Week 3 Remix vs. Supercrazy

[FromTheSouth]

Same judge, same time frame, Remix will affirm

Resolved: A celebrity's right to privacy in personal, non criminal matters ought to outweigh the right of free press.

 

[Remix]

Me and Supercrazy have agreed to a swap. He'll post first in the affirmative.

 

[Super Crazy]

Resolved: A celebrity's right to privacy in personal, non criminal matters ought to outweigh the right of free press.

Alright here goes nothing. I'd like to apologize again for the last round.

To me this comes down to one thing and one thing only, celebrities are people, just like you and me, and they deserve their privacy much like you and I do. I understand this is a free country, and understand the rights people have, but I don't care how much money you have, you deserve to be left alone and not followed by cameras.

That being said, I will use various examples for my side of the argument. Let's have a look at the most recent shindig and celebrity to be plastered everywhere, one Tiger Woods. He is famous for his play of the golf course, and now for his love life/personal life. If it were not for the paparrazzi and tabloid journalists, would we even give a damn about this? Tiger would still be the same man to us were he not a celebrity followed around by cameras from time to time.

Sorry I hit post by mistake, I wasn't finished posting.

Britney Spears is of course another example. I understand she brought a lot upon herself by deliberately provoking and using the media, but she was obviously and medically unwell and as such should have been left alone to get well. When did we start to live in a world where chasing mentally ill people in cars, causing potentially dangerous situations just to get a picture of them acting erratically to gain money became acceptable? This can also be applied to Princess Diana of course, who was ultimately killed because her privacy was not respected. Also, Victoria Beckham has famously pleaded with people not to photograph her young son as he has epilepsy and could become ill. Surely a young child's safety is more important than a photograph of his mother?

With the age of technology upon us, including computers, cameras, video cameras, etc, it is truly hard for anyone to not gain privacy, everywhere we go , we see celebrity images, and it is hard to turn away, why we are all fascinated by their lives, I'll never truly understand. I mean what is so different from them then the rest of the world, other then the cars the drive, they houses they live in, the places they go. Personally I think it is ridiculous that people can center their life focusing on another person's life, constantly following them and what not.

Every person deserves privacy, and almost every country has a right to privacy, and even though it is not in the constitution, many people consider this to be a basic right, and I will agree with that statement.

 

[Remix]

My arguement is going to be a simple one. Because a simplistic arguement is all that's required. My aforementioned arguement goes like this: freedom of the press is a right that is protected by the First Ammendment to the United States Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law in the United States. This supreme law goes well above the degree to which celebrities are exposed to the public. Not even the presidents are above the constitution. Just ask former presidents Nixon, Clinton and Andrews. If the most powerful man in the country is still bound to the constitution, celebrities have no legs to stand on here.

There's also the issue that many celebrities have made millions of dollars out of selling their lives to the press. What right have they got to say 'I'm rich because I sold my life to the press, but I dont want this life any more, so I'll sue them for invasion of privacy'? Absolutely none. If you consent to have your image shown in mass media, then not only do you have no right under the US constitution to sue the press. You also have no moral or ethical right to do so. They made their bed, now they've got to sleep in it.

To me this comes down to one thing and one thing only, celebrities are people, just like you and me

Yes, genetically I am 99% the same as Amy Winehouse, or any other Homo sapiens on this planet.

and they deserve their privacy much like you and I do.

I'm going to quote the philosopher Jagger here 'You can't always get what you want'. What people deserve is not the same as what they get or are entitled to. Does a war veterain deserve to find jobs nigh impossible to come by because his skills are not of value to society? No. He fought for the country for Christ's sake. Is he entitled to a job? Of course not. Employers shouldnt be forced to employ worse candidates because they fought in wars. So why should celebrities be above the constitution just because they want some piece and quiet?

I understand this is a free country, and understand the rights people have, but I don't care how much money you have, you deserve to be left alone and not followed by cameras.

Supreme law > deserving privacy. I'm sorry but it's not even a close run thing.

That being said, I will use various examples for my side of the argument.

Go for it. I look forward to dispriving them.

Let's have a look at the most recent shindig and celebrity to be plastered everywhere, one Tiger Woods. He is famous for his play of the golf course, and now for his love life/personal life. If it were not for the paparrazzi and tabloid journalists, would we even give a damn about this? Tiger would still be the same man to us were he not a celebrity followed around by cameras from time to time.

So the man repeatedly cheats on his wife with a string of different women and the press is the bad guy? 'Frad not. Firstly because Tiger was the guy committing adultery here. This means he's hardly in a position to take the moral high ground. Secondly, because it was the public what threw petrol on the the camp fire, not the tabloids. It was reported that Tiger was having an affair a week before the shit hit the fan. If the public had said 'who gives a fuck' the tabloids would have moved on. It was the public that wanted more, putting pressure on the tabloids to deliver. Papers print what sells, and Tiger was the biggest draw at the time. And thirdly, nothing the tabloids were doing was criminal. I.e. they were doing nothing wrong. If they had been malicious with their stories Tiger could have told them to stop, and sue them for damages. And he would have. It's telling that this didn't happen and its him apologising not the press.

Britney Spears is of course another example. I understand she brought a lot upon herself by deliberately provoking and using the media

Yes, yes she did.

but she was obviously and medically unwell and as such should have been left alone to get well.

You have a moral case here. Pity that what's morally right and wrong isn't close to being what's legally right and wrong. If she needed to be left alone she could have gone somewhere the press couldn't report on her daily excentricities. Hell she could have gone to rehab for 'exhaustion' or something. She didn't. She, or more likely her PR agents could have gotten her out fo the spotlight to get well. They didn't. Can I also say that Spears' publicity during this time actually benefitted her when she DID get better? If she'd been quiet during this period, nobody would have given a rat's ass about her comeback. There's a saying that's pertinent here. All publicity is good publicity, and my god Spears got a lot of puclicity.

When did we start to live in a world where chasing mentally ill people in cars, causing potentially dangerous situations just to get a picture of them acting erratically to gain money became acceptable?

Around the same time as celebrities realised that they could make just as much money by selling themselves to the press.

This can also be applied to Princess Diana of course, who was ultimately killed because her privacy was not respected.

Bullshit. She ultimately died because she was being driven by a speeding, drunk driver and wasnt wearing a seatbelt. She'd be alive if the driver was either sober or she'd had the sence to wear a seatbelt.

Also, Victoria Beckham has famously pleaded with people not to photograph her young son as he has epilepsy and could become ill.

Now you see, HERE she has a case. This is because putting her son at risk of a seizure is not the same thing as 'wanting privacy'. This is because if a camera's flash induced a seizure, it would be a crime. In the eyes of the law, taking a flash photo of an epeleptic would, at the very least be reckless endangerment. Which is a crime.

Surely a young child's safety is more important than a photograph of his mother?

Yes, both morally and, (more importantly) legally.

With the age of technology upon us, including computers, cameras, video cameras, etc, it is truly hard for anyone to not gain privacy

This is true. Irrelevent, but true.

everywhere we go , we see celebrity images, and it is hard to turn away

Also true.

why we are all fascinated by their lives, I'll never truly understand.

Niether will I. However the fact remains that preserving the press' right to supply the public with celebrity photographs is legally more important than celebrities desire for privacy.

I mean what is so different from them then the rest of the world, other then the cars the drive, they houses they live in, the places they go.

You think that you're significantly less photographed than celebrities? You're not. Ever heard of CCTV? The average Briton is caught on CCTV 300 times a day. Let's say that each time this happens it's for one second. Video cameras record 24 at 24 frames (i.e. still images) per second. This means that the average Briton is photographed 300 x 24 = 7200 times a day. Yep, our day to day lives are much more private than Celebrities'.

Personally I think it is ridiculous that people can center their life focusing on another person's life, constantly following them and what not.

Rediculous, possibly. Illegal, no. Right to do so protected by the constitution, yes.

Every person deserves privacy

See: Jagger on getting what you want.

and almost every country has a right to privacy, and even though it is not in the constitution

the right to 'invade' privacy IS in the constitution, though.

many people consider this to be a basic right, and I will agree with that statement.

Many people are photographed over 7200 times per day without their their consent too. Nobody's life is private in this day and age. The right to privacy is no more a right than the right to have a monogamous relationship. In both cases, you can't do jack if someone decides to ignore that right.

 

[FromTheSouth]

I think Remix wins this debate. Supercrazy needed to to make a point that right to a free press was intended to keep openly mocking the government from being viewed as sedition. Framer's intent is always a big argument in a debate. He didn't say that, so he can't win. He didn't rebut either. That means that Remix's whole post goes unquestioned. You both wrote well, and thanks for showing up.

Remix 35, Supercrazy 29