The Chris Brown/Rihanna saga has reconfirmed what we already knew. Like moths to a flame, collectively, we are drawn to celebrity drama-- and can't get enough. The more salacious the details the better. 

Celebrities almost by definition don't enjoy the kind of privacy rights we mere mortals do. Their lives, whether intentionally or not, are open books, and grist for the gossip mill. Demand for all things celebrity is so great that a certain segment of the population has dedicated their lives to capturing every detail of the celebrity life. No doubt because doing so has become a lucrative pursuit. Rihanna's post-beat down pic was reportedly sold for $62,000.00.

Is a topless pic of Janet Jackson the same as releasing a photo of an alleged victim at her worst and most vulnerable?Should their be boundaries?   A celebrity rights group called Stoparazzi thinks so. They are championing a new law against releasing photos or information that exploits victims of crimes, and would make doing so illegal whether there was money exchanged or not.

The bill reads in pertinent part : "If a private crime photo is distributed, the receipt of money for that act is irrelevant and does not diminish the detrimental effect such public distribution of private crime photos could have on the victim, the case itself, other victims of similar crimes etc. Just because the person who leaked it may have done it, for example, because they were disgruntled or vindictive or even, perhaps, to help the defense, and not for money, per se, should not make it legal." 

What do you think?

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

Show/Hide comment form

Write comment

Name

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (Registered users only)

Add Comment