Celebrity gossip is interesting. Whether you’re standing in line at the supermarket or reading TheCelebrityCafe.com, it is fun to know about the dirty details of fame and fortune. However, there is a line that needs to be drawn. Kids.
When one chooses to be an actor or singer, they have to understand the negative parts of the job. There are going to be cameras in their personal space. Their personal life will be spread across the pages. It is inevitable. Is it fair? Probably not, however, they know what they’re getting into.
However, the celebrities’ children don’t. They are cursed to a life of cameras in their faces because of their parents’ career. That is not fair at all. They didn’t choose to be the target of the paparazzi.
Currently in the California State Congress, there is a bill trying to redefine harassment to include taking pictures of children without the permission of an adult. Jennifer Garner testified, along with Halle Berry, in front of the Assembly Judiciary Committee to support the bill, according to The Hollywood Reporter.
"I chose a public life and understand that this means sacrifices in terms of privacy for our jobs," Garner said, "In my case, this means that I am sometimes photographed. However my three children are private citizens and more than that -- at one, 4 and 7 years old -- they're just little kids."
Kristen Bell appeared on Ellen and said that it wasn’t her job to put her child in the spotlight. And it is definitely not a guy with a big camera’s job to put the little girl in magazines.
"We're not quite positive that she wants to be a public figure yet, so we're going to leave that up to her," Bell said on the show. "If she wants to, she can do a bunch of selfies. Who cares? But we're just going to make that decision for her."
What about the celebrity parents who have sold pictures of their children or have given pictures of their baby to magazines? Sandra Bullock interviewed with PEOPLE Magazine and revealed that she had adopted a baby, Louis, in January 2010.
However, in a June 2013 interview with Parade, Bullock had a different reaction to photos of her son.
“We’re adults, and we’re fair game—not that I like being photographed going in and out of school in my sweatpants. But I instinctively throw things over Louis’s head,” She told the magazine.
It isn’t just Bullock who had a change of heart when it came to photographs of children. Brad Pitt and Angelina Jole sold pictures of their baby for $4.1 million to PEOPLE, according to Variety. However, the two also had a PEOPLE reporter arrested for trespassing at one of their children’s birthday party, according to softpedia.com.
Not to mention Alec Baldwin, who is known for attacking paparazzi, taking pictures with his newborn baby for PEOPLE in August.
It is confusing. There are mixed messages coming from the celebrities. It isn’t ok to take pictures of children unless you are making a profit? That seems a very difficult situation. If you break it down, it isn’t.
It is wrong. When a parent is in a room with a professional photographer, it is completely different than a child trying to go to school or ballet. In that room, the parent is in control. If the photographer crosses the line, the parent can demand that they take a different angle.
A paparazzi, however, does not care if the parent (or child) wants to be left alone. As we previously reported in July, Suri, the 7-year-old daughter of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes, was called a “little brat” by a paparazzi who didn’t get the shot that he wanted.
That isn’t exactly the same thing as “smile for the camera!” It is unacceptable to make a child cry or feel upset for a simple snap of a picture. Is it really worth it to make a child feel unsafe just so you can see one picture? No.
I'm not saying that it is acceptable for an adult to attack a photographer for taking pictures. It isn't acceptable to attack anyone. However, it is understandable. Parents are protective and if someone is trying to mess with your kid, you'll get pretty angry. If that person feels that the only way to get privacy is getting physical, then it is understandable that they would threaten a paparazzi.
Taking a picture of an adult celebrity to put in a magazine is upsetting, sure, but they understand that it comes with the job. It isn’t fair to break down someone’s personal life so the public can judge or take pictures of someone getting the mail so the internet can talk about how terrible they look but the celebrity signed up for it when they decided to have a career in the limelight.
I’m a journalist and I understand that people are going to comment on my articles on how they disagree. Society will state that I am bias and suck sometimes. It comes with the territory. Every job has some type of takeaway that we hate.
But kids don’t have a job. They’re kids. They play and go to ballet. They are not newsworthy and should not interest the public at all. Anyone who thinks that it is acceptable to harass four-year-olds is just wrong.
We shouldn’t have to outlaw these type of pictures. We should know better. We should stop reading stories about kids and we should make it clear that it is not ok to flash cameras in children’s faces.
If we outlaw these pictures, they will simply become more rare and the photographers will try harder to get the picture that they need. If we, as a country, make an agreement that no one should take these pictures- the pictures will become useless and no one will waste their time snapping pictures outside of elementary schools.
Adult celebrities can handle paparazzi, no matter how annoying it is. Kids can’t and we need to fix that.