lowing wrote:
Blue Herring wrote:
jsnipy wrote:
No, unless you are a celeb
Hmm, good point. No one bitches at a court when Paparazzi snap a pic of some celebrity in sweat pants with no make-up on, or when those magazines write long articles about every facet of stupid pointless events in their lives, I wonder why this should be treated differently.
The toughest thing you're gonna see if fighting this billboard thing is drawing a line and making you sure draw it far enough to make this apply but not far enough to destroy free speech fundamentally.
It is different because celebrities sell their souls so to speak. They trade privacy for fame. The ex-girlfriend made no such deals. She is a private citizen and her medical history is not a public affair.
I wasn't aware celebrities make deals with paparazzi. I'm aware that they know it's an inevitable consequence, I'm not so sure that they explicitly give the paparazzi the right to do so, however. In which case, it's not different, simply that the celebrities were expecting it and she was not.
Let me ask something else, what if he did this online instead? Paid to have a bunch of banners on various sites, made a url, proclaiming this? What if he just posted it on a bunch of high-traffic sites with millions of viewers? Is it different then? What makes it being a billboard that makes it unique?
