the paparazzi", but that's not the reality. Read their posts; you'll see that what was written in no way defended the action of the paparazzi or the paparazzi themselves: what they did emphasize were the actions Odam took.

Similarly, you're proposing a bizarre interpretation of what's been said when you claim that the celebrities have NO rights ; they have the same rights as anyone else (minus a few privacy points, but getting a great many [unofficial] bonus points due solely to their celebrity). If someone is violating their rights, or violating the law, they have every right to take legal action.

Theft and vandalism isn't legal action.

Gary Melton wrote:

Sorry, but stalking, terrorism and bullying are NOT protected by the First Amendment...in much the same way that yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater is not protected as free speech.

Also, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people."  Some people (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.

So...


Bizzzzzt        Try again!



Edit:  It appears to me that the majority of the people here who are defending the paparazzi are basically saying that the paparazzi have all the rights in the world to take photos of the celebrities, regardless of how obnoxious (or destructive) they are being...but that the celebrities have NO rights - they are just supposed to  lay down and take whatever is dished out to them!

I would love to see the people who defend the paparazzi spend a couple of days in the shoes of celebrities who get constantly harassed by them...they would SO change their tune if it was THEM getting terrorized!!!

Terrorism? For taking some pictures? Wow..am I so glad that I don't live anywhere near there..

Gary Melton wrote:
The paparazzi CHOOSE to do what they do for a living...if they don't like it, they should choose another profession.

So can celebrities, like the paparazzi, this is the life they chose.

There are children starving in the world, but forget that, people who live lives of excessive luxury are being inconvenienced, let's pretend that's a real problem.

me voy wrote:

That is a very stupid thing to say. Some of them go to the extreme to get a shot but that doesn't mean that they are ALL "parasites and vermon".

Actually, that's a very accurate thing to say. PHOTOJOURNALISTS will photograph what is happening and record it for posterity. Papparazzi will CREATE the confrontation/drama/scandal. That's the difference.

Do you know the etymology of the word Paparazzi? It comes from the movie "La Dolce Vita". There is a photographer in there named Paparazzo who followed movie stars around, hoping to catch them in some bad pose. In one scene, actors sleeping in a car after a long night and Paparazzo actually POSED the sleeping people to make it seem like they were having sex.

I have the highest respect for photojournalists. Papparazzi are parasites and vermin that make life miserable for their targets and victims.

Karl Johnston wrote:
If some random dude was flicking a camera in your face provoking you about your ex wife..you're telling me you that wouldn't upset you ?

Man you have some serious self control.

I agree.

Gary Melton wrote:

And see - this is another part of it that I don't understand...even if what you are saying were TRUE (and IMHO, the paparazzi was NOT within his legal rights)...SO THE F*** WHAT?  That is NOT what bothers me.

What I'm talking about more than anything else is having respect for your fellow man.  The paparazzi CLEARLY disrespected Odom and his family ...and by doing so, he took his chances, and he paid his price!

I just don't understand why people can't see that being hounded and stalked by the paparazzi is NOT fun, is often dangerous, and is disrespectful!

If YOU were being terrorized by the paparazzi like many of the celebrities are - you would be yelling bloody murder...but, no, since it's NOT you that's being hounded - it's easy for you to have no compassion for the victims of the paparazzi.  VERY sad state our world has come to...(though fortunately, I run into a LOT more people who agree with me on this than disagree with me...maybe there is hope for people yet!).

I understand why Odom lost his cool. However, he did break the law and should pay for it. Odom was in total control of his actions. Celebrities should know that there are people out there trying to set them up so that they can take legal action against them. Remember Kobe Bryant cheating on his wife. He had a choice when he saw the woman butt naked with the legs wide open. He chose to have sex with her. At the end, he paid for what he did. So should Odom for loosing his temper. That is my point. I am not justifying anyone.

Gary Melton wrote:

Sorry, but stalking, terrorism and bullying are NOT protected by the First Amendment...in much the same way that yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater is not protected as free speech.

Also, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people."  Some people (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.

So...


Bizzzzzt        Try again!



Edit:  It appears to me that the majority of the people here who are defending the paparazzi are basically saying that the paparazzi have all the rights in the world to take photos of the celebrities, regardless of how obnoxious (or destructive) they are being...but that the celebrities have NO rights - they are just supposed to  lay down and take whatever is dished out to them!

I would love to see the people who defend the paparazzi spend a couple of days in the shoes of celebrities who get constantly harassed by them...they would SO change their tune if it was THEM getting terrorized!!!

No one is defending the paparazzi.

I despise them.  TMZ disgusts me.

But what law did they break?

What law did Odom break?

Are you getting it now?

Do I feel bad for what happened? No.  Did the photographer deserve it?  Yeah maybe.

Doesn't change the legality of what happened.

Gary Melton wrote:

Accusing Odom of cheating on his wife could ABSOLUTELY be considered "fighting words"! (especially given the way the paparazzi kept saying it in a "goading" way)

Also, above you said "He is free under the first amendment to say whatever he wants to say to Odom." but the "fighting words" doctrine clearly says that he cannot!

If he had hit the guy...I'd say, "yeah...call it even."  but when went into a car and started pulling property out.  Property that may have also been damaged.  no...I don't put that into the fighting words defense.