What's Justice Got to do With it?

Recently, actress Kristen Bell (House of Lies) and her husband, actor Dax Shepherd (Parenthood) have garnered a lot of media attention for a campaign they've been calling the "No Kid Policy". They are stating the paparazzi should leave the children of celebrities alone and focus on the stars themselves. They aren't requesting privacy for themselves, acknowledging they've chosen a career path which puts them in the public eye. They've also acknowledged their support of the first amendment right: freedom of the press. The issue, according to both actors, is the privacy of children.

Freedom of the press protects the rights of media outlets to publish/seek information on public figures. While I don't agree with many of the methods used to acquire their information I can't say they are acting illegally by following public figures. The problem is the children in these circumstances have not sought fame; they were born to notable parents. It is hard to argue these kids as public figures when they themselves have done nothing to gain public attention: they aren't actors, musicians, politicians, criminals. Even if the kids did something to make them public figures we have to remember, at the end of the day, they are still children and deserve more protection than fully informed adults.

A few years ago my family temporarily came into the public eye. We were the victims of a violent crime which gained a lot of attention from local news outlets. The person responsible for the crime was very young (12) and due to his status as a minor the news was prohibited (legally) from releasing his name or showing his image. Though he had acted violently and illegally he was entitled to anonymity due to his age. Two of the victims in my family were younger than the offender (9 and 5), their names were published almost immediately. It's sad to think a young offender receives more legal protection than children who accidentally find themselves in the limelight.

The problem is further complicated when we realize how aggressive and invasive the paparazzi can get. We aren't talking about someone, from a distance, snapping a quick photo or asking permission to snap a picture. The paparazzi are stalking their subjects, waiting for the most interesting photo op; they get very much in peoples faces. I have an issue with their level of aggression towards adult celebrities so when I think about this happening to children (who didn't seek the attention) it makes me very uneasy.

So what's justice got to do with it? This is a justice issue because it makes it difficult to teach celebrity kids basic principles of safety. People spend a lot of time teaching their kids how to stay safe. One of the most common messages: don't talk to strangers. How are famous people supposed to teach their children which strangers are dangerous and which are merely annoying? Are they supposed to tell their children the strangers with camera's are annoying but safe? That message could easily be taken advantage of by pedophiles and pornographers with cameras. On the flip side, if the are told to be fearful of all strangers these kids will spend their entire childhood in fear because they are being stalked by strangers with cameras who are generally safe though invasive. It isn't fair to give a child reason to live in that level of terror. And honestly, in what scenario is it acceptable for children (any children) to be followed around by adult strangers?

We have more power here than you might think. The paparazzi are not "employed" by the magazines; they're working freelance. The magazines buy photo's of celebrity kids because they believe consumers want to see these pics. If we, as consumers, refuse to buy pictures of kids (accept from agreed upon photo shoots) the magazines will stop purchasing the pictures. If the magazines don't buy the pictures the paparazzi will stop following kids around. They are doing this as a business endeavor, not a hobby. Any time business is unprofitable people start thinking of new business ideas. I. personally, think we should take it one step further and demand less aggressive ways of gaining info of the adult celebrities as well, but that is a separate issue for a different time.

So, to that end, these are the outlets (to my knowledge) who've agreed to stop buying pictures of kids: E! Entertainment, The Today Show, JustJared.com, People magazine, Perez Hilton. I'd also like to note that I believe Soap Opera Digest does not use any paparazzi images, all pictures I've seen in their magazine are from mutually agreed upon photo shoots, red carpet events, or were shared by the soap stars themselves. They've also been known to sit on juicy information until the stars were ready to give an interview. Those of us who can't wait to learn more about the personal lives of those we see daily on television do have ethical ways to gain this information. We can seek out magazines, like Soap Opera Digest, who do interviews when the celebrity wants to share information, their are many talk shows to choose from, following our favorite stars on twitter is another way to ensure we stay up to date on the latest info the star is wanting to make public.