Doesn't it cross a line?

[cabanafrau]

I don't usually start threads, but I saw something on TV earlier this morning that got me thinking. The news was doing a story about Charlie Sheen going bonkers again(still?). He was in NY w/ his little girls and their mom and the news showed over and over the two girls getting out of a car with their mom and you could hear paparazzi calling out things, clicking of cameras and flashes were strobing everywhere. The girls are maybe 5/6?

Not for the first time it struck me that crosses a line. Then I started thinking how much harm that kind of attention alone might cause them, discounting the obvious family troubles. I just feel the kids should be off limits to the media. Seems like common decency to me.

 

[Wall-E1]

They wouldn't be following this family around if Charlie wasn't hiding prostitutes in closets. There's plenty of Hollywood families that aren't stalked by the press. It's the "train wrecks" that are so fascinating to people. If he would get his head on straight, they would lose interest and move on.

 

[Acklander]

I didn't see the news this morning so don't know which kids of his were seen, but if it's the same kids that were part of Denise Richard's reality show - then no, I don't think they would be considered off limits since they'd already been *****d out to the public by their mom.

 

[cabanafrau]

It seems to me that the kids shouldn't be held accountable for what the parents are doing & the media should recognize that in setting its standards. If I went out & behaved like a butt I don't think my kids should be held up to public scrutiny.

 

[ckay87]

I think these celebrity parents could do A LOT to keep their kids out of the spotlight, but they don't. The paparazzi aren't going anywhere, for better or worse. If the parents wanted to protect their kids from the cameras, they could.

 

[cm8]

They wouldn't be following this family around if Charlie wasn't hiding prostitutes in closets. There's plenty of Hollywood families that aren't stalked by the press. It's the "train wrecks" that are so fascinating to people. If he would get his head on straight, they would lose interest and move on.

 

[Holly]

Yes- it's inappropriate.


The part about blaming it on Charlie's behavior isn't entirely accurate, either, because there was footage of Violet Affleck (the child of Jennifer Garner and Ben Affleck who is like 5-6) crying and having a bit of a fit when her mother picked her up from school on the news today.


Why are paparazzi staking out elementary schools?

Garner and Affleck didn't smash up a hotel room.

 

[allison443]

I didn't see the news this morning so don't know which kids of his were seen, but if it's the same kids that were part of Denise Richard's reality show - then no, I don't think they would be considered off limits since they'd already been *****d out to the public by their mom.

I agree, their mom has a reality show featuring the kids. I would think that is more exposure than a news report.

 

[Micca]

I don't disagree in principle. but in addition to the downsides of being the child of a celebrity, there certainly are benefits that most children do not enjoy.

 

[bumbershoot]

Why are paparazzi staking out elementary schools?

Garner and Affleck didn't smash up a hotel room.

Because that's where JG is going to be.

I just feel the kids should be off limits to the media. Seems like common decency to me.

The media were there b/c D Richards was there. If she didn't have them with her they wouldn't be on TV.


I know from my own kid...kids like being with their parents. Add in the concept of your parents being famous, and you want to be with your parents, you will end up in the public eye. I'm sure Charlie Sheen is aware of this, since he is a son of a celebrity himself.

 

[bicker]

I just feel the kids should be off limits to the media. Seems like common decency to me.

I don't know about "common decency" - terms like that are more often than not used to peddle one's own personal preferences, trying to make them sound like something holy.

However, I do feel that there should be a law prohibiting the photographing of children without expressed, written permission of the parents, for each instance when they're on camera. I also feel that there should be a law prohibiting anyone from publishing (or, in this the Internet age, posting) any picture of anyone that was taken via "lying in wait", i.e., without them having an ability to decline having their picture taken and walk away unencumbered (unless they're doing something illegal, of course - taking pictures of people doing something illegal should be allowed). Finally, I feel that there should be a law against anyone blocking anyone else's unencumbered use of public roadways and walkways, for the purpose of interrogating or criticizing them. The First Amendment right to free speech shouldn't be distorted to allow people to be invasive in a way that intimidates or bullies others.

 

[CanadianPaco]

One of Hollywood's biggest TV stars and highest paid TV stars (Charlie) is crashing and burning before our eyes. I think in the eyes of the media/paparazzi, the gloves are off.

 

[golfgal]

There are plenty of celebrities that are very successful at keeping their children out of the news or the eyes of the paparazzi--of course they are keeping THEMSELVES out of controversial situations as well.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

Denise knew the papparazzi were out there and took her kids out there to gain exposure for her upcoming show "Mother's Little Helpers".

Anyway that is how I see it.

 

[bicker]

I'm not sure how that justifies inflicting the paparazzi treatment on the children though. It seems to me that society's interest are served more by protecting the children than giving paparazzi free reign.