Don't celebrities have the right to be nude in private?

[fredm74]

I just came across a photo online of Janet Jackson while nude sunbathing on vacation. I think its a big invasion of privacy from the paparazzi. Do you think nudists can be nudists and still retain their privacy, celebrity or non-celebrity?

-Fred

http://www.egotastic.com/entertainment/celebrities/jane...parazzi-video-000460 (http://www.egotastic.com/entertainment/celebrities/janet-jackson-nude-paparazzi-video-000460)

[Silverback]

I heard about the video this morning on radio and they said it looked like it was posed and she knew they were there. I would like to see it but with me slow connection it would take 2 or 3 hours to download.

[NudeAl]

I don't know what the laws are regarding privacy and celebrities but to me it looks like she is in her own very private backyard. I think she may even be able to sue over this but then again just because she should be able to doesn't mean she will or that she would win. I never would've guessed that she like to sunbath much less that she enjoyed doing it nude. I think we could use someone like her as spokes person. I wonder what it would take to get her to come out and say a few positive words regarding nudism now that the cat is out of the bag so to speak. But then again just because she enjoys nude sunbathing in her own backyard doesn't' make her a nudist does it? Oh well I wish she would take the position that she has every right to do this and she isn't ashamed of it. Further more that she would even come out and show some support for our cause. Hey, a guy can dream can't he?

[fredm74]

NudeAl, I don't think Janet Jackson is a nudist. I just think she is very comfortable with nudity in general but I don't think she is a traditional nudist, not that I know of, who knows maybe she sleeps in the nude. Her privacy was violated and I hope she can take legal action.

Just last month there was a nude pic of Jude Law putting a pair of shorts on and the media were all over it like a cheap suit.........



Originally posted by NudeAl:
I don't know what the laws are regarding privacy and celebrities but to me it looks like she is in her own very private backyard. I think she may even be able to sue over this but then again just because she should be able to doesn't mean she will or that she would win. I never would've guessed that she like to sunbath much less that she enjoyed doing it nude. I think we could use someone like her as spokes person. I wonder what it would take to get her to come out and say a few positive words regarding nudism now that the cat is out of the bag so to speak. But then again just because she enjoys nude sunbathing in her own backyard doesn't' make her a nudist does it? Oh well I wish she would take the position that she has every right to do this and she isn't ashamed of it. Further more that she would even come out and show some support for our cause. Hey, a guy can dream can't he?

[Eyball]

I think that may depend on how you define Nudist. Do you have to be naked where strangers are present or if you just enjoy being naked?

From watching the video she seems to enjoy relaxing outside nude. I don't think it was for show, and the design of the pool and the sign in the background make it look like it is not a residence, but still a private area.

It shouldn't matter that she is a celebrity. Any person should be able to expect privacy from snoops and perverts in that kind of situation and I also hope she can take some legal action.

[luvnaturism]

Regular reporters are difficult enough, but necessary for celebreties to become celebreties. It's just part of the "fame" business.

On the other hand, the papparazzi are totally beyond decency. We do need stronger laws regarding invasion of privacy.

[luvnaturism]

I wasn't able to see the video. Click on the link to it only brought up sexy ads. This is obviously a sleaze site.

[richinoregon]

Originally posted by luvnaturism:
I wasn't able to see the video. Click on the link to it only brought up sexy ads. This is obviously a sleaze site.
You have to copy and then edit the URL a bit. Here it is edited
http://wwtdd.com/media/jackson.wmv

[nudenwv]

yes, i think celebs should have the same privacy as us. it's nice to know they have the same interest too.

[DoctorSurferDude]

I don't like paparazzi....they are parasites.

But, nevertheless, it's nice to know Janet Jackson is a closet nudist. GO JANET! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[BackpackerBrian]

I am assuming it's her . . . looks like her anyway. It is kinda sleazy that anyone would film her in that way. I can't call her a nudist though. Didn't I see Fresh Air put up a link to a definition of nudist, and within it was a reference to a "social" aspect??

I actually gained a lot of respect for her when she did the Superbowl stunt . . . anything to piss off the concervatives http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[True Brit]

Where ever there is nudity you can be sure someone will be looking to make easy money.
If a celebrity is involved then you can be sure the purbitrator will be offered a pot of gold for his illgottan gains.

As for us simple people how many innocent nudists are now appearing on adult sex sites because we had chosen to be naked on a public beach and our image was taken.
We all have the right to be nude without the fear of our naked image being stolen for somebody's financial gain so its about time international law favoured the innocent individual.

As for Janet Jackson is this for real! the camera is at ground level so it has been placed within her property, some celebrities have been known to go to extraordinary lenghts to gain media attention to further or resurrect their careers! Yes its definately her i recognise that nipple!!

[fredm74]

Truebit, for us simple people who enjoy being on a nude beach, I trust that our privacy is respected. If someone is seen with a camera and snapping pictures I would hope the person has gotten the proper permission to do so. I have friends who have taken pictures of me and vice versa and trust that it won't be exploited and used for anything improper.

Nudists are pretty much known to be open with themselves as well as open-minded and unfortunately there are some really twisted people out there that like to take advantage of that.

-Fred



Originally posted by True Brit:
Where ever there is nudity you can be sure someone will be looking to make easy money.
If a celebrity is involved then you can be sure the purbitrator will be offered a pot of gold for his illgottan gains.

As for us simple people how many innocent nudists are now appearing on adult sex sites because we had chosen to be naked on a public beach and our image was taken.
We all have the right to be nude without the fear of our naked image being stolen for somebody's financial gain so its about time international law favoured the innocent individual.

As for Janet Jackson is this for real! the camera is at ground level so it has been placed within her property, some celebrities have been known to go to extraordinary lenghts to gain media attention to further or resurrect their careers! Yes its definately her i recognise that nipple!!

[BackpackerBrian]

I have to agree that the fact this video is on an adult sex site is sad indeed. Again, innocent nudity is now turned into sex http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

I don't agree though that she would have done this knowlingly. First, while she has had some backlash from the Superbowl incident, her career isn't dead (after all, she isn't Michael or Whitney). And even if it was, she could probably figure out a better solution than a tacky nude video.

[luvnaturism]

Originally posted by richinoregon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luvnaturism:
I wasn't able to see the video. Click on the link to it only brought up sexy ads. This is obviously a sleaze site.
You have to copy and then edit the URL a bit. Here it is edited
http://wwtdd.com/media/jackson.wmv </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks, but now that I've seen the type of site that it's on I won't bother. Each visit to the site helps its advertising revenue, at least indirectly. I don't care to do that.

[EricNY]

I am having a little trouble believing the video. It may or may not be her, but I have never seen anyone lay out in the sun and beat their butt. Just seems a little odd..maybe a little staged.

One thing a do agree with though, is the paparazzi epidemic is way out of hand. It needs to be controlled or better yet eliminated. It is not only annoying for those stalked it can be down right dangerous as these jerks fight for a shot. Look at what happend to Lindsay Lohan. And for what? A picture of her shopping...big deal!

I think there should be a strict and enforced law developed for these so called free lance photographers.

[Sauna]

I saw the same video on other site, but I do not like paparazzis. As somebody other said earlier they are parasites in this society. Privacy is privacy and you can do whatever you want if nobody is hurted.

In my native language the word actor/actress has also the meaning "exhibitionist"

[Fresh Air]

Thanks, but now that I've seen the type of site that it's on I won't bother. Each visit to the site helps its advertising revenue, at least indirectly. I don't care to do that.

We just became a part of the paparazzi cycle. But you know somebody would be peeping on Miss Jackson even without the money.

I sort of feel bad for her. Granted she has nothing to be ashamed of. Still, I wouldn't be happy if my private time was sold behind my back for the world to see. I guess that's part of the price for fame; no real freedom and no true privacy.

Dan

[Boreas]

I think that when you become a celebrity you can expect to give up some privacy. At the same time, I would expect a celebrity to have the ability to some privacy without prying eyes going to great lengths to breach that privacy.

Perhaps Janet can be an adovcate for non-sexual nudity. I recently saw the actor from Lost on Oprah. She asked him about reports of him skinny dipping and he responded to the question and discussion wonderfully. He was unapologetic and encouraged others to try it. Perhaps Janet can learn from him!

[TANZ]

Not so long ago Janet Jackson was getting abused and insulted for exposing a piece of breast.
Now it seems people are going to extreme measures to photograph and view her nude sunbathing.Oh the hypocricy of society.
I did not click on to view.I have seen a naked woman sunbathing before.
Is she a nudist?Does it matter?She has a healthy attitude towards the naked human body,she is comfortable with nudity,in my books that makes her O.K.Nudist is just a label.
Now if she would just do something about that crap she calls music. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Naturally Kiwi

[MikeJB]

She should sue these people who invade her privacy and photograph her nude, seems like that would be illegal. I would think she could get alot of cold hard cash from these people by being the celebrity that she is and she could sue em for every penny that they have for photographing her nude. Theyre all just a bunch of dirty pedophiles anyways.

[Hooked]

I don't think it was posed because she's too self concious to slap her own butt like that. Yeah, nothing sexy or shameful in the video except the fact that someone is selling it and not sharing the money with her or asking permission.

[Boreas]

I don't think it was posed because she's too self concious to slap her own butt like that. Yeah, nothing sexy or shameful in the video except the fact that someone is selling it and not sharing the money with her or asking permission.

My yahoo! ID is ' Bobcat_naturists '...

I thought it looked like she was listening to music or something. She is a musician and could have been working something out musically.

[Hooked]

Originally posted by Still_Boreas:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I don't think it was posed because she's too self concious to slap her own butt like that. Yeah, nothing sexy or shameful in the video except the fact that someone is selling it and not sharing the money with her or asking permission.

My yahoo! ID is ' Bobcat_naturists '...

I thought it looked like she was listening to music or something. She is a musician and could have been working something out musically. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, exactly. I agree. Sometimes when I listen to music alone I tap out the beat on my belly but I wouldn't do that if someone else was around.

[nakednudists]

I agree that everyone has their right to be private. But if the video is really real and that is really Janet, Ms. Jackson if your nasty, then she didn't seem to go through too much trouble to make sure she was in private. Either she wants to be seen naked for publicity or she is a nudist and just doesn't care being seen naked. Maybe the booby superbowl was to test the waters to see how people felt about nudity. Either way, she has a right to be naked and should not be violated in any way. Again, was it staged...it is janet!

Originally posted by nakednudists:
I agree that everyone has their right to be private. But if the video is really real and that is really Janet, Ms. Jackson if your nasty, then she didn't seem to go through too much trouble to make sure she was in private. Either she wants to be seen naked for publicity or she is a nudist and just doesn't care being seen naked. Maybe the booby superbowl was to test the waters to see how people felt about nudity. Either way, she has a right to be naked and should not be violated in any way. Again, was it staged...it is janet!

It's obvious that the video was taken through an opening in a fence and on the sly. You have no idea "how much trouble" she went through to be in a private place. The video gives no indication as to what steps she took to sunbathe privately.

The paparazzi have been overly vicious lately and more concerned for that money making picture than the rights of the famous. We lost Princess Di this very way. There have been other serious incidents since then too.

Do you not have compassion for people who have lost their rights to privacy?

[krcNY]

I agree with Cindiann.

You can see the camera person is hiding behind a plant or something.

I also tap my hands on the thighs or sides to music and you definately can hear it in the background.

Paparazzi should be banned from all countries, as they seem to abide by no laws. No common decency at all!!!!

[Croydon]

Originally posted by nakednudists:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cyndiannaked:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nakednudists:
I agree that everyone has their right to be private. But if the video is really real and that is really Janet, Ms. Jackson if your nasty, then she didn't seem to go through too much trouble to make sure she was in private. Either she wants to be seen naked for publicity or she is a nudist and just doesn't care being seen naked. Maybe the booby superbowl was to test the waters to see how people felt about nudity. Either way, she has a right to be naked and should not be violated in any way. Again, was it staged...it is janet!

It's obvious that the video was taken through an opening in a fence and on the sly. You have no idea "how much trouble" she went through to be in a private place. The video gives no indication as to what steps she took to sunbathe privately.

The paparazzi have been overly vicious lately and more concerned for that money making picture than the rights of the famous. We lost Princess Di this very way. There have been other serious incidents since then too.

Do you not have compassion for people who have lost their rights to privacy? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Ahhh, shut up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You can tell Cyn to shut up all you want but she has a point.

You are convince that JJ knew this video was being shot and "played" along. What gives you that idea? I am sure Ms JJ knows that big super bowl hoopla temporarily ruined her, why would she do something like to to ruin her AGAIN? I do not think she is that careless.

You seem to have trouble, like many, separating the celeb from the person. There is JJ the celeb (artist, dancer, singer) and JJ the person. These are two different people. Many seem to think the way celebs act and portray themselves in public is the same way they do in their private lives. This is often not the case. I am sure that JJ, in her private life, does not wear revealing outfits. I am sure Britney Spears, in her private life, does not rave about sex..What a lot of people do not realize that when in public, celebs are playing a character.

It seems to me that you are not able to separate JJ, the artist, and JJ, the person. I think your readiness to believe JJ is playing for the camera stems from the image she portrays in public.

[Naked_Justin]

Doesn't it seem a bit ironic that most of us (here, on this forum) complained about the video being taken, but watched it anyway?

I think it's a horrible invasion of privacy but I still watched it.

I'm glad to find out that she does this but I'm not happy with the way I found out.

There's nothing I see in the video that looks faked.
Her tapping the rhythm out on the butt makes it seem more likely that she thought she was in a private place.
If it was her home, someone else's home, or at a nudist resort, it doesn't matter, the video appears to have been taken without her permission.

Even if she knew, who cares?
Even if she set up the camera and paid someone to shoot the footage, who cares?

So, now some people know that she has been in the sun nude and apparently is a smoothie. Big deal.
It's like finding out we drive the same car.


Justin

[soundman]

Originally posted by Cyndiannaked:
Do you not have compassion for people who have lost their rights to privacy?

When it comes to celebrities, no.

[Bob S.]

Justin:"Doesn't it seem a bit ironic that most of us (here, on this forum) complained about the video being taken, but watched it anyway?"

Justin, that was the very reason I didn't want to watch the video. It is a violation of her privacy, if in fact, it was taken on the sly.

soundman:"When it comes to celebrities, no."

Why not soundman? What makes celebrities have no right to privacy? You would hate it if you lived in a world like they do. Is it because they have millions of dollars? What is the difference between someone taking a picture of your next door neighbor through a hole in the fence and taking a picture of Janet Jackson through a hole in her fence?

If you don't have compassion for them, where do you draw the line? How much celebrity is enough to warrant less compassion? What is the difference between being a photographer taking pictures to be sold to magazines and a photographer taking pictures to put on his own internet page?

What is the difference between worldwide celebrity and one super-fan celebrity?

Bob S.

[soundman]

Celebrities ask for it by seeking the spotlight in the first place. They shouldn't get mad at photographers who try to take their photo. There are many struggling actors and actresses who would love to be in their shoes. I don't feel sorry for them at all!

The more of a celebrity you are the less privacy. If someone values privacy, then definately don't try to become a celebrity.

[FireProf]

Out in public, that may be, soundman, but within the privacy of their own home and in their own yards.....I totally disagree, they are entitled to every right you and I have.

It doesn't make one bit of difference whether they are famous or not, privacy in and on your own property shouldn't not matter and be any different if your famous or not.

I'm sure you'd feel differently if the shoes or no shoes were on your feet. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[soundman]

I'd love to be in their shoes!

It is a minor problem that goes with wealth and fame.

I believe that celebrities should be left alone in their homes. My home is the one place where I don't like being bothered unless I invite someone.

[grl66]

Originally posted by soundman:
Celebrities ask for it by seeking the spotlight in the first place.

Yeah pretty much agree with this Soundman, but surely home should be the one place on the planet where you can have time out from the world if you need it shouldn't it?

[FireProf]

Originally posted by soundman:
I'd love to be in their shoes!

It is a minor problem that goes with wealth and fame.

How can you say that the envasion of your privacy is a minor problem!!? http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by soundman:
I'd love to be in their shoes!

It is a minor problem that goes with wealth and fame.

With your logic, Princess Di's death due to the papparazi was only a minor problem. Sheesh.

The line between papparazi and stalking is pretty damn thin.

[Croydon]

Originally posted by soundman:
I'd love to be in their shoes!

It is a minor problem that goes with wealth and fame.

Wow, you really are a nominee for most compassionate person in America...NOT.

For celebs, being photographed is part of the package BUT having your privacy invaded is NOT. Your home is your sanctuary, where you can be free and not have to fear. I do not think it was a minor problem when Jay Leno was in his PRIVATE GATED home and paparazzi were snapping pictures of him in nude as he was walking around his home.

I do not think it is a minor problem when Reese Witherspoon was throwing a b-day party for her kid and paparazzi striked a kid, shoved a parent, to get a picture of Reese and her children.

I doubt it is a minor problem when a celeb is running errands during the day and photographers are following you and blocking your way. I can only imagine how scary it is driving and paparazzi are behind you speeding, just to get a snap of you.

Celebs understand that lack of privacy is part of their field ONLY when they are in public situation (i.e. award shows, parties, movie premiers) but it crosses the line when you can not be yourself and safe in your own home and on your own time.

Your logic is flawed. It is like saying my dad, a doctor, chooses to have complete strangers walk up to him and discuss their aliments when he is not working or in his office. Can not tell you how many social gatherings I have been to with my dad and people just walk up to him and ask that they examine the pain they have in their back or stomach...

[Croydon]

Originally posted by soundman:
I'd love to be in their shoes!

It is a minor problem that goes with wealth and fame.
Wow, you really are a nominee for most compassionate person in America...NOT.

For celebs, being photographed is part of the package BUT having your privacy invaded is NOT. Your home is your sanctuary, where you can be free and not have to fear. I do not think it was a minor problem when Jay Leno was in his PRIVATE GATED home and paparazzi were snapping pictures of him in nude as he was walking around his home.

I do not think it is a minor problem when Reese Witherspoon was throwing a b-day party for her kid and paparazzi striked a kid, shoved a parent, to get a picture of Reese and her children.

I doubt it is a minor problem when a celeb is running errands during the day and photographers are following you and blocking your way. I can only imagine how scary it is driving and paparazzi are behind you speeding, just to get a snap of you.

Celebs understand that lack of privacy is part of their field ONLY when they are in public situation (i.e. award shows, parties, movie premiers) but it crosses the line when you can not be yourself and safe in your own home and on your own time.

Your logic is flawed. It is like saying my dad, a doctor, chooses to have complete strangers walk up to him and discuss their aliments when he is not working or in his office. Can not tell you how many social gatherings I have been to with my dad and people just walk up to him and ask that they examine the pain they have in their back or stomach...

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by Croydon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by soundman:
I'd love to be in their shoes!

It is a minor problem that goes with wealth and fame.

Wow, you really are a nominee for most compassionate person in America...NOT. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Croyden, Soundman's belief that celebs are not entitled to privacy is 100% consistent with his belief that the constitution does not provide a right to privacy.

You may wish to be enlightend with his views of legislating sexual behavior in the "Justice Rehnquist, Dead and ..." thread. He supports the continued criminalization of homosexual sex and accomodations to remedy those who have experienced generations of racial discrimination.

[Nudony]

I might just be repeating what everyone has been saying in response to Soundman, but there is indeed a huge difference between a celebrity (or anyone else for that matter) having the privacy of their home violated, and being caught in a public place. Jennifer Anniston had every right to sue when a paparazzi jumped her fence and got some shots of her sunbathing topless (and she won). Alyssa Milano, however, did not share that right when she got caught nude running up and down a public beach nude. Ethically, you could say it's still wrong; but legally, it isn't. That's the price for fame.

What happened to Reese Witherspoon this week-end falls under a different category. Yes, Reese was in a public place; the paparazzo, however, physically assaulted some kids and parents to get some shots of her and her kids. He deserves to get punished to the full extent of the law. But if a celeb is in a public place, and the paparazzi can get shots without even having to get close (which happens to Liz Hurley on a recurrent basis): they cannot complain about it. Maybe unfortunate, but definitely not illegal.

[Nudony]

Nudony you forgot to include a web site. (explaining when and where that incident took place)

http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/4616/glb0126.html

Happy? Or do you need an actual copy of the article mailed to you and autographed by the author, Alyssa Milano and the paparazzo who took it? Or are you just stiring up %$# (which I think is exactly what you're doing)?

[True Brit]

I don't really know who this Allysa bird is!! did a google search which gave me a site listing her credits, still none the wiser.

What i find funny peculiar is that see is the nudist while her man is the textile! normally its the other way around.

[fredm74]

Alyssa Milano is an actress who started her career as a kid. She was on shows like Who's The Boss, Melrose Place and currently on a show about three sisters who are witches called Charmed.

-Fred

Originally posted by True Brit:
I don't really know who this Allysa bird is!! did a google search which gave me a site listing her credits, still none the wiser.

What i find funny peculiar is that see is the nudist while her man is the textile! normally its the other way around.

[krcNY]

I believe there is a Time and Place for everything. Private Property means PRIVATE!!
I seem to remember a photographer trying to take pictures of Madonaa breastfeeding her child in her own PRIVATE (stone walled) yard. Paparazzi do not seem to follow laws or even seem to care. I do not care how famous you are, no one deserves to be harrassed by these photographers. Absolutely no one.

[Bob S.]

soundman:"They shouldn't get mad at photographers who try to take their photo."

There is a time and place for everything, soundman. In private, everyone should have the right to privacy. What if there was a group of people who became major fans of ClothesfreeTV and decided to follow the nudecasters around, taking their pictures and disrupting their daily life? Is that a minor problem for their fame?

The stalkerazzi are a different form of papparazzi. They are the most dangerous form of media photographers. Where the Papparazzi try to be respectful of the celebrity and usually keep to scheduled events or planned shots, the stalkerazzi usually follow (or stalk) the celebrity.

They are the ones who are involved in car chases. A few weeks ago, one even crashed into Hilary Duff's car trying to get a better photograph, injuring her. Recently, she crashed another car claiming they were following her.

They are also the ones who will take a picture of a celebrity in rhe privacy of their own home or yard. If in the house, that could be considered peeping tom. These people will go to great lengths to get a picture as Croydon mentioned with the stalkerazzi who struck a child and pushed a parent just to get the money picture.

And that is what it is all about for them. Money. How much is your privacy worth? How much money do you think it would take for someone to invade your privacy? If I promised a person $10,000 to get a compromising or embarrassing picture of you, do you think that is right? That is basically what is going on. The photographer can get thousands of dollars for one picture sold to the right magazine. The stalerazzi don't care what they have to do in order to get that money shot.

Bob S.

[soundman]

You are right Bob S., but I still wouldn't mind being in their shoes. Someone trying to take my photo seems like a little problem that I could put up with if I was rich and famous.

[krcNY]

Originally posted by Jason Lee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nudony:
I might just be repeating what everyone has been saying in response to Soundman, but there is indeed a huge difference between a celebrity (or anyone else for that matter) having the privacy of their home violated, and being caught in a public place. Jennifer Aniston had every right to sue when a paparazzi jumped her fence and got some photos of her sunbathing topless (and she won). Alyssa Milano, however, did not share that right when she got caught nude running up and down a public beach nude.

Nudony too many flaws in your stories.

2 stories without circumstantial evidence and proof.

unbelievable. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not sure of what you are trying to prove here, but I have also heard of these stories. I was not aware that we need proof when posting on the forums. These stories are believable and did happen. Google it if you want to find out more, I will not post a link either.

He is just trying to make a point. I am not sure what you are doing.

As for soundman, yes a few pictures would be great. But some of these photographers step way beyond the boundries of Common Courtesy and Respect.
To think you are in the privacy of your own home of walled in property and find a video of picture of yourself on the web. I would feel very violated. Home is where you should be able to feel safe and relax and be yourself. If you cannot do that, what is the point.

[krcNY]

Thanks,

I thought I was just in a mood and taking things wrong this morning. I couldn't figure out what the post was about. Glad it is not me.

[FireProf]

Originally posted by krcNY:

I thought I was just in a mood and taking things wrong this morning. Glad it is not me.

You "MOODY"....I can't believe that! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


ercNY....is she moody!? http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[krcNY]

Yes, I have been a bit moody lately.

I think ercNY is afraid to answer that.

[FireProf]

Originally posted by krcNY:
Yes, I have been a bit moody lately.

I think ercNY is afraid to answer that.


there's a little Cybil in all of us! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Nudony]

Hey Fireprof....it's spelled Sybil...
LOL!! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[FireProf]

Originally posted by Nudony:
Hey Fireprof....it's spelled Sybil...
LOL!! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


At least it made you laugh! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

besides.....aren't we talking about celebrities!! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[TANZ]

You can't entirely blame the papparazzi.
If there was no market,if these sorts of pictures did not sell magazines,then there would be no need for them to take them.
Remember most of theses sorts of pictures don't show up on porno sites or mags,but in monthly off the shelf magazines.
Now what does that tell you about society as a whole?

Naturally Kiwi

[nakednudists]

I think that Alyssa likes to be nude and would be a great candidate for promoting nudism. I wonder why the hell her hubby didn't join in.

[Bob S.]

TANZ"If there was no market,if these sorts of pictures did not sell magazines,then there would be no need for them to take them."

I agree that the whole entertainment magezine business is respomnsible. Paying tens of thousnads of dollars for a picture of a celebrity or their children is what is driving the stalkerazzi.

And then the people that buy those magazines or watch the videos, such as the one that was the subject of this topic, are only adding to the cycle.

I'm wondering when this celebrity worship in magazines, especially the pictures at any cost, began.

By the way, the only weekly check-out line magazine you should buy is "Weekly World News". Last I checked, it's headline announced that a UFO crashed in New Orleans during Katrina and was being covered up by the govt. My fave story was about a group of scientists raising Abe Lincoln from the dead. Made me laugh until my sides hurt.

Bob S.

[TANZ]

Sounds like a good read Bob.May have to check it out http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Naturally Kiwi

[Orangexcalibare]

First off, if this really is Janet, it is great to see her enjoying her naked time, which in my opinion, looked like she was doing in a private area. More power to her for engaging in some outdoor nudity.

However, the problem is that this is a privacy issue. The photographer was definately being sneaky in getting these pictures. I keep the beat to music on my thighs and butt and clap along to songs on the radio when I am nude, and I find it cute that Janet does also, however I find it troublesome that someone would invade her private time to take these shots. Whether she is embarassed or not from these shots is beside the point, the problem is that she was invaded upon and that is not acceptable.

Then again, if she is outside apparently legally in most areas, that is fair game for camera toting leeches. Far too many of us here have had run ins with sickos with cameras, we all certainly can empathize with her in this instance.

[shãybare]

http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
I am in the group that believe celebreties are usually fair game in public but not in the privacy of their homes, hotel rooms, etc. The celeb's want the attention when they first start becoming well known but after awhile it starts to be a bit much.

I kind of understand the difficulty of trying to go out for family getogethers without the harrassement of the paparazzi. It really cuts into the enjoyment of the activity.


The papparazzi must get photos to make a living which I would not begrudge them. However, celebrities must have their private times.


Happy Halloween to everyone. May all your witches come true.

[Unwired]

A friendly reminder: please try to keep the personal attacks against individual members out of this forum. Thanks.

[Fresh Air]

Using someone elses "private parts" for personal gain with no consideration for the individual or concent of the act is wrong in my book.

To me, it's a form of rape. I am aware it is not quite the same thing, but you can't tell me that kind of thing doesn't cause someone to have some of the feelings of being violated that a rape victim might have. There are the elements of helplessness in the situation, being taken advantage of and having someone else in control of you.

I hate the fact that nothing is done legaly about things like this and even more so that people can freely get rich and thrive in an industry based on it. If it were upto me, I'd have pretty steep legal consequences associated with it.

The last time I visited a nude beach a while back, a "new to nudism" type couple came half way through my day and sat in the area I was in, diagonal to the front right of me. Shortly after a nervous looking man came with his towel and cell phone came and sat directly in front of me. I soon realized that the cell phone had a camera. I know it is not illegal, but it really started bothering me that he was taking advantage of this clueless couple and going on minature walks to get different angles of the females body. I'm not a very confrontational person, but I couldn't deal with it any longer. I gave him more respect than he deserved and approached him rather than including the couple and asked if he could stop doing what he was doing. He freaked a little bit and turned beat red, but said he would. He shortly after left the area I was in. Knowing he would likely just find another victim, I took many walks the remainder of my day (usually when I saw him get up to walk) and followed him, watching him. It made him nervous and he did not take any more pictures when I was near him, even though it was obvious that was his initial intentions. He eventually just left the beach. I'm sure I ruined his day, but he sort of ruined mine also.

What I wanted to do was take his phone and throw it into the ocean. I know that destruction of his property is a legal offense though. I just with it was also a legal offense that he could spend all day capturing photos of people without their concent.

Is it fair to have a law against this sort of action?

Dan

[Fresh Air]

I don't mean to question the character of any of the fine members of this forum, but I question the ethics of posting links and images taken by the paparazzi on a site the promotes peoples right to choose. If I were staff and it were my decision, I would remove the images and links, as is done with porn. At least the people in porn are concenting individuals. People who are victims of paparazzi are not. I don't think if they were secret members of this site or if they visited this site that they would appreciate the jesture. They would deffinately not want to help promote a cause that is involved in the defamation of their characters. They deserve our respect. They share a like-minded spirit with us and as nudists we should not dishonor that or take advantage of it.

Dan

[Terrace Casual]

Surely, everyone has the right to privacy, especially in their home. I have watched some programmes on the papparazzi and I find them objectionable and irksome in the extreme.

It's about time our society moved away from its obsession in the lives of "celebrities" who have no talent and some of the magazines that are on sale do nothing to help this tiresome interest people some have in this

[Daveinct]

Having experienced some minor local "fame", I have to weigh in on the side of those who feel that celebrities should be able to expect some privacy.

In public, it's a different story, but even there, a degree of privacy would be nice.

Photographers aren't an issue for me, but there are clubs that I go to where I have to arrive early, so that I can greet the people who want to say hi to me. This is not a complaint, I am very grateful that these people appreciate my work. They are the very reason I did that work (radio). I would never want any of them to feel that they can't approach me in a public place.

However, I also appreciate that if I travel not to far away, I can be in a similar environment and just sit back and enjoy the show as a fan of the band in a more "anonymous" sort of way.

In their own homes, celebrites should be able to expect every bit of privacy that each of us enjoys. At a public function, such as a movie premier or fundraiser, photogs should be expected. In my opinion, if a celebrity is out just shopping, dining or in any other "non-appearance" capacity, the photogs should leave them alone. Unfortunately, the pics sell gossip mags, and lots of them, and until people stop buying, the photogs will keep at it.

Dave

[usuallylurk]

Originally posted by soundman:
I'd love to be in their shoes!

It is a minor problem that goes with wealth and fame.

It isn't minor.

Paparazzi, and deranged fans can make life miserable for a celebrity.

Yes, the paparazzi are just trying to "do their job"... but in doing it they can make life horrible for people who are famous but real people just the same, with families, emotions, hobbies, etc.

And they spur on stalkers, fantazisers, and those that would do actual harm to the celebrities.

David Letterman, Michael Jackson, Madonna, Britney Spears, and many countless others have had numerous injunctions against stalkers. The Kennedy family actually had to have a paparazzi enjoined from getting within 100 yards of their family.

... and we all know what happened to John Lennon 25 years ago....

[hm0504]

What the world needs is papa-paparazzi -- people who incessantly hunt down the the paparazzi taking pictures of them all the time and never leaving them a moment's rest.

Originally posted by Fresh Air:


To me, it's a form of rape. I am aware it is not quite the same thing, but you can't tell me that kind of thing doesn't cause someone to have some of the feelings of being violated that a rape victim might have. There are the elements of helplessness in the situation, being taken advantage of and having someone else in control of you.


I like the analogy. Yes, they both make you feel violated. Mentally they would be similar.

[usuallylurk]

Originally posted by hm0504:
What the world needs is papa-paparazzi -- people who incessantly hunt down the the paparazzi taking pictures of them all the time and never leaving them a moment's rest.

Not a bad idea. Although, that would backfire.

Nothing gets a media type - reporter, tv, radio, print, gossip - happier than if he or she becomes the center of the story.

The last thing in the world that anyone would really want to do is make these paparazzi the stars of the show.

Here in the Boston area, which is a sports-obsessed area, sometimes the reporters get carried away with what they write and picture themselves as the real centers of attention. Instead of REPORTING the news, they try to invent the news, or even become the news itself.

[Jason Lee]

http://www.egotastic.com/media/pictures/0510/janet-jackson-paparazzi-video.jpg

anyone know where Janet Jackson was sunbathing nude on vacation ? (location)

[Jason Lee]

Originally posted by Nudony:
I might just be repeating what everyone has been saying in response to Soundman, but there is indeed a huge difference between a celebrity (or anyone else for that matter) having the privacy of their home violated, and being caught in a public place. Jennifer Aniston had every right to sue when a paparazzi jumped her fence and got some shots of her sunbathing topless (and she won). Alyssa Milano, however, did not share that right when she got caught nude running up and down a public beach nude. Ethically, you could say it's still wrong but legally, it isn't. That's the price for fame.

What happened to Reese Witherspoon this week-end falls under a different category. Yes, Reese was in a public place; the paparazzo, however, physically assaulted some kids and parents to get some shots of her and her kids. He deserves to get punished to the full extent of the law. But if a celeb is in a public place, and the paparazzi can get shots without even having to get close (which happens to Liz Hurley on a recurrent basis): they cannot complain about it. Maybe unfortunate, but definitely not illegal.

I don't believe these stories are true. (Fiction)
don't believe the hype.

[Bob S.]

lurk:"Nothing gets a media type - reporter, tv, radio, print, gossip - happier than if he or she becomes the center of the story."

That is not entirely correct. It would depend on the story. If someone accused them of taking indecent pictures of children, he would not be thrilled about having his picture taken or being the center of attention.

But I am with Albinus' actions. It doesn't matter if the photos are ever used. It is the idea of privacy and being pursued by the same people day in and day out. And what the heck, why not tail their kids and wife, too? Take a picture of them getting on and off the bus and eagerly show the papparazzi your work.

Bob S.