Look, not everything is society's fault. Nobody made him take meaningless photos for a living. Society didn't obligate him to feed the public's gossips. He chose this line of work, and he chose to not pay attention to his surroundings while doing so.
I'm sorry that a person has died, but I have trouble feeling any sympathy for the paparazzi. And I have nothing but disdain at trying to blame this on society.
And this is why we look both ways before crossing the road (and why pedestrians are supposed to stay the hell away from the motorway/freeway).
Man killed by his own stupidity. Nothing more, nothing less.
- Signature courtesy of the very talented Aveline -WORDS IN THE HEART CAN NOT BE TAKEN.
Personally I don't care about celebrities and I don't get the stalker-like obsession with following their private lives, but no one is to blame for a guy getting hit walking on a dangerous road other than himself.... there are plenty of people working dangerous jobs for money out there, but this guy chose to put himself in a very dangerous situation, his risk, his choice, and unfortunately he paid a very high price for it.
Well, from the article(s) about this it would seem that he simply did not pay (enough) attention to the trafic, thus making it his own fault.
Question though: Is there a law against walking on a freeway in Los Angeles?
Hell, after reading some stories online ide go as far as to say that papparazi are pretty much social terrorists. Its quite a cruel job, but then again the people they are following are probably rich enough to have a swimmingpool made of baby tears so I cant imagine they care much.
"walked across a Los Angeles freeway"
Natural selection at its best
I put the laughter in manslaughter
Blood DK problems: to many ppl at daily place, cant pull 8packs *cries*
BF3>CoD Cola>Pepsi PC>Mac Xbox>PS3
An act doesn't have to be illegal to be immoral. Of course immorality is subjective.
2) Photographing people sunbathing in on private property from 1.5 km away using super high powered lenses, climbing up trees to photograph someone dying on a hospital bed, posing as a family member to sneak into hospitals to photograph newborn babies, is functionally and morally exactly like taking pictures of someone in their homes. It certainly isn't "out and about" by any normal meaning of the phrase.
Paparazzi pushes the legal boundaries of acceptable behaviour to breaking point. But morally, they are already far into despicable behaviour.
No one can take your pic and then use it without your approval, same goes for filming you.
Yet, celebs are giving that part up to some degree, since they are considered a person of public interest, hence why they actually have to live with it, and they do.
Yet the line gets crossed more than often. In a way the paparazzi are actually a high danger to the freedom of press act.
Their constant abuse of said freedom could very well one day lead to restrictions.
Anyhow. There were always celebs, there was always a demand amongst the civilization to hear and see something about them. The thing however is, that it got totally out of line. It got so far, that it actually took a lot away from the stardom of people.
Stars from the early times of entertainment are just that, big stars. Little is known about them. And that actually contributes to their stardom.
In a way, one could even argue that their achievement of stardom has a lot more value, because there wasn't just such an overblown industry of gossip and entertainment news around them. They became stars and gained exposure rather naturally.
Today, every second jerk and every other slut can become a "star". Little talent is needed to get exposure. Exposure not talent, nor quality equals stardom in today's World, Sadly..
I mean.. The Jersey Shore cast.. Good lord.. None of those losers ought to have even one minute exposure. The Kardashians.. Really?
All the multitudes of "real house wifes". All of them are an insult to REAL house wifes. Or in music.... Bieber, at hand here...
Very little talent, a thin voice with limited register, pushed by an industry behind him, into stardom that is zero related to the actual musical talent. That wouldn't be enough to suffice as opening act for well established renown musicians.
There was a time when stars were literally born and rose to stardom through their work, through their talent.
And there are the times where stars are artificially created. That's what we have now.
scumbag down, good news today, cant stand the invasion of privacy and stalking, then everyone buys papers and reads about it...disgusting.