TRIGGER WARNING: ARTICLE CONTAINS DISCUSSION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT, WHICH MAY BE A TRIGGER FOR SOME READERS. 

To be in the public eye has always seemed to mean that privacy, for the most part, is entitled to be stripped away. “Normal” people – I use that term with discretion – can become entities which transcend that of humans, in the blink of an eye. With the normalization of fame equating a lack of feelings, it is no surprise that celebrities often retaliate through public outbursts. Even so, they are told that it’s what they signed up for and that their image is worth more than their privacy ever will be. 

It seems insidious to think that by having an online presence and a certain number of followers, you automatically consent to being subjected to some of the most extreme opinions out there. This often leads to the creation of a unique binary, where there are some who idolize the parts of a celebrity’s life which are made public, and those who resent them. The obsessive tendency to hold celebrities to a higher standard than most people hold themselves to creates a further divide between the celebrity and the idolizer. This false sense of reality, where a celebrity can do no wrong, actually has some research to back up its claim. Deemed Celebrity Worship Syndrome, “those who suffer from it are known to have an obsessive-addictive disorder where an individual becomes overly involved and interested with the details of the personal life of a celebrity.” Although this sounds more extreme than the lengths the average fan would go to, the access to anyone’s every move has made it increasingly easy to do so, all from behind a screen. 

"The obsessive tendency to hold celebrities to a higher standard than most people hold themselves to creates a further divide between the celebrity and the idolizer."

- Isabella Hamilton

The definition of privacy is complicated by the fact that every person in the public eye has their own limit regarding what they choose to share and that there is no handbook on how to be famous. From Kendall and Kylie’s entire childhood being broadcasted on T.V, to Kim’s divorce sagas, and everything else in between, it’s no wonder their family faces scrutinizing harassment on a daily basis. At the end of the day, what does it really mean to be famous, and is it worth the lengths that some go to to stay relevant? 

To bring your audience along for what seems like every single daily task, no matter how monotonous it looks, enables one to believe that they know everything about their celebrity idol. A similar dialogue exists for child stars; the most popular stories coming from those who were cast for roles on Disney Channel. I can only hope to scratch the surface when it comes to discussing the exploitative practices that are commonly seen with child actors, a topic that runs deep through the entertainment industry. Actors such as Alyson Stoner, Jennette McCurdy, Macaulay Caulkin, and many others have expressed their dissatisfaction for the way they were treated as children placed in such a cutthroat industry. The idolization of child stars puts an immense amount of pressure on these children to succeed. Miley Cyrus has admitted that her role as Miley Stewart, and the difficulty of the public to separate her character from her as a person, “[did] some extreme damage in my psyche as an adult person.” The harm that follows with constantly being in the spotlight is often irreversible; human beings were not made to live their entire lives as if it were judgment day, everyday. 

"The harm that follows with constantly being in the spotlight is often irreversible; human beings were not made to live their entire lives as if it were judgment day, everyday."

- Isabella Hamilton

Every so often, a new video from TMZ will pop up on my Instagram feed, which often entails the camera man harassing whatever celebrity he can find roaming the streets of L.A. At the beginning of a celebrity’s career, this can feel empowering. To be shown that people care about your life is validating for some – for those who have not been able to step out of the house without having their picture snapped for as long as they can remember, this is more violating than anything. The entire concept of the paparazzi, more so the monetization of people’s lives, is a rather new concept to the 21st century. Being able to profit off of the fact that the public loves to see their favourite celebrity going to the same grocery store, workout class, or restaurant as them, once again blurs the line between the celebrity and the public. 

When it comes to ownership rights over images of celebrities that are taken by paparazzi, legal issues tend to get messy. It should be common sense that if a picture is taken without the consent of the individual, the photographer should not be able to profit off of the image. Yet, there have been countless instances where this is not the case, and the photographer owns rights to the image, continuing to make money off of the invasion of one’s privacy. 

Someone who has been outspoken on this issue is Emily Ratajkowski. In her personal essay, entitled Buying Myself Back, she speaks on her sexual assualt by photographer Jonathan Leder at 20 years old, while he was double her age. He proceeded to publish nude images that he had taken of her, without her consent, years later in his own photography book. Emily was branded all kinds of slurs for her appearance in Robin Thicke’s music video, Blurred Lines, where she shot to fame not long after. Shooting in bikinis became her brand, and the majority of the public was confused why she would feel so defensive when Leder published images that were similar to those she would post herself. The reality is that Ratajkowsi had every right to her images, and did not need the opinion of the public to validate how she felt. Nevertheless, to be told that a man double your age has more autonomy over your own body than you do is a feeling that no man, woman, or person should ever have to experience. This is when the concept of paparazzi and the ideals which the profession perpetuates can lead to a major blow to personal freedoms. 

The public always seems to have an opinion on the lives of celebrities, even when they toe the line. The culture of celebrity idolization has demonstrated that there is no humanly possible way to please everyone, and you will only damage your mental state in the process of trying to do so. The blame seems to rest unequally on both parties though; the celebrity being told that it is just a consequence of their profession, the idolizer facing limited repercussions. If the digital age has taught one thing, it’s that no one actually has as much privacy as they think they do, and the obsession with immortalizing celebrities will only grow stronger with every paparazzi snap.