The topic of privacy rights can be interpreted in a variety of different ways.  When these rights are being examined in regards to celebrities the expectations tend to differ.  Being famous comes with a lot more disadvantages than what might appear to the general public.  These people are put under a microscope daily which forces them to act, dress and do certain things in order to prevent them from being judged by the public.  In the event that a sought after public figure just wants to have a lazy day and wear sweat pants and no makeup to walk their dog down the street, the press will go nuts.  Pictures of them on their “day off” will be published in all the well-known tabloids lining the grocery stores shelves.  The public will be drawn in by these not so glamorous photos of these celebrities and demand more due to the weird infatuation with seeing famous people as astonishingly flawed.  Celebrities should not have to sacrifice their privacy for fame and glory but it is almost unavoidable in today’s day in age.  Due to the strong interests of the public this cycle continues and as unfair as it is for the private lives of these people to be thrown away for the pleasure of the general public, it is almost impossible to prevent the exposure with today’s laws.

When looking at the celebrity there can be multiple problems associated with having their entire lives exposed to the world.  First, many celebrities feel like they are not able to be themselves when in public so they create this “strong public identity” (McNamara, 2) in order to appeal more to the public.  Having a stronger public image makes them more sought out by the media and thus more famous.  However there are strategic methods that come with this, the first includes “managed publicity” (2).  Managed publicity is when celebrities more or less stage their image in order to sculpt their individual image and appeal more charming to the public.  This process includes coming up with a somewhat manufactured image to present to the public to keep them interested and to keep the names of these celebrities in the headlines.  

Another thing that comes with presenting themselves to the public is their appearance, what they are wearing and how they look is the main thing the press cares about when they see celebrities out and about.  Sometimes it is hard for celebrities to always look red carpet ready so different strategies are used in order to “avoid or divert the media” so that they will not catch them looking “off-duty” (5).  The other factor associated with the celebrities public image is how they actually interact with the paparazzi.  A middle ground is supposed to be reached so that the celebrity doesn’t seem too interested but at the same time does not appear rude.  When celebrities are aware of their photographs being taken the best thing for them to do is to “neither forbid the picture-taking nor start posing”.  This way the celebrity is not seen as obsessed with the fame while also not trying to look irritated or bothered by the press.  The list of strategies for perfecting the public images of famous people goes on and while these approaches may help the celebrity’s image in the tabloids or online it not always the most beneficial in regards to their mental state. 

The list of negative affects associated with the constant paparazzi exposure that these public figures have to deal with is massive.  Although creating respectable and significant public images is an important part of maintaining the fame and thus keeping the public interested.  It comes with a large set of disadvantages that depending on how the recognition has an affect on the person could out way the benefits in the long run. Charles Figley describes fame as a double-edged sword (Sentinel, 1).  Meaning that while fame offers a platform for people to show off their talent or ideas to the world it can also pose a huge risk to confidentiality, freedom and security of these peoples everyday lives (1).  Figley conducted a study in order to look at the amount of stress that comes with being famous and how they coped with having their private lives ripped away from them.  Figley’s findings varied from person to person and he concluded that the affects of fame tend to depend on the person.  Some celebrities love being in the spotlight whereas other celebrities can suffer extreme stress and even depression because they find there is no way for them to escape the attention.  Figley goes on to discuss how the people who are good at managing the stress have done so by creating a “split personality” or more or less a “public persona” and a private persona (2).  Simple everyday activities such as going shopping for groceries can cause major anxiety for many celebrities.  Michael Jackson described fame as “imprisoning” (1), which parallels how the majority of celebrities feel about being forced into the spotlight on a daily basis.  

These negative affects also extend to the families and friends of these well known people.  Whether the celebrity is open to the public about their loved ones or chooses to hide them from the public; separation and “resentment” become issues (1).  If the family is also exposed to the public this can cause them to struggle with the same problems related to their loss of privacy.  Since they are not the celebrity only related to them they can look for ways to disassociate from them in order to get back to their normal lives.  Also if the celebrity chooses to keep the identity of their loved ones hidden from the public this can also cause the same issues because the family members or friends can feel left out and unimportant.  Family problems associated with fame are almost unavoidable with whichever route is taken and pose as another reason that celebrities envy normalcy.  The safety of the families of celebrities can also be put at risk.  This is an especially prevalent issue in regards to the children of celebrities and the amount of exposure they experience at such young ages.  This publicity can have strong negative affects on these children and can cause them to try and grow up faster than they would with an ordinary childhood.  Also due to the amount of stalkers and outrageous fans the lives of the celebrities as well as their loved ones can be at high risk (1).

The relationship between celebrities and the media is described as a relationship where “one cannot exist without the other (Hassan, 2).” Mark Borkowski harshly states that celebrities are “to a certain extent” property of the public.  Then he follows this remark by saying that a private life is still attainable by finding a “delicate balance” (2). However nowadays the public demand for information on celebrities is so high that this “delicate balance” may be a little harder to achieve than Borkowski makes it seem.  The public has an “incessant need” to stay updated with the lives of their favorite celebrities (4). This demand keeps the press intrigued in the lives of celebrities and the paparazzi employed, in order to keep the public updated and satisfied.    

The photos in high demand by the public are the “real life” or candid pictures of celebrities (Willis, 3). The public enjoys seeing celebrities caught off-guard because it makes them appear more relatable and less glamorous.  However these demands have caused the paparazzi to take extra measures to capture the most exclusive photos.  As a result popular public figures have been mobbed and harassed by the paparazzi the minute they step foot outside their homes.  This has caused a large number of celebrities to demand more respect and restrictions when it comes to their privacy (3).  However the concerns of celebrities have commonly been over looked for two reasons.  First being they are considered public figures which essentially means that they have waved the right to privacy and secondly the photos taken of them in public places to adhere to privacy claims (5).  But when looking at the publicity rights of celebrities, courts tend to treat them the same as the rights of private citizens.  It is important to recognize that privacy and publicity rights cannot be used interchangeably and publicity usually “constitutes a firmer basis for granting relief” in regards to the rights of public figures (9-10).  

These photographs that cause massive amounts of rage among celebrities, “ cannot be prevented” as made clear by the first amendment.  The press is allowed to take these pictures as long as they are in public places.  However the courts “have taken a liberal view” when it comes to what they consider newsworthy and not and have used this approach to put some restraints on the press (13).  Things the courts consider not newsworthy would include publishing information that the public is not entitled to, or something that poses as a threat to the security of the celebrity (13-15).  However the court has much stronger opinions in regards to the paparazzi in cases of aggression such as the death of Princess Diana, and many other incidences when the paparazzi severely crossed the line.  Other violent car “accidents” occurred between the paparazzi and Lindsay Lohan, Cameron Diaz, Justin Timberlake and many more (Halbfinger, 1). 

When looking at the issue of celebrities’ rights to privacy it is important to look at both the legality of these rights as well as the affects that this kind of intense exposure can have on the lives of them and their families.  In cases where the paparazzi take “candid” photos of celebrities in the supermarket or walking down the street, they are just simply doing their job and it doesn’t interfere with any right of privacy.  However when the paparazzi uses other methods of obtaining information such as violence or trespassing, then legal issues are presented.  There is a fine line between what can be published by the press regarding celebrities and what cannot as defined in the first amendment.  I think it is important to make it more clear what is newsworthy and can be published and what is not in order to help settle many legal matters.  Also it is important for the mental stability of celebrities to be taken more into consideration by the press and the public.  It needs to be understood that although these people are famous they are still people first and foremost and they deserve the right to be treated as so.  It would not be fair to completely eliminate the paparazzi for any parties involved.  The paparazzi would be out of a job, the people would not be up to date on the lives of these sought after celebrities, and the celebrities themselves would not have as much exposure making them appear less famous. However this continuous cycle between the public demand and the paparazzi’s financial incentives when looking at the lives of celebrities needs to be diminished all together in order to decrease the constant exposure of celebrities.   
