Celebrities and Their Privacy

In the wake of the Britney Spears fiasco, officials in Los Angeles are debating what has become known as Britney’s Law, which would create a 20 foot radius around celebrities who are commonly targets of the paparazzi. If this law were passed, it might license certain celebrities for protection and may even require that any profits made from individuals taking pictures within a 20 foot radius be confiscated.

This issue creates a very good debate. While the average citizen enjoys their freedom and a reasonable sense of privacy, celebrities are what they are because of the “spotlight” and the media attention they receive on a daily basis. The argument could be made that if the average citizen had someone following them around, snapping pictures, and camping outside their house, this would be considered stalking. When the paparazzi does it, it is considered a necessary part of the celebrity’s job. One other little thing is the Constitution, we do have freedom of the press in this country.

In these two scenarios, we need to look at the motive behind the “stalker”. If someone is following around a private citizen, the reason is probably not to take a picture to sell and make money. It could possibly be to harm that person or for some other sadistic reason.

When the paparazzi are following a celebrity they are carrying out their job duties. If Americans weren’t so fascinated with the lives of celebrities, then the paparazzi wouldn’t have a job and neither would the celebrities. Once again, the paparazzi are part of the press and we do have freedom of the press in this country.

This brings up some questions, should “certain celebrities” be singled out and have laws specifically designed for them? Who would pay for this “special protection”? Are there laws already in place to protect the residents of this state?

Celebrities do not need “special protection” from the paparazzi. If a celebrity feels that their safety is in jeopardy, they can call the police and request assistance, just like any other individual. If a celebrity doesn’t like the press following them around and taking pictures of them, they should consider a new profession that isn’t in the lime light.

It is not the tax payer’s responsibility to afford special rights to someone because of their celebrity. Celebrities enjoy a wealth that many will never see and they can use some of that personal wealth and hire private security to shield them the flashes of the camera.

This is a very unnecessary law and the public officials debating this issue should find some more important legislation to discuss that will affect their community at large. There are ample laws already on the books to deal with the media who cross the line between reporting and violating a celebrity’s rights. Let’s just use the laws we already have and not worry about giving celebrities special rights.

Larry Browning

Sitting on the Fence in the Middle of the Road

Politics in America is ever changing. As we grow older, our views of the world around us change, whether it is through life experiences or some other means. To quote Winston Churchill, “If you are not a liberal at age 20 you don’t have a heart, If you are not a conservative at age 40 you don’t have a brain.” Well I just turned 30 and that might be why I find myself in the middle of the road on so many different issues.    

I grew up in a very conservative home, where family and religious values were at the forefront of everything we did and every decision we made. I was a Republican because my parents were Republican. I was under the impression that Democrats were some how evil and if they were in power the world would come crashing down. As I have aged and encountered many different things in my life, I find myself growing more towards the middle of the road. In the past I was a Republican and I didn’t want to believe or listen to anything that the Democratic Party had to say. While today I still consider myself a Republican, I am not going to vote for someone just because he or she is a Republican; it is important to focus on each individual issue and see who most closely aligns with my stances on the majority of those issues.    

I graduated in 2001 from IUSB, with my degree in Criminal Justice and I have worked in the field for several years since. While Republicans are seen as hyper-tough on crime and Democrats are seen as seen as super-easy, I find myself in the middle of the road. I don’t believe every criminal should go to prison, nor do I believe that a criminal should only receive a slap on the wrist. For those of you who don’t know the difference between jails and prisons, a jail is ran by the county and is for offenders serving misdemeanor offenses, which are crimes with a penalty of one year or less and a prison is for felonies, carrying a sentence of one year or longer.    

In my opinion, prisons should be made for the worst of the worst, people who have committed such heinous acts that they should never be allowed into society again, for crimes such as rape, murder, molestation of children, etc. I don’t believe someone who uses drugs for example should be in prison with people who have committed far worse acts. Individuals who use drugs have an addiction problem, not necessarily a criminal problem. My fear is that putting people with addictions issues, with violent, heartless criminals, will adversely turn these addicts/criminals into hardened criminals, capable of far worse acts. When they are released (and they are all eventually released), we now have a new hardened criminal returning to society.  While I believe that drug use/abuse/addiction is a serious problem, I feel the criminal justice system/government has better alternatives for these types of issues.    

I worked for several years for the St. Joseph County Drug Court Program, in South Bend, IN. This program is set up to treat the offender, but also hold them responsible for their actions at the same time.  This program is for individuals who are charged with a drug felony and also have an addiction problem. This program is not intended for individuals who are selling drugs or manufacturing drugs. The prosecutor’s office has certain criteria that makes an individual eligible for this program. That individual is then sent to have an addictions assessment and based on that assessment along with information regarding prior criminal activity, a representative from the prosecutor’s office, the judge, and other members from the drug court team determine if that person is eligible for the program.    

Once an offender is accepted into the program, they are required to go to therapy, take drug tests, find employment, meet with case managers and have intermittent court dates to have the judge review their progress. If the offender completes all requirements, they have their charge dismissed and hopefully have a shot at a better life, without drugs and without a felony on their record. Which in theory, will make them a more productive member of society. If an individual in this program does not do what is required of them, the judge can send them to prison at any time to serve the remainder of the term.       

This way the offender has motivation to do well and if they don’t there are consequences. While programs such as this are good in design and practice, we are dealing with people, so it’s not going to work for everyone, but if it helps half the offenders that come into contact with the program, then it is a success in my eyes.    

This is just one example of a conservative having a liberal view on crime. But there are many other issues and scenarios, where a conservative at heart can find himself, dabbling into some liberal issues. And I’m ok with that. 

Larry Browning