Rights of Celebrities

[Deleted]

This is something I just thought of mainly because I watched the news story on Rebecca Black and how she received death threats. Now, I'm not a fan of her song, but do I want her dead? No, that would be incredibly malicious of me.

But this isn't just about her. This is about every celebrity. Because they watch YouTube videos as well.

There are actually two things I'd like to bring up here: how far a hateful comment should go and how much a reporter is allowed to pry into personal life. First, I don't think any hate mail should be sent to a celebrity...or to anyone, no matter how much you don't like their acting/songs/way they play sports. They're real people just like you and me, and they can drive people to tears and worse. I personally fear for Rebecca Black's mental health and - just a little bit - her life.

Hateful comments? I think it's okay to say "I hate this song" or "I hate this movie" or "I don't like the way this character is portrayed by him/her" - but saying you hate the person? I don't believe anyone can really dislike another person. If you think about bad people throughout history, it's their actions you hate, not them. I believe people have too much love in their hearts to really hate the soul of another person. I think if it were possible, the words "I hate you" would make someone instantly drop dead.

And as for privacy...let me just applaud Queen Elizabeth for suing the reporters who listened in on the royal family's phone calls. That kind of behavior is unacceptable. I personally think that a journalist shouldn't print anything unless they are directly told by the celeb that it's true in an interview. No overhearing. If someone says "I feel like I haven't eaten in a week" then that doesn't mean they actually haven't. When I'm a singer and I'm on my dates, I won't let anyone but my date and my family know where we're going. That way no one can print false stories about me.

I feel sorry for Princess Kate of England. I glimpsed a tabloid headline that said she'd had a miscarriage, and I highly doubt it's true. Poor Kate...she's so sweet, and completely innocent. She doesn't deserve that.

Thoughts?

[Deleted]

Your first point is sort of a give-in, really. There isn't that much to discuss. xD

Second point is only a little more worthy of discussion, and I happen to disagree with you in certain circumstances. Celebrities like movie stars deserve a private life. I can't help but point out that a select few celebrities kind of bring on the negative attention themselves. Case in point; Charlie Sheen. But yes, the vast majority of them just want to live their lives in peace, though if they'd wanted that I can't imagine why they'd give it up to chase bigtime stardom.

The exception to the rule is, I think, leaders. Public officials, church officials or anyone else in a role of leadership. The transparency of their lives must be scaled in accordance with the importance of their work. For example, it doesn't matter to me if Celebrity X has an affair with their maid, but it does matter to me if the Prime Minister of New Zealand does. If he can't be trusted to be faithful in the promises he made his wife, how can I trust him to be faithful in the promises he made to the country as a whole? If the Minister of Finance is, for example, a gambler, or if his private business goes bankrupt through his own incompetance, that would reveal him to be incapable of doing his job correctly. If my church's pastor was reveal to be fraudulent, would I happily sit and listen to him telling me to give money to the church?

People who go into public service should be prepared for their lives to be scrutinized, because we, as the people they serve, have a right to know whether or not they can do the job honestly, efficiently and without drama. I consider it sort of like a job interview. People sometimes forget that leaders are our employees.

Granted, a lot of what is reported isn't necessary. It doesn't matter if Princess Kate had a miscarriage or not, it's still none of our business. It should be her choice to go public or not. And considering the royal family has no real political power, I'm not the least interested in what shenanigans they're getting up to or where they order their pizza from.

[Deleted]

Aug 15, 2011 19:22:04 GMT -5 @adoqhina said:

The exception to the rule is, I think, leaders. Public officials, church officials or anyone else in a role of leadership. The transparency of their lives must be scaled in accordance with the importance of their work. For example, it doesn't matter to me if Celebrity X has an affair with their maid, but it does matter to me if the Prime Minister of New Zealand does. If he can't be trusted to be faithful in the promises he made his wife, how can I trust him to be faithful in the promises he made to the country as a whole? If the Minister of Finance is, for example, a gambler, or if his private business goes bankrupt through his own incompetance, that would reveal him to be incapable of doing his job correctly. If my church's pastor was reveal to be fraudulent, would I happily sit and listen to him telling me to give money to the church?

I think that yes, we should know how good our leaders are, but the rub is this: how do we know that the Prime Minister is really having an affair? That might just be malicious reports while he stays faithful.

[Dju]

I agree with Sarn, this is not a very discussable topic. :I It's like thinking about a universal truth when it's already an, uh, truth. Leaders should leave an example and rumors are rumors.

[Breakingchains]

In cases like Rebecca Black's, yeah, the massive hate is ridiculous. YouTubers screaming that she needs to die because she dared perform a song they dislike says a lot more about their character than it does about her talent. (That said, I wouldn't worry about Black herself too much - she's still performing and has taken the entire thing with a remarkable amount of grace and serenity, rather than hiding under a rock until she's 35 like I daresay most of us would.)

Regarding leadership figures: while I agree that people in public service should be scrutinized and be prepared to be open and honest, truth is, a lot of the dirt that is dragged out on them is not so much a legitimate look at how well they can lead a country, but just dirt for dirt's sake. Political opponents playing up something largely irrelevant to their leadership skills to try to cast them in a bad light, for instance. Or prying gossip like the Kate miscarriage thing.

That said, I agree with Sarn's overall sentiment on leadership figures - and I also think that a little bit of the same should apply to celebrities. A major part of what makes you fit or unfit to be in the public eye is how you take criticism: do you explode? Do you burst into tears and make nasty comments on the perpetrator's blog? Or do you analyze whether the criticism is worthy of your attention, deal with it constructively if it is, and laugh it off if it's not? While people need to watch their mouths/keyboards, at the same time, people who put themselves and their work out there need to be prepared for a few hard knocks, and to be able to take them well.