More privacy restrictions or fair decision?

Started Apr 16, 2014 | Discussions thread
Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 38,500
You said...

darklamp wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

darklamp wrote:

I am more than a little disappointed that so many feel photos of children in a newspaper represents so much danger.

You have omitted the context I made my remarks in.

So here it is again :

They are children of celebrities and celebrities attract the attention of all sorts of weirdos and nuts. There children are also targets of these individuals.

My remarks did not say anything about people living in general fear of having their kids photos in newspapers. That's your spin on what I said by omitting the context.

...what does a photographer taking pics of kids and publishing them in a newspaper have to do with your "context"?

You gave the impression that my very specific comments were supporting your very generalized argument that people live in fear of their kids pictures being published in a newspaper. That's completely false.

That position is your viewpoint and nothing to do with me.

...the following:

Photographing a celebrity in public and using their photos is well established as being very broadly fine.

But the issue here is the kids. Courts will bend over backwards to protect a child's privacy. The accident of one or more parent being a celebrity is hardly justification for using the kids to sell newspapers.

Let's remember also that children of celebrities may be targeted by the same fruit cakes who target celebrities out of obsession or resentment. I do think that the children should be afforded protection from the media's unlimited greed.

So, is that just a long way of saying that paparazzi often go too far rather than saying you feel the children are in any danger?

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow