Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/09/01
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Chuck:: >What do some of the pros on the LUG think of the proposal to protect >celebrities from these vermin? Eric: >Tell people to stop reading trash celebrity pulp magazines and newspapers. <snip> >Cut off the money, and the vermin go away. Ted: >what has to happen first is to shut down the rag trash magazines and TV tab >programmes. If they did not offer great sums of money for these guys to operate, >then they wouldn't be chasing the way they do. Alf: >6) Paparazzi and free lancers exist, because readers want to see those pixs, >and agencies pay for those pix. Within this system, the paparazzi are just >the minor part, who get beaten. These comments give rise to two questions, in my mind: 1. Does this mean that public demand for any product justifies whatever activities are necessary to produce it? 2. Stalking laws are on the books - at least in the USA. Why could / should these laws not be invoked in the case of overly-aggressive photographers? I mean prison sentences, not wrist slaps. Kari: >It all boils down to moral choice. The shooter's, the editor's and >the magazine buyer's. Kari, IMO you got it exactly right. Bad moral choices are being made at every level here. Pragmatic economic justifications for this reprehensible system leave me cold. It's simply wrong to assign all the blame to the consuming public - part of it, certainly, but not *all* of it. Chuck - --------------------------------------------------------------------- Chuck Warman cwarman@wf.net (Wichita Falls, TX)