home


 * resolution: “On balance, **** the public’s right to know is more important **


 * than the privacy of celebrities.” **
 * Proposition arguments (supporting this resolution) on this page..... **

-define celebrities (includes polititians?) - the First Amendment provides for freedom of the press, the media cannot be prevented from revealing newsworthy items. (EL)

-a celebrity's private life is not an oxymoron. It is something the celebrity herself can either defend - by keeping the topic off-limits in interviews - or destroy, by making herself a role model for a lifestyle that, in truth, she does not follow. (EL)

see-- [] (EL)


 * Def of paparazzi- a freelance photographer one who takes celebrities for publication. (I.R)**


 * Constitution makes no explicit mention of the right to privacy intrusion into solitude, 1. Public disclosure of private facts is not allowed. (I.R.)**


 * see: [|www.asu.upenn.edu]**

The celebrity chose to give up their right to privacy when they put their face in public eye. They cannot expect privacy after making themselves well known, famous, and very public. (S.S.)

Barbra Streisand, known for espousing pro-environmental views and criticizing those who don't, has sued the California Coastal Records Project, a landmark photographic database of over 12,000 frames of the California coast shot since 2002, asserting that the inclusion of a single frame that includes her blufftop Malibu estate invades her privacy, violates the "anti-paparazzi" statute, seeks to profit from her name, and threatens her security. Ms. Streisand, who purports to espouse the First Amendment right of freedom of speech. apparently feels differently when the publication of a photograph shows her backyard.