Denis [66] opinó:
They know what they’re doing.
Simon opinó:
because a couple million dollars are enough for ones privacy.
Let me say this again: If u earn that much money, which is ridiculous if you compare the effort to other jobs, the loss of your privacy is a prize you simply have to pay. Even when you can just hire some bodyguards to protect you and your castle.
Dave Metric opinó:
This is a false dictotomy and not only that both of the positions are incoherent. It’s not clear what exactly it means to “not have the right to privacy”. This is very vague. What I will say it that I lean more toward the more egalitarian position because it is simply a non sequitor that because someone is in the media they therefore deserve no right to privacy at all.
Ali A [22] opinó:
Simon – who are you to say that they are over paid, they bring more money in for their company than they earn themselves. If they didn’t they wouldn’t be paid as much. Why is it ridiculous to get paid that much? That is saying it is ridiculous to be prosperous and ridiculous to not want wealth. I think it is ridiculous that you think people should have rights taken away because of their income.
Ali A [22] opinó:
Did the equal rights movement mean nothing?
Privacy is an integral and fundamental right which should be bestowed upon everyone. Denying anyone their privacy because they’re “famous” is really just a form of discrimination.
Anonymous opinó:
because they’re barely selling their lives just because they’re famous, they’re just people.
The people who sell their lives to media should not have the right to live 😛