Support NeoGAF

[Mysterious]

That's not true. I can follow anyone one around and take photos of them in public. As long as I don't trespass on private property or anything like that, there's no law being broken.

Uh, no you can't.

 

[ChubbyHuggs]

I would just use all the money that I could lose in a lawsuit to just pay someone to follow them and their family around to take photos of them. Family dinners, kids soccer games, funerals, all that shit.

 

[AuthenticM]

I'm willing to be he doesn't make millions on his fame either.

I very much doubt money and fame somehow make people more mentally resilient to harassment.

I would just use all the money that I could lose in a lawsuit to just pay someone to follow them and their family around to take photos of them. Family dinners, kids soccer games, funerals, all that shit.

Holy shit. Why haven't I thought of that ? This seems to be the perfect way to teach them a lesson.

 

[eot]

He had it coming, but still, you can't assault people at will.

 

[Pakoe]

I don't get the gif.......

Spoiler

I'm sorry, it's late

 

[Charles Foster Kane]

I very much doubt money and fame somehow make people more mentally resilient to harassment.

It's part of the job. You want fame, you must expect something like this.

I agree paparazzis can be assholes, but that does't give celebrities the right to ask to assault them or destroy their property.

 

[Anustart]

All you people trash talking the paparrazi need to stop. Without them, how would we get the latest scoops on when John stamos goes to the grocery store?

For real though, how is saying deal with it because you're famous not victim blaming?

 

[AuthenticM]

It's part of the job. You want fame, you must expect something like this.

I agree paparazzis can be assholes, but that does't give celebrities the right to ask to assault them or destroy their property (I mean in general).

I stand by my belief that reasonable use of force on the paparazzo and the destruction of his equipment when harassment is occuring should not be ground to civil action.

 

[DoktorEvil]

I would just use all the money that I could lose in a lawsuit to just pay someone to follow them and their family around to take photos of them. Family dinners, kids soccer games, funerals, all that shit.

As a celebrity? Sure.

As Joe Schmo? No way.

I can't imagine what that photographer was getting paid for photos of Justin Bieber though...

Apparently the bounty for headshots or shots of celebrities behaving badly is usually high.

I wish I had hard numbers to back up my bounty statement but I can't find any.

 

[Fenderputty]

I very much doubt money and fame somehow make people more mentally resilient to harassment.
.

Don't like the money and noteriety? Quit and vanish Into obscurity with your money to be forgotten. Otherwise this is part of the job. Just like a salesman travels or a teacher has to listen to screaming kids.

Plenty of famous people get along with the paparazzi and don't assault or damage their shit.

I stand by my belief that reasonable use of force on the paparazzo and the destruction of his equipment when harassment is occuring should not be ground to civil action.

Haha ok well then ...

 

[Mango Positive]

Leonardo DiCarpio once wore the same outfit everytime he left a movie set so that pictures taken subsequent days were worthless.

 

[TheContact]

Bieber is one of the worst people on the planet but I side with him on this. Fuck the papparazi

 

[AuthenticM]

Don't like the money and noteriety? Quit and vanish Into obscurity with your money to be forgotten. Otherwise this is part of the job. Just like a salesman travels or a teacher has to listen to screaming kids.

I'm glad Canadian courts disagree with you.

Leonardo DiCarpio once wore the same outfit everytime he left a movie set so that pictures taken subsequent days were worthless.

How does that make the pictures worthless ? Is it because the readers of tabloids would think the pictures always be of the same day or something ?

 

[Secret_asian_man]

Leonardo DiCarpio once wore the same outfit everytime he left a movie set so that pictures taken subsequent days were worthless.

Didn't Daniel Radcliffe do something similar?

 

[Aquamarine]

I'm glad Canadian courts disagree with you.



How does that make the pictures worthless ? Is it because the readers of tabloids would think the pictures always be of the same day or something ?

Yeah.

You can't prove it was from a different day if he was leaving from the same place wearing the same thing every day.

So tabloids---who already purchased the photos from one shoot---won't want more photos they think is from the same shoot...they want new stuff that's clearly new.

 

[bort]

If you think you're safe in your own backyard

oh that gif is also Miley recording a pap that was following her while she was walking her dog

 

[Fenderputty]

I'm glad Canadian courts disagree with you.

I'm glad American ones agree?

 

[Neuromancer]

Uh, no you can't.

Can you show me the law that specifically says you can't photograph people in public places?

 

[CrimsonCrescendo]

WTF, dude.


Is there a video to go along with this?

 

[Maxxan]

If I was Justin Bieber, I'd have someone in my crew always carry a big ass camera. Whenever a pap shows up, my camera dude would just snap loads of pics and post them online under creative commons. That'd make their identical pictures worthless.

 

[AuthenticM]

If I was Justin Bieber, I'd have someone in my crew always carry a big ass camera. Whenever a pap shows up, my camera dude would just snap loads of pics and post them online under creative commons. That'd make their identical pictures worthless.

That's pretty good !

 

[Charles Foster Kane]

For real though, how is saying deal with it because you're famous not victim blaming?

I'd say the one being assaulted in this kind of cases is the victim.

 

[Holy Order Sol]

A more punchable face I don't recall.

EX Vanilla Ice basically

 

[Neuromancer]

For real though, how is saying deal with it because you're famous not victim blaming?

I'm saying deal with it because photographing someone jumping off a cliff at a public beach isn't illegal, and I don't even think it's morally wrong. It's certainly not something that makes me think it's acceptable to have one's bodyguard rough someone up over.

 

[peteykirch]

A more punchable face I don't recall.

I raise you Cam Newton

 

[starchild excalibur]

For real though, how is saying deal with it because you're famous not victim blaming?

Because being photographed in public doesn't make you a victim?

I think it's shitty that celebrities and their families have to deal with papparazzi - I really do - but it takes more than being annoyed by an activity to make someone a victim of something. I feel weird even seeing the phrase "victim blaming" being brought up in this context.

You wanna stop paparazzi from having a profession? Tell the world to stop giving a shit about every little thing celebrities do. If you've ever clicked on a link because it promised a picture of some celebrity doing something weird/funny/sexy then you're only fueling the fire.

 

[linsivvi]

I don't, but I'm willing to bet you have not experienced being harassed like this.

First of all, you don't know anything about me and I don't care about your "bets". So just back off with your baseless assumption of me. It's also laughable to even suggest that a rich person would face struggles in his life more than regular people. That's just stupid. When regular people face harassment on the street, they are without a bodyguard and could be subjected to real violence. When regular people face harassment at work, their livelihood and entire future could be in jeopardy. To say regular people are not facing harassment like Justin fucking Bieber is insulting to all the people who face real, life or career threatening harassment.

More importantly, most famous people do not use violence to deal with paparazzi. So when you suggest I might even act the same way under similar circumstance as this jackass thug-wannabe you are in fact insulting me and my character, because the fact is 99% of the people do not act like this piece of shit.

Pro tip: The next time you want to defend somebody's action, speak for yourself and for yourself only. You have NO rights to say other people would act the same way that YOU might.

 

[striferser]

Fucking paparazzi
Hate those fucking clowns

 

[s_mirage]

While I hate paparazzi I'd quite like this one to win the case. Why? Because Bieber seems to be a sniveling little weed who perpetually hides behind bodyguards, and I like that type of person even less.

 

[AuthenticM]

First of all, you don't know anything about me and I don't care about your "bets". So just back off with your baseless assumption of me. It's also laughable to even suggest that a rich person would face struggles in his life more than regular people. That's just stupid. When regular people face harassment on the street, they are without a bodyguard and could be subjected to real violence. When regular people face harassment at work, their livelihood and entire future could be in jeopardy. To say regular people are not facing harassment like Justin fucking Bieber is insulting to all the people who face real, life or career threatening harassment.

More importantly, most famous people do not use violence to deal with paparazzi. So when you suggest I might even act the same way under similar circumstance as this jackass thug-wannabe you are in fact insulting me and my character, because the fact is 99% of the people do not act like this piece of shit.

Pro tip: The next time you want to defend somebody's action, speak for yourself and for yourself only. You have NO rights to say other people would act the same way that YOU might.

I never said rich people face more struggles than "regular" people. I think I made it clear that harassment is not okay and the revenue of the harassed person is irrelevant. Nobody wants to walk the streets with his spouse and kids while having to deal with strangers harassing them. It doesn't matter that "they only want to take pictures". If I don't want a stranger to take pictures of me, that is (or should be, in the USA) a breach of private life. It can be annoying, disturbing and even scary. And that would be even more true for the child accompanying his celebrity parent.

Pro tip: the next time you want to make a rebuttal, don't use strawmen seasoned with faux-anger.

 

[linsivvi]

I never said rich people face more struggles than "regular" people. I think I made it clear that harassment is not okay and the revenue of the harassed person is irrelevant. Nobody wants to walk the streets with his spouse and kids while having to deal with strangers harassing them. It doesn't matter that "they only want to take pictures". If I don't want a stranger to take pictures of me, that is (or should be, in the USA) a breach of private life. It can be annoying, disturbing and even scary. And that would be even more true for the child accompanying his celebrity parent.

Pro tip: the next time you want to make a rebuttal, don't use strawmen seasoned with faux-anger.

What straw men? Your words:

I don't, but I'm willing to bet you have not experienced being harassed like this.

I am not rich, and I have faced harassment on the street from strangers, and it's violent. I couldn't ask my bodyguard to deal with it.

What faux-anger? When you said....

Again, if you were in their shoes, I would be willing to bet you'd have a very different perspective on the matter.

twice, you are assuming I would make decision even close to what this asshole did. You are insulting me. Do I need to give you a list of thousands of celebrities who've never physically assaulted paparazzi? How about tens of thousands? So why would I share the same perspective as a despicable human being and not the tens of thousands?

Maybe YOU do. So speak for yourself and stop telling people what's going on in their head. That's beyond stupid.

Pro tip: When people you don't know tell you they don't act like that, they don't act like that. Your morality don't work on other people.

 

[AuthenticM]

twice, you are assuming I would make decision even close to what this asshole did.

No, I said you'd "have a different perspective on the matter", meaning when coming across a story on the Internet about a celebrity getting physical with a paparazzo after years of getting harassed by paparazzi, you would probably be more understanding of the situation and less quick with a "two wrongs don't make a right" judgemental comment.

 

[squidyj]

No, I said you'd "have a different perspective on the matter", meaning when coming across a story on the Internet about a celebrity getting physical with a paparazzo after years of getting harassed by paparazzi, you would probably be more understanding of the situation and less quick with a "two wrongs don't make a right" judgemental comment.

nah, assault isn't okay.

 

[linsivvi]

No, I said you'd "have a different perspective on the matter", meaning when coming across a story on the Internet about a celebrity getting physical with a paparazzo after years of getting harassed by paparazzi, you would probably be more understanding of the situation and less quick with a "two wrongs don't make a right" judgemental comment.

Physical assault is wrong. You tried to justify it.

You keep pushing the idea that I would somehow, under some circumstances, justify it too.

I don't.

We have an unarmed kid got gun down by the police. His parents didn't ask for blood.

I wouldn't either, and this is no murder.

So stop assuming other people share your morality, because they don't.

 

[Volimar]

Goddammit, as much as I can't stand Bieber, I hate paparazzi more.

I don't want to choose sides, but fuck paparazzi.

Same.

 

[Dead Man]

Yeah, you can't just take someone s shit and assault them if what they are doing is legal. Don;t like, it? Don't be famous. Campaign for privacy laws. But you can't just take peoples stuff.

 

[Oppo]

I stand by my belief that reasonable use of force on the paparazzo and the destruction of his equipment when harassment is occuring should not be ground to civil action.

dude you can't assault people for any reason. you're not really thinking this through.

paparazzo are scum, but an unfortunate side effect of some very necessary greater-public-good laws.

 

[JohnGrimm]

So because he takes pictures for a living, he deserved to be thrown into a choke hold and have his equipment broken?

Some of you people are un-fucking believable.

 

[linsivvi]

So because he takes pictures for a living, he deserved to be thrown into a choke hold and have his equipment broken?

Some of you people are un-fucking believable.

The most un-fucking believable person is the OP himself, who keeps insisting on we must think like him too.

LOL.

 

[bobawesome]

So because he takes pictures for a living, he deserved to be thrown into a choke hold and have his equipment broken?

Some of you people are un-fucking believable.

I agree. I can't believe some of the things I'm reading.

 

[AuthenticM]

dude you can't assault people for any reason. you're not really thinking this through.

paparazzo are scum, but an unfortunate side effect of some very necessary greater-public-good laws.

I'm not equating "reasonable force" with "assault". I'm not saying it should be legal to punch them in the face or hurt them, that's just fantasy. But restraining them while you take out the memory card of their camera and destroying it should not give right to the paparazzo to demand so many thousands of dollars from you for assault, battery, negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

 

[grap3fruitman]

Assault, deadly chokehold, theft and destruction of thousands of dollars of equipment = reasonable force? OP must be a cop.

 

[linsivvi]

Assault, deadly chokehold, theft and destruction of thousands of dollars of equipment = reasonable force. OP must be a cop.

I am willing to bet you would find it reasonable too if you were a cop!

 

[AuthenticM]

Assault, deadly chokehold, theft and destruction of thousands of dollars of equipment = reasonable force. OP must be a cop.

That's what the paparazzo is saying, it hasn't been proven. I'm only taking into account the small description in the article. If the bodyguard really did hurt him so, then yeah, he should get his money.

 

[Fenderputty]

I'm not equating "reasonable force" with "assault". I'm not saying it should be legal to punch them in the face or hurt them, that's just fantasy. But restraining them while you take out the memory card of their camera and destroying it should not give right to the paparazzo to demand so many thousands of dollars from you for assault, battery, negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

It's been hilarious watching you defend this shit.

The real value of his loss was from whatever was on the memory card as well. You're trivializing that.

 

[Oppo]

No, I said you'd "have a different perspective on the matter", meaning when coming across a story on the Internet about a celebrity getting physical with a paparazzo after years of getting harassed by paparazzi, you would probably be more understanding of the situation and less quick with a "two wrongs don't make a right" judgemental comment.

I'm not equating "reasonable force" with "assault". I'm not saying it should be legal to punch them in the face or hurt them, that's just fantasy. But restraining them while you take out the memory card of their camera and destroying it should not give right to the paparazzo to demand so many thousands of dollars from you for assault, battery, negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

No! That is crazy. Even cops (yes, in CANADA) can't take your memory card. What you are suggesting is preposterous. ALlowing citizens to make random judgement calls on "subduing/restraining' and stealing property. Honestly, this is ludicrous.

Public photography is a law in Canada, go look up Reasonable Expectation of Privacy. In public, you have none. You are labouring under a weirdly common misconception that you own your image in public. You. Do. Not. And the reasons for this are legion, and well-debated, decades ago.

As if I want some yahoo who thinks I was looking at his girlfiend strutting up to me and trying to put me in a chokehold while he steals my memory card, because he felt annoyed. Gotta be kidding me.

(Are you famous, OP? What is your dog in this fight anyhow? You want the law changed for a vanishingly small group of super privileged people, which is also insane.)

Now, if you want to talk about expanding harassment laws into pararazzo territory, you might have a discussion, but at no point do you get to assault people. can't believe I even had to type that.

 

[AuthenticM]

The real value of his loss was from whatever was on the memory card as well. You're trivializing that.

I'm having a hard time feeling sympathy for him on that front.

As if I want some yahoo who thinks I was looking at his girlfiend strutting up to me and trying to put me in a chokehold while he steals my memory card, because he felt annoyed. Gotta be kidding me.

Alright, that would pose a problem, indeed.

 

[Dead Man]

I'm not equating "reasonable force" with "assault". I'm not saying it should be legal to punch them in the face or hurt them, that's just fantasy. But restraining them while you take out the memory card of their camera and destroying it should not give right to the paparazzo to demand so many thousands of dollars from you for assault, battery, negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Restraining someone while you steal their stuff is okay as long as you don't punch them? Nope, it's assault and theft. And if the guy had work on the card, he needs to be paid for that work.

 

[Charles Foster Kane]

That's what the paparazzo is saying, it hasn't been proven. I'm only taking into account the small description in the article. If the bodyguard really did hurt him so, then yeah, he should get his money.

That's not what you did.

Paparazzi are scum. I think getting their equiment destroyed and having reasonable force used against them to either prevent them from taking pictures or enticing them to fuck off should be part of the job

Assault is assault.

 

[MIMIC]

I think getting their equiment destroyed and having reasonable force used against them to either prevent them from taking pictures or enticing them to fuck off should be part of the job and should serve as a higher burden of proof if they ever take legal action against the celebrity.

This is a joke, right?