Search the Lounge


« Osama Obama: Invidious Racism? | Main | File Under: Articles I need to read »

April 19, 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

George Lonewolf

Remember when Angelina Jolie was burning up the search engines? I wonder how many of the younger folks have even seen Gia?

Here's a sample:

viagra online

Personally, if this turns out to not be a publicity stunt of some kind, I think that this case would be an excellent test of the Anti-Paparazzi Act. Unfortunately, America has come to accept the fact that just because people are celebrities that their private life is also open to public view. However, this assumption denies celebrities the same right to privacy as other American enjoy. Clearly,Aniston had a reasonable expectation of privacy since she was in her own home. In addition to the new Anti-Paparazzi Act, Peter Brandt, by taking nude photos of Aniston,and then trying to sell them to the tabloid media for monetary gain without Aniston’s permission, has also violated two more commonly accepted laws:Appropriation and Intrusion into Seclusion. If this case does in fact go to trial and Aniston loses, it will mean not only that celebrities have not been protected by the Anti-Paparazzi Law as the California legislature intended, but also that in today’s gossip-hungry society, a person gives up their Constitutional right to privacy by becoming a celebrity.

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad