Do people in the public eye (so celebrities basically) have a right to a private life?

Question

Or should their every move be plastered across the gossip columns of the tabloids and magazines like Hello, Heat, Grazia, etc?

Answer 1

Everyone is entitled to a private life but some of these celebrities do push the boundaries.

I mean, if they will insist on going to places where they know the paparazzi will be, then they deserve all they get!

Answer 2

They have a right to a private life but whether or not they wish to exercise that right is entirely their choice.

Answer 3

Celebrity means someone who is celebrated, not necessarily someone in the public eye. People who are high up in business, politics, the church etc. are usually not regarded as celebrities, but they are still are in the public eye.

Answer 4

Yes

In fact the public eye ought to be ashamed of itself.

Who cares about a celebrity taking a c**p or other details other than the movie he/she/it is in?

Absolute foolish rubbish.

Get a life of your own.

Answer 5

Not if like B'liar they are using their life as the model to forward their progress. I think that all politicians have no right to privacy and should earn it, but as most are lying and money grabbing then they have no right. Especially the amount they rip off the taxpayer should be known and published.

Answer 6

yes they do

Answer 7

Of course they should have a private life.

But at the same time they chose to put their lives in the public.

Answer 8

I think they should have to Lodge a Declaration of Privacy with the Press Association.

If they want a private life then they have to not tip off, procure, or promote themeselves and their personal life nor earn money from personal endorsements or personal articles.

Let's see how many would sign up - fact is that stuff is the flip side of fame.  I could live with it.

Answer 9

There is an in between.  Lack of privacy is the price you pay for being an extremely well paid celebrity.  The paparazzi however, should have it's limits.  Also, like some celebrities who never end up in the tabloids say, it helps when the celebrity  themself doesn't go to high profile places where they will be seen, or drive around at 3am like someone we know just for the attention.

Answer 10

Everybody has a right to privacy. Just because Celebs are doing what they love doesnt mean they cant have privacy.

??????????

Answer 11

no....

the shallow pathetic swarms of celeb lovers fund these people and ther lifestyles...

if the public wasnt so disgustingly obssesed with them they wouldnt be in the postions they are in..

in effect i believe they are owned by ther public and have waved any right to privacy!

Answer 12

Everybody has the right to their own privacy from the prying eyes of the press.

Answer 13

When it comes to being naked in the shower or accidentally showing a bit too much at the beach then yes. Those are things that we all do at some point. When it comes to doing drugs or drink driving then no. If they make a conscious decision to act like a fool then they can't complain when we all know about it.

Answer 14

Yes they do, they are not peoples personal possessions, they are people themselves.

Answer 15

they do, but they should also expect that if they court the media to promote themselves in whatever way, that interest doesn't just go away because they want some private space.

Many are just two faced about it, willing to promote their movie and talk to everyone about their latest charity gig or whatever and then slam the door when someone asks a more personal question. You can't really have it both ways.

Answer 16

Don't forget that every time they appear in a magazine or maybe an interview or chat show, they make an unbelievably obscene amount of money - probably more than most folk can earn in a lifetime.

So they all love every bit of publicity they can get !

Wouldn't you?

Answer 17

everyone has the right to a private life even celebrities when they are not working

Answer 18

I think that yes, they are a celebrity out of choice, and should understand that people want to know about them, but i do object to people being chased along the street so people can get a photo of them looking a bit rough just to humiliate them, because ok i may want to know what angelina jolie is calling her kids, or what she is wearing, but seeing amy winehouse drunk out of her mind plastered across the newspapers, well, i don't want to see that, and i think the media takes advantage of famous people when they get into situations like that. Especially people like britney spears who was obviously having a bit of a breakdown, i don't think we have a right to know when someone is so self destructive, and personally, i don't want to know.

So yes, they should have some privacy, but have to accpet they will be in the public eye a lot. And i don't think we should be chasing them when they going through a mental illness or destructive addiction, because that's not helping anyone.

Answer 19

You would think they should but as long as idiots keep buying that garbage and they are making money, it ain't gonna happen.

Answer 20

They have a private life. If only some of them would be private.

However most of them court these type of magazines, eg. Peter Phillips Queen's grandson being the most recent example, accepting money so photos of the wedding could appear in a glossy magazine.

Some of them also hire PR representatives to actual handle their publicity.

So some of these public figures like publicity only when it suits them of course. Anything negatives they dislike.

They have the law of libel if they dont agree with something. No further laws need be made.