Get PJ Media on your Apple

PJM Lifestyle

Save Our Celebrities!

Paparazzi reach new low: hurling insults at 7-year-old Suri Cruise.

by
Andrew Klavan

Bio

July 18, 2013 - 9:15 am
YouTube Preview Image

With everything going on in the news these days — I mean, didn’t Jennifer Aniston recently get a haircut or something? — this seems like a goofy thing to get annoyed about, but I have to confess it got to me. I saw this originally on Big Hollywood: Tom Cruise’s ex-wife Katie Holmes was walking with her 7-year-old daughter Suri and they were surrounded by paparazzi. And Suri both rightly and kind of cutely was telling these photog thugs to get out of her way and one of them — a grown man — started calling the child names! Another more human photographer tries to remonstrate with this lowlife — but the guy insists he’s in the right! Watch the video — I’m not making this up. The pap doubles down, explaining that no, the 7-year-old actually deserves to be catcalled and by golly he’s just the he-man to do the job! So help me, I’ll retire to Bedlam.

Hey, no one can accuse this blog of being soft on celebrities, but I’ve never subscribed to this idea that just because someone desires to win renown he therefore sacrifices every ounce of his privacy. I know we can’t really restrict the actions of photographers without compromising our First Amendment rights, but is it too much to ask we be allowed to tie them up in canvas sacks and toss them into the Hudson River? Or maybe with Eric Holder re-examining Stand Your Ground laws (for some reason), we might look into extending the meaning of self-defense to include confrontations between the rich and famous and these annoying lens-termites. We could even make special categories for those particularly afflicted. For instance, whereas someone like Tom Hanks — not usually hunted by swarms of paps — could only open fire on one when actually being hounded, someone like Angelina Jolie would be allowed to break into a photographer’s home, creep into his bedroom and smother him in his sleep without facing any legal consequences.

All right, I said it was silly. But really, how far do you have to sink before you start screaming insults at children? Yuck-o.

****

Cross-posted from Klavan on the Culture

Andrew Klavan’s newest novel is Nightmare City.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Why would you question the Paparazzi sinking so low to hurl insults at a child?
Lets not forget the paparazzi IS the media after all...Thin skinned, self important miscreants that will trample uon all expectations of decent, ethical, responsible behavior.

So they yelled at a little girl...whats that compared to doctoring 911 calls to inflame (widespread, inevitable) violence and distruction upon OTHER innocent people...

Its just another day in the media world...
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (9)
All Comments   (9)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
my friend's ex-wife makes $84 every hour on the internet. She has been out of work for 9 months but last month her income was $19559 just working on the internet for a few hours. Here's the site to read more http://max47.com/
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I'm not going to defend this guy or the paparazzi in general. He's clearly a scumbag.

But, I do have to disagree that the claim that someone gives up their privacy "just because they desire renown" applies. You yourself note that the paparazzi don't usually go after Tom Hanks. Much the same could be said of Clint Eastwood or a number of other entertainers. Why is that? It's struck me for some time that there is a pattern in the paparazzi's behavior. They seem to seek out targets with a high "celebrity value". But, that celebrity value is cultivated by none other than the celebrities who complain about the paparazzi. You bring up Angelina Jolie. Okay. But, how many times has Ms. Jolie taken center stage demanding we pay attention to her on everything from parenting to the latest fall fashions to Third World hunger? I don't think the paparazzi are entirely out of line asking "We're duty bound to pay attention to you when it works in your favor, but duty bound to not pay attention when it doesn't?" Even consider the case of the little girl this story is about. Why on earth do any of us know who the hell Suri Cruise is? Because her parents have shoved her in our faces for the last seven years and demanded we all pay attention to their special little princess.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"and one of them — a grown man — started calling the child names! "

Factually incorrect! A person with (presumably) male genitalia and who has amassed a certain number a years, perhaps. But certainly NOT a MAN.


"I’ve never subscribed to this idea that just because someone desires to win renown he therefore sacrifices every ounce of his privacy."

Agreed! And to harrass a child is worse than low-life. Children should be OFF LIMITS completely.

And yes, conservatives, that means you were wrong to make fun of Chelsea Clinton (she's fair game now, of course), and you liberals were wrong to make fun of the Bush twins, and it means that Obama's girls are OFF LIMITS, too!

It's immoral to go after children.


"I know we can’t really restrict the actions of photographers without compromising our First Amendment rights"


Yes we can. It's not difficult at all. Our right to free speech isn't absolute, and the 1A does not protect this kind of behavior any more than it protects pornography. We can have robust protection of speech without allowing such vile behavior. The 1A has nothing to do with such garbage.


" these annoying lens-termites. "

Love that line, Klavan! :D

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"It's immoral to go after children."

Why is it immoral to go after children but not immoral for the parents to pull them out as props and accessories? It strikes me that, when you pull them out into the arena, they're fair game.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
No, they are not fair game. Their parent's sins are not the fault of the children.

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Why would you question the Paparazzi sinking so low to hurl insults at a child?
Lets not forget the paparazzi IS the media after all...Thin skinned, self important miscreants that will trample uon all expectations of decent, ethical, responsible behavior.

So they yelled at a little girl...whats that compared to doctoring 911 calls to inflame (widespread, inevitable) violence and distruction upon OTHER innocent people...

Its just another day in the media world...
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Well said, and I agree completely. Can the media be any more vile?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Greetings:

As to one of your remedial suggestions, the Hudson River is already polluted enough without introducing another invasive species. I'm quite sure that such an action would, no doubt, deeply disturb some Kennedy scion somewhere doing something.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
You can toss them in the Potomac. We need something to chase off the snakeheads.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
View All