Quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
It has ever been thus. With power comes responsibility. She has influence over young women that want to be like her. When she smokes in public, she's not just affecting her life, but countless others. Is she prepared to make that choice? She knows the deal. It's not like she was handed fame and admiration without her asking for it.
When you accept fame as an entertainer, you also accept a restriction in civil liberties. There are simply things you can no longer do. Parts of you become public property. If she was really bothered by that reality she could quit and find another career, otherwise she can cop the criticisms on the chin. She's a big girl, an Aussie to boot  so I'm sure she can handle the flak.
|
Spoken by the guy who wants to be the nanny police and make sure no one smokes anywhere ever except their home. Sorry, guy, you lost all credibility with me on this issue when you wouldn't even let me have a measley 1 in 5 bars to go puff at, after I offered to not even smoke outside and after I begged for 20-odd pages of posts. Let me be clear. Mr. My Way or the Highway. Nanny police. Fascist.
While I will agree that, for better or for worse, our kids will always idolize entertainers and famous folks of all ilk -- as will many adults. However, PARTS OF YOU DO NOT BECOME PUBLIC PROPERTY. The only legal benefits you lose inure toward the torts of defamation and libel. In short, you lose a lot of your rights to sue those who spread lies and rumors about you (though you can still recover if they act maliciously). Besides, if we made idiots like the papparazi (it ought to be punishable by death to be one of these) actually respect the privacy of actors/entertainers a bit more, maybe some of the idolization would go away.
But, it's all capitalism anyway. Nicole's puff just sold cigarettes and crappy magazines everywhere.
[ 05-23-2003, 09:07 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]