Pro ~ Round 1

the paparazzi should be banned because they make money on people being looking bad and thats just wrong. Also they are so agressive, they'll do anything for a quick buck and thats annoying because it's like they dont care about peopls feelings or privacy!!!

Con ~ Round 1

Hello and thank you for initiating this debate. It is a good topic…

I actually agree with most of what you have said. Yes, it is disheartening how the paparazzi act, and yes it is a rather disgusting industry. I agree with all of these things. The paparazzi disgust me.

HOWEVER, I do not agree that they should be banned.

So there is no confusion, here is the definition of paparazzi from Merriam Webster's:

"A freelance photographer who aggressively pursues celebrities for the purpose of taking candid photographs"

Your argument –correct me if I'm wrong- seems to imply that there would be some sort of law in place to ban the paparazzi. I should like to request the specifics of this proposed law, because the term paparazzi (as seen above) is vague and an opinion. Because it is so vague, anyone who takes a picture of someone could be considered paparazzi.

Grey areas in the law, especially extremely vague ones, can be extremely dangerous…as teams of lawyers will always be able to manipulate them to their will. When there is a grey (as in vague) area of the law, as this one would be, talented lawyers can twist it's meaning and bend the rules so that, for instance, a person video taping a police officer beating someone, could be determined paparazzi.

Alas, unless you completely ban photography, you CAN'T ban the paparazzi. Any law short of completely outlawing photography will have too many loopholes and will be too vague. As long as people can take pictures of celebrities, the paparazzi will exist. And to ban photography, I think we can both agree, would be a vast overreaction.

What really differentiates a regular person taking a picture of someone and the paparazzi? The fact that the paparazzi have different intentions? It is very vague and tricky trying to determine someone's intentions in a court of law, which is why laws (as often as possible) should be concrete…no interpretation about intentions.

Law enforcements could use this law at any time to punish someone simply for taking pictures. They could use this as an excuse to limit documentation of shady government operations. They could "put it in the memory hole" so to speak.

In this country, we have a thing known as freedom of the press. It's not: freedom of the press, only if they're nice, ethical, and care for individual's privacy… It's just freedom of the press.

If this law were to be set in motion, "freedom of the press" would slowly die. You have to draw the line somewhere. Next, people will think "if the ‘paparazzi' can't take pictures, than no embarrassing picture can be published." Then "If the paparazzi can't take pictures, than neither can journalists and photographers working for the news."…and so on.

To conclude, banning the paparazzi would be unconstitutional, could lead to a bureaucracy of press and media, and it would be nearly impossible to ban the paparazzi, without being very vague.

-Harlan

Pro ~ Round 2

ok..... i agree with smoe stuff you say as well. but what im talking about is the peop;e who work for magazines like hello and all the other ones. my big issue is the fact that the paparazzi take picture of the issues more than the good things about celebrities.



ex) About a month ago 10 paparazzi were arested for following/stalking 3 people home.


I also think that there is alot of truth in what you said as well, but what i have a problem with is that the paps are always looking to get to the top of the photographic industry and thats piss's me of because its like all they care about is themselvs and their effin money

Con ~ Round 2

To the exasperated and unproportionately angry requests of my impatient opponent, I here post my response…

I will respond to each of my opponent's points in turn…

"ok..... i agree with smoe stuff you say as well. but what im talking about is the peop;e who work for magazines like hello and all the other ones. my big issue is the fact that the paparazzi take picture of the issues more than the good things about celebrities."

Alright, but we have already established that the paparazzi are contemptible. I completely share in your distaste for them. But for the reasons posted last round I wish not to ban them.


"About a month ago 10 paparazzi were arested for following/stalking 3 people home."

This brings up a good point. It turns out, that much of the foul play of the paparazzi is already illegal. This is a good thing too. The law my opponent seems to suggest, however, would need to ban the photography of celebrities in order to work.

"I also think that there is alot of truth in what you said as well, but what i have a problem with is that the paps are always looking to get to the top of the photographic industry and thats piss's me of because its like all they care about is themselvs and their effin money"

Thus is capitalism. My opponent continually states why he does not like the paparazzi (which needn't be discussed, as both sides agree), but fails to address the practicality of the proposed law, or state clear reasons to his side. Vote CON.

-Harlan