Stalk The Paparazzi Back

In a liberal society, people should be subject to and protected by the same laws.

Suppose I picked a random person out of the phone book, then followed their every move, constantly photographing them and putting those photographs on websites and in magazines. Then I’d be arrested and charged with stalking, followed up with a civil suit for harassment and intentionally causing distress.

If it’s considered a criminal offence (and a tort) to do the above, why is it apparently legal to do it to Justin Bieber or Miley Cyrus? Does a certain level of fame extinguish a citizen’s rights? By what legal or democratic principle?

Do rights to privacy incrementally evaporate in proportion to a person’s public profile? Or is there a threshold of fame beyond which a host of rights to privacy are extinguished? How is that threshold measured? If a movie star wins an Oscar, can I now take a photo of her topless on a private yacht and publish it?

Who determines such things? Will celebrities constantly have to pursue test cases to establish a body of common law?

Hopefully the above is sufficient argument to persuade people of the impracticality and unfairness of having one law for “ordinary people” and another for celebrities.

But celebs like Justin Bieber calling for tougher paparazzi laws have misunderstood the nature of the problem.

Tweak laws or make special cases and paparazzi will still find a way around them. People like Chris Guerra and Jamie Fawcett are parasites. Their entire livelihood is devoted to constantly following celebrities, or in the case of Guerra, a single person. They will spend a great deal of time and effort to navigate around any legal changes.

They are also delusional, as Frank Griffin’s comment after Chris Guerra’s death indicates:

“What's the difference between our guy who got killed under those circumstances (run over taking a picture of Justin Bieber’s car) and the war photographer who steps on a landmine in Afghanistan and blows himself to pieces because he wanted the photograph on the other side of road. The only difference is the subject matter. One is a celebrity and the other is a battle.”

Yes, one is a celebrity and the other is a battle. Well spotted. No real difference … apart from our troops fighting a difficult war under controversial circumstances actually being news.

If the law against stalking and harassment applies equally to all citizens, as it should, then call for the existing law to be applied, not for a new law.

If the law for some reason does not apply equally to all citizens, campaign for it to be. Use your fan base.

A more effective approach is to try and solve the paparazzi infestation permanently. If there really is some legal loophole allowing paparazzi to stalk public figures, but not ordinary people, use it to your advantage.

Start a Follow The Paparazzi website. This will make each of them public figures, so you can apply the same loopholes to them that they do to you. Then hire people to follow each of them day and night, placing every detail of their lives on the site, including any transgressions, no matter how minute, which arise from your investigations of their personal lives.

Wealthy stars have the resources. Why not turn them against the paparazzi? If there are any legal actions to be fought, who has the deeper pockets and better lawyers?

Publish the paparazzi’s home addresses, plus photographs of them and their houses on your website. Let your fans know how much these people are upsetting you and leave it at that. Your fans will know what to do. Let them help you in digging up all manner of embarrassing dirt on your enemies.

I can’t understand why no big stars haven’t already thought of something like this. How about some of you do the world a service and put these vermin out of business by giving them a taste of their own medicine?