For the British Royal Family

Unjacked!

OK, definitely hijacked now.

There were some important things being discussed here.

Maybe my view on this subject is too simple, but if you decide to become a public figure then you should be aware that these things will happen.

Becoming an actor is a concious choice... you either work in that field and take a job- or you do not. Hence, if you make that choice and you want to be famous, you want to earn this sort of money, and you want to mingle with the stars- the loss of privacy is a natural thing to follow.

If the world that we are living in would be perfect this would not be an issue. People would understand and give celebs their private space, but our world is not perfect.

On a smaller level; each time that one of us posts in these forums our posts may not necessarily stay in the forums. I am aware of that and that is a chance that I am taking. It is a concious choice.

Now, with all this being said... do I think that it is ok for one person to invade another person's privacy like that... NO, but I think that celebs should expect it.

Huggles,
Katja

They do, Katja. But there ought, I think, to be limits. It is difficult to establish lines, and even if we did, there would be those who would push them, and find ways to get around them.

Not all actors want to be famous, nor to they all want to mingle with stars.

Audie Murphy certainly didn't. He was thrust into fame because of his heroic actions in wartime. He had no education or means, so, when he was offered an opportunity to appear in films, he took it, since it provided a way for him to take care of his brothers and sisters, who were orphaned and destitute. Everything he did or said was scrutinized; the movie magazines often told lies, knowing they were lies, but telling them anyway because they knew they would likely get away with it - for the very reasons you suggested.

And my original post was not just about celebrities. It was about the laxity in some journalists who are willing to print sensational pictures and articles even when they know that they are hurting people who are basically innocent.

What is more important, to me, is that the laxity opens the door for people with dangerous agendas to use the concept of freedom of expression to incite violence, as in the production of this mediocre film that led to the deaths of individuals who were working for peace.

Many Americans believe that they have an unlimited right to bear arms. I'm not sure I see the difference. It is interesting, I think, that very often, those of us who are quick to defend one of those rights are the same people who adamantly denounce the other.

I am struck by the irony in all this. So much so that I decided to post a message expressing a question about something we perceive as a right. It seemed to me that it was an important topic to open for open discussion. I thought it was going well, but it sadly went awry somewhere.

At the same time, I have pretty much exhausted what I have to say, so I leave the thread to anyone who has anything to add, or take it in whatever direction and/or tone they wish.

Still just me.

Ann