Privacy

I have a relatively unpopular view of privacy where celebrities are concerned; I believe that they should have some.

Celebrities become famous through the love and support of their fans so yes, they do have an obligation to be gracious and thankful. When they walk the red carpet at awards shows or embark on press junkets to promote new projects, absolutely they should be smiling, waving, glad handing, and signing autographs. All of that is part of their chosen profession; those things count as being "at work."

That does not mean that we, the general public, are entitled to know every single detail of their lives outside of work. Would you want your co-workers knowing the minutia of what you and your boyfriend did on vacation, or how awful you looked when you ran out to get coffee in your pajamas Sunday morning? Would you want them to approach you at a restaurant and ask you to "just look over this file real quick" while you're eating with your family?

No, of course you wouldn't. You enjoy your privacy.

It is a celebrity's responsibility to be aware of their behavior whenever they are in public, that is the cost of fame. You want to get busted for driving drunk then scream racial epithets at the arresting officers? Well, that's pretty much on you.  Want to reveal the intimacies of your relationship on national television? You don't get to cry about the public mocking you with the information you've willingly provided. And if you are ever stupid enough to let someone record you having sex? I will personally slap you for being shocked and hurt when those tapes inevitably make their way to the internet. These are all issues of common sense (and common decency, for that matter).

But the paparazzi have become ruthless in their pursuit of celebrities who are just going about their daily lives. Hiding in the bushes outside a daycare to snap photos of Maddox Jolie-Pitt, pursuing cars driven by celebrities and causing accidents, egging on stalkers to confront their famous prey in a public forum, all of it makes me angry.

It's the interest in celebrities' very personal affairs, though, that makes me furious - the attitude that the public is somehow entitled to know intensely private information.

This morning's coverage of T.O.'s "suicide attempt" made my blood boil. Most specifically, these two sentences:

Watson and fire department spokesman Joel Lavender cited privacy laws for the lack of information they could provide. Lavender said more details could come from the 911 call. The Associated Press filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act to get the contents of the call.

and

At the police news conference, Watson released a version of the police narrative with certain sections blacked out. The full report was obtained by several news outlets and reported first by WFAA. The AP received the full version from WFAA.

The Freedom of Information Act applies explicitly and solely to federal government agencies. Unless the F.B.I. was the first agency to respond (doubtful), the police report & 911 call transcript are not federal documents and are therefore not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. I wish I could say this was the first time that a media outlet has invoked the FOIA in order to get more celebrity "dirt," but it's not. This happens all the time.

Lyndon Johnson signed the FOIA into law as a means of enforcing government's (now, largely theoretical) subservience to the people; it is not supposed to be a tool with which the media strips away an individual's right to privacy. As a patriot, I deeply resent it being used as such.

To the Associated Press and WFAA: Fuck you. You are nothing more than vulgar ambulance chasers. How could you possibly believe yourselves entitled to such information? A man may have just tried to kill himself and you'd like to smear the details of it all over the evening news?

Seriously, fuck you.