People of the Park

[dalt01]

I know it should probably just be ignored, but I'm wondering if there's anything we could actually do in this case. Not write in hatemail, but rather place a complaint with the site's host server. I was trying to find out the webhost on my own, but to no avail.

I'm usually very laid back about most things, be it politics or religion or whatever have you. But this just totally rubbed me the wrong way for some reason. I'm finding it hard to look the other way. *sigh*

if you cant keep pornography and beastiality off the internet what would make you think we would have any success with this. i did not say this in a mean way. i wish we could.

 

[PolynesianLily]

I know it should probably just be ignored, but I'm wondering if there's anything we could actually do in this case. Not write in hatemail, but rather place a complaint with the site's host server. I was trying to find out the webhost on my own, but to no avail.

I'm usually very laid back about most things, be it politics or religion or whatever have you. But this just totally rubbed me the wrong way for some reason. I'm finding it hard to look the other way. *sigh*

I totally agree.
To pick on people for what they wear, or what they look like is stupid. But to post these people on the internet for giggles...they have crossed the line.

Clearly those who take these pictures have nothing better to do with their lives.

 

[FireDancer]

In a culture where we flock to garbage sites like TMZ and Perez Hilton, site like this and the people of WalMart are not a surprise. We (the collective we in America, not we here) are so willing to gawk at who celebrities sleep with, their drinking and drug habits, who is pregnant, and so on that we should not be surprised when the same gawking is done on us normal folk.

It is hypocritical to think that it is ok for Tiger Woods or Brad Pitt should have every move of their life scrutinized and judged but us normal people are above that same scrutiny. The "they are celebrities" argument doesn't fly. When an athlete is on a ball field, a musician is on the stage, or an actor is on a shoot they are in the public. When they are at home, in their bedrooms, or out with their families they are just private citizens like us. If Brittany Spears goes to Disney with her family I would bet they would photograph her and if she were dressed like many people on the site in question there would be just as bad, if not worse, things written about her.

I find the media scrutiny of who Tiger Woods sleeps with and where Brangelina are buying their next baby far more disturbing then either People of the Park or People of WalMart. If TMZ isn't shut down neither should this site.

I won't sit here and get high and mighty about sites like this when there are sites like those I mentioned earlier doing the exact same thing to people who are, when it boils down to it, just like us. I really don't care if I end up on one of them. If I am willing to go out in public dressed a certain way I am obviously not bothered by people seeing me. If someone wants to ridicule it I am comfortable enough in my own skin to not be bothered by it.

Just my two cents.

 

[SoScary'09]

if you cant keep pornography and beastiality off the internet what would make you think we would have any success with this. i did not say this in a mean way. i wish we could.

That's not mean at all to say and you have a very valid point dalt. I guess it's just the Disney aspect of it that ticks me off. Disney parks are supposed to be the one place you can go to just let it all chill and forget things for awhile. I just want to reach out and pull the plug...and I'm NEVER like that.

I totally agree.
To pick on people for what they wear, or what they look like is stupid. But to post these people on the internet for giggles...they have crossed the line.

Clearly those who take these pictures have nothing better to do with their lives.

The thing is that someone's actually paying out of their pocket to keep the site running. But then again...welcome to the internet SoScary!
Ok, *takes a breather* gotta let this one go I guess.... FireDancer's got his points too. There's a lot of idiots out there...it shouldn't come as a suprise or ruin one's entire day.

 

[PeterPan09]

I'm completely against censorship in any form-so I have no interest at all in telling anyone what they can and cannot post on the internet. If someone wants to put up a site like that and other people want to contribute to it or look at it and laugh-that's their right.

It is also my right to hold the opinion that it is mean-spirited and ugly and that the people who would enjoy such a thing are not people that I would want to get to know.

 

[WaltD4Me]

In a culture where we flock to garbage sites like TMZ and Perez Hilton, site like this and the people of WalMart are not a surprise. We (the collective we in America, not we here) are so willing to gawk at who celebrities sleep with, their drinking and drug habits, who is pregnant, and so on that we should not be surprised when the same gawking is done on us normal folk.

It is hypocritical to think that it is ok for Tiger Woods or Brad Pitt should have every move of their life scrutinized and judged but us normal people are above that same scrutiny. The "they are celebrities" argument doesn't fly. When an athlete is on a ball field, a musician is on the stage, or an actor is on a shoot they are in the public. When they are at home, in their bedrooms, or out with their families they are just private citizens like us. If Brittany Spears goes to Disney with her family I would bet they would photograph her and if she were dressed like many people on the site in question there would be just as bad, if not worse, things written about her.

I find the media scrutiny of who Tiger Woods sleeps with and where Brangelina are buying their next baby far more disturbing then either People of the Park or People of WalMart.

I won't sit here and get high and mighty about sites like this when there are sites like those I mentioned earlier doing the exact same thing to people who are, when it boils down to it, just like us. I really don't care if I end up on one of them. If I am willing to go out in public dressed a certain way I am obviously not bothered by people seeing me. If someone wants to ridicule it I am comfortable enough in my own skin to not be bothered by it.

Just my two cents.

I understand what you are saying Frank, but I have to respectfully disagree to a point. Celebrities know they are going to be photographed and those images will end up on websites. They have advance notice and can prepare. Entirely different from some John or Mary Smith going to spend a day in the parks with no expectation of someone taking their picture and posting it on a website.

Has the celebrity gawking gone too far? Yes, I believe it has, but I don't believe celebrities are "just like us" either. Celebrities have image consultants, PR people and stylists that they pay to help them create an image of themselves that they want us to see. And that is so we will go to their movies, watch their shows and buy the products they endorse. They put themselves out there for financial gain. That isn't wrong, but it has consequences. Now, me? Unless you count the sales lady at Dillards, I'm pretty much on my own and with that no one cares what deodorant, razor or soap I use and no one is paying me big bucks to tell you about it.

 

[DisneyKevin]

In a culture where we flock to garbage sites like TMZ and Perez Hilton, site like this and the people of WalMart are not a surprise. We (the collective we in America, not we here) are so willing to gawk at who celebrities sleep with, their drinking and drug habits, who is pregnant, and so on that we should not be surprised when the same gawking is done on us normal folk.

It is hypocritical to think that it is ok for Tiger Woods or Brad Pitt should have every move of their life scrutinized and judged but us normal people are above that same scrutiny. The "they are celebrities" argument doesn't fly. When an athlete is on a ball field, a musician is on the stage, or an actor is on a shoot they are in the public. When they are at home, in their bedrooms, or out with their families they are just private citizens like us. If Brittany Spears goes to Disney with her family I would bet they would photograph her and if she were dressed like many people on the site in question there would be just as bad, if not worse, things written about her.

I find the media scrutiny of who Tiger Woods sleeps with and where Brangelina are buying their next baby far more disturbing then either People of the Park or People of WalMart. If TMZ isn't shut down neither should this site.

I won't sit here and get high and mighty about sites like this when there are sites like those I mentioned earlier doing the exact same thing to people who are, when it boils down to it, just like us. I really don't care if I end up on one of them. If I am willing to go out in public dressed a certain way I am obviously not bothered by people seeing me. If someone wants to ridicule it I am comfortable enough in my own skin to not be bothered by it.

Just my two cents.

I'm sorry, but I think there is a HUGE difference.

Tiger Woods et al, get paid for making public appearances.

I just recently read that celebrities get paid huge amounts for going to fashion shows.

If your livelihood depends on getting my interest and keeping it, then you have chosen to live a public life and in most cases are handsomely rewarded for it.

Should you wish to lead a private life and a public life and still keep my interest....it can be done on your own terms. Meryl Streep, Harrison Ford, Sandra Bullock all come to mind. They all seem to have found a balance between their public and private personas.

People minding their own business and not getting paid for a public appearance deserve the opportunity to enjoy themselves without fear of being posted on the internet in order to be held to public ridicule.

This website has some fine print that says if you'd like your photo removed to just let them know. If they were within their legal or better yet human rights to post these photos...this option would not be there.

I will state this again....

People taking photos of challenged adults in order to post them for others to ridicule, are scum. Plain and simple.

 

[FireDancer]

I understand what you are saying Frank, but I have to respectfully disagree to a point. Celebrities know they are going to be photographed and those images will end up on websites. They have advance notice and can prepare. Entirely different from some John or Mary Smith going to spend a day in the parks with no expectation of someone taking their picture and posting it on a website.

Has the celebrity gawking gone too far? Yes, I believe it has, but I don't believe celebrities are "just like us" either. Celebrities have image consultants, PR people and stylists that they pay to help them create an image of themselves that they want us to see. And that is so we will go to their movies, watch their shows and buy the products they endorse. They put themselves out there for financial gain. That isn't wrong, but it has consequences. Now, me? Unless you count the sales lady at Dillards, I'm pretty much on my own and with that no one cares what deodorant, razor or soap I use and no one is paying me big bucks to tell you about it.

Well, I if they are going out to Rodeo drive they may know they are going to be photographed. When they are on vacation or walking to the grocery store they do not. Look at how many times people magazine has an unflattering picture of some celebrity without makeup on. If they knew they were going to be photographed they would have sat in the makeup chair for an hour before heading out to the market.

In the modern world where people carry around camera phones and flip cams everywhere there is always the possibility of someone taking anyone's picture...you, me, or John Mayer.

I think either it is all ok or non ok, we shouldn't pick and choose what is and isn't. Once we start to decide that this kind of gossip is ok but this kind is not we are all just being hypocrites. Unless it is illegal content, I think anything is and should be free and open. Even if that means we get our feelings a little hurt from time to time. Just like with humor, there is going to be someone out there offended by jut about every joke, that just means we don't see the comic we don't like.

We will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[FireDancer]

I'm sorry, but I think there is a HUGE difference.

Tiger Woods et al, get paid for making public appearances.

I just recently read that celebrities get paid huge amounts for going to fashion shows.

If your livelihood depends on getting my interest and keeping it, then you have chosen to live a public life and in most cases are handsomely rewarded for it.

Should you wish to lead a private life and a public life and still keep my interest....it can be done on your own terms. Meryl Streep, Harrison Ford, Sandra Bullock all come to mind. They all seem to have found a balance between their public and private personas.

People minding their own business and not getting paid for a public appearance deserve the opportunity to enjoy themselves without fear of being posted on the internet in order to be held to public ridicule.

This website has some fine print that says if you'd like your photo removed to just let them know. If they were within their legal or better yet human rights to post these photos...this option would not be there.

I will state this again....

People taking photos of challenged adults in order to post them for others to ridicule, are scum. Plain and simple.

I do understand that they get paid appearance fees. I am referring to the candid shots of celebrities on a beach or walking down the street that they are just going into public for.

There are many times they are just minding their own business and not at an appearance and a photo gets posted of them on one of those sites. The bolded part above is as true for a celebrity as it is for us. They are not "on show" every moment they are outside their doors yet the media treats them as such.

I think they are all equally scummy but they are what they are. I don't feel we should choose which gawking we think it ok and which we don't.

Just my opinion, I know it isn't the only one.

ETA: Every single person Tiger slept with was in the privacy of a bedroom where he was not "on stage". When he got in that accident in front of his home in a gated community he was not getting paid to be there. Yet, we had helicopters and media sharing his private life with us. I hate the celebrity gossip BS just as much as I hate the ridicule of regular people. No more and no less.

 

[PolynesianLily]

I'm sorry, but I think there is a HUGE difference.

Tiger Woods et al, get paid for making public appearances.

I just recently read that celebrities get paid huge amounts for going to fashion shows.

If your livelihood depends on getting my interest and keeping it, then you have chosen to live a public life and in most cases are handsomely rewarded for it.

Should you wish to lead a private life and a public life and still keep my interest....it can be done on your own terms. Meryl Streep, Harrison Ford, Sandra Bullock all come to mind. They all seem to have found a balance between their public and private personas.

People minding their own business and not getting paid for a public appearance deserve the opportunity to enjoy themselves without fear of being posted on the internet in order to be held to public ridicule.

This website has some fine print that says if you'd like your photo removed to just let them know. If they were within their legal or better yet human rights to post these photos...this option would not be there.

I will state this again....

People taking photos of challenged adults in order to post them for others to ridicule, are scum. Plain and simple.

I noticed a few of those photos on that site.

 

[DisneyKevin]

I do understand that they get paid appearance fees. I am referring to the candid shots of celebrities on a beach or walking down the street that they are just going into public for.

There are many times they are just minding their own business and not at an appearance and a photo gets posted of them on one of those sites. The bolded part above is as true for a celebrity as it is for us. They are not "on show" every moment they are outside their doors yet the media treats them as such.

I think they are all equally scummy but they are what they are. I don't feel we should choose which gawking we think it ok and which we don't.

Just my opinion, I know it isn't the only one.

ETA: Every single person Tiger slept with was in the privacy of a bedroom where he was not "on stage". When he got in that accident in front of his home in a gated community he was not getting paid to be there. Yet, we had helicopters and media sharing his private life with us. I hate the celebrity gossip BS just as much as I hate the ridicule of regular people. No more and no less.

The huge difference is that every one of the people you've mentioned depend on you and I remaining interested in them in order to make a living.

The minute Tiger Woods stops being interesting is the minute the very lucrative endorsement deals stop.

This is a double edged sword that people that choose a public life endure in order to maintain their income, fame and notoriety. A perfect example of this is the women coming out of the woodwork in order to be associated with Tiger Woods. Most of these women would never be known if they didnt tell us themselves. They think there might be something in it for them.

When was the last time you saw a candid (unflattering) shot of Meryl Streep who is currently the highest grossing celebrity?

We are talking about two very different scenarios.

 

[FireDancer]

The huge difference is that every one of the people you've mentioned depend on you and I remaining interested in them in order to make a living.

The minute Tiger Woods stops being interesting is the minute the very lucrative endorsement deals stop.

This is a double edged sword that people that choose a public life endure in order to maintain their income, fame and notoriety. A perfect example of this is the women coming out of the woodwork in order to be associated with Tiger Woods. Most of these women would never be known if they didnt tell us themselves. They think there might be something in it for them.

When was the last time you saw a candid (unflattering) shot of Meryl Streep who is currently the highest grossing celebrity?

We are talking about two very different scenarios.

I have no idea if there are candid shots of Meryl Streep or not, I'm sure they are out there somewhere.

I see it all as the same voyeuristic nonsense we like in this country, regardless of the profession of the person.

We just see it differently, and that is ok.

 

[Cap.Steamboat Willie]

I'm completely against censorship in any form-so I have no interest at all in telling anyone what they can and cannot post on the internet. If someone wants to put up a site like that and other people want to contribute to it or look at it and laugh-that's their right.
It is also my right to hold the opinion that it is mean-spirited and ugly and that the people who would enjoy such a thing are not people that I would want to get to know.

Not all types of censorship is wrong (this statement is coming from a Cuban refugee whose family escaped Cuba's dictatorship). Before I get slammed I want to make it clear that I am not talking about government instituted censorship. Empathy is one's means to self-censor base human knee-jerk reactions and by doing so, mature.

The problem, in my opinion, lies in our current internet/anonymous society. Since adults, teens, and middle schoolers are all posting their opinions together, the reader tends to equalize their standings (age and level of maturity). A ten year old boy may find jokes about bodily functions amusing or making fun of someone who is different to be acceptable. That is where parenting and proper foundations should be instilled. Lack of self-censorship that comes from having strong morals (and I do not mean necessarily tied to religion) and simple human decency is often found on the web and how people interact all alone in a room via the computer.

I always find it interesting to read and hear people's opinions on topics that are on the edge and wonder how long it will take before someone speaks up. I applaud Kevin's quick thoughts and words on this topic and pray that more people live with such empathy in their hearts and actions. It would be such a nicer place to live.

....stepping off my soap box.

 

[DisneyKevin]

I see it all as the same voyeuristic nonsense we like in this country, regardless of the profession of the person.

We just see it differently, and that is ok.

I will let this go....but I find it difficult to believe that you see people being interested in a photo of Jennifer Anniston ( a highly paid actress) without her makeup as being the same as people ridiculing a photo of a group of challenged adults who have paid to visit Disneyland.

We do see that very, very differently.

 

[WaltD4Me]

I think either it is all ok or non ok, we shouldn't pick and choose what is and isn't. Once we start to decide that this kind of gossip is ok but this kind is not we are all just being hypocrites. Unless it is illegal content, I think anything is and should be free and open. Even if that means we get our feelings a little hurt from time to time. Just like with humor, there is going to be someone out there offended by jut about every joke, that just means we don't see the comic we don't like.

We will just have to agree to disagree.

No more hypocrital than working very hard to project a squeeky clean image so that you get millions in endorsement deals and then being upset when the facade you created is exposed.

 

[FireDancer]

No more hypocrital than working very hard to project a squeeky clean image so that you get millions in endorsement deals and then being upset when the facade you created is exposed.

That is just as hypocritical. If no one wanted to see it then no one would provide it in either case, the tabloids or the voyeur sites. Like with drugs, there would be no drug dealers if there were no addicts.

It may not be with the same intent one takes the different photos but it is the same mindset on the public's side that makes people want to ridicule celebrities and lay people alike.

It just is what it is. I'm not defending either, I just think they are the same problem. Free speech is free speech and that means that we should try to restrict someone's expression even if we don't agree with it. If a law is being broken by the site, get a CaD in a court of law.

ETA: I'm not defending the site's content. I just don't see it as any worse then all that other crap out there. Unpopular speech should still be free though.

 

[livndisney]

I know it should probably just be ignored, but I'm wondering if there's anything we could actually do in this case. Not write in hatemail, but rather place a complaint with the site's host server. I was trying to find out the webhost on my own, but to no avail.

I'm usually very laid back about most things, be it politics or religion or whatever have you. But this just totally rubbed me the wrong way for some reason. I'm finding it hard to look the other way. *sigh*

Don't most web hosts have TOS about hate speak (for lack of a better term)?

Like this:
activities designed to defame, embarrass, harm, abuse, threaten, slander or harass third parties;
activities designed to harm or use unethically minors in any way;

 

[WaltD4Me]

Free speech is free speech and that means that we should try to restrict someone's expression even if we don't agree with it. If a law is being broken by the site, get a CaD in a court of law.

I agree. It is free speech and I am not saying they should be forced to take down the site. I am not suggesting anyone start a petition to have the site removed or anything like that.

I am saying it is mean spirited, not funny and really not at all the same as a celebrity website.

 

[FireDancer]

I agree. It is free speech and I am not saying they should be forced to take down the site. I am not suggesting anyone start a petition to have the site removed or anything like that.

I am saying it is mean spirited, not funny and really not at all the same as a celebrity website.

The bolded part I agree with.

Even if I concede call it different in intent from a celebrity website, which may be the case, I think it is the desire to nose into other people's business that is the same.

I don't care what people wear to the parks any more or less then I care what a celebrity does in their spare time. Once we start caring what strangers do the line between strangers who happen to play a sport, instrument, or act for a living and strangers who just choose a strange outfit becomes a fine and blurry line.

 

[ADP]

ETA: Every single person Tiger slept with was in the privacy of a bedroom where he was not "on stage". When he got in that accident in front of his home in a gated community he was not getting paid to be there. Yet, we had helicopters and media sharing his private life with us. I hate the celebrity gossip BS just as much as I hate the ridicule of regular people. No more and no less.

Just my two cents...But this topic has "struck a chord" with me lately. The public buys products Tiger endorses based on his reputation. Let's face it some people buy Nike, Buick, and Gillette products based on Tiger's reputation. If he's an adultor we have the right to know about it so we can better decide whether to buy the products he endorses. Like Kevin said...He became more public when he took millions for endorsements. Like you said if he was just a golfer doing his job he probably wouldn't be taking so much heat, but that's not the case here.