So some paparazzo takes (very boring) pictures of Paul Weller and his teenage daughter out shopping in LA with Weller's twin babies in a pushchair or stroller. So the Daily Mail publishes some of these pictures, misidentifying Weller's daughter as his wife. The Weller family sues the Daily Mail, wins damages, and now Weller's wife is pushing for a law in Britain criminalising the publication of non-pixelated potentially recognisable pictures of childrens' faces without their parents' consent. Common-sense measure to protect children or slippery slope ?
Personally I think it's rather pathetic that there's a market for such pictures in the first place, and the world would be a much better place without paparazzi scum harassing and stalking individuals who happen to be celebrities or friends and relatives of the same. But must we really legislate everything to this degree ? Would the measure apply only to newspapers ? What about street photography ? And why, if we're going down this road, shouldn't adults be entitled to the same protections ?
In a sane world, surely we'd agree that publications that engage in or encourage this type of activity should be shunned, and that would be that. But ooh, look...they got pictures of Brangelina at the beach, ooh look at that actress without makeup, doesn't she look old ! Oh look, evidence of space aliens in Hitler's bunker. I'll just add that to my basket at the checkout and have a nice read later over tea.
No comments:
Post a Comment