What goes around comes around

December 24, Birthday Horoscope Personality: Complicated Far Sight

birthdaypersonality:

Your greatest challenge is…

learning from your mistakes

The way forward is…

to understand that if an approach doesn’t work the first time around, unless changes are made it won’t work the second time either.

You’re drawn to people born on…

April 20 to May 20

You are both…

CLICK: Conditions at the Sochi Olympics are bad/hilarious (32 Photos)

I absolutely love Humans of New York. For anyone who doesn’t know what it is, just Google it. I’m actually in the process of assisting someone with creating Humans of Penn State. Fingers crossed!

What Happens in Vegas Stays in Vegas, Right?

My photography assignment:

  1. In a recent controversy, several media outlets made public nude photos of England’s Prince Harry without his knowledge or agreement. Do you believe it is fair or reasonable that snapshot photos of famous or well-known people taken for personal reasons become open to public scrutiny?

My response:

Being famous has its perks, but it comes with disadvantages, like the loss of personal privacy. Whether you’re born into the public eye, like Prince Harry, or whether you work your way to the top, there is an fine line between what should and what should not be open to public scrutiny. In 2012, naked photos of Prince Harry in Vegas were leaked. The pictures, though, were not taken by a photographer/ photojournalist. Rather, they were taken by one of the few people that Prince Harry invited up into his Vegas suite. This situation poses an ethical debate regarding one’s rights and questions when the coverage/reporting of “news” becomes an invasion of privacy.

According to CNN, The Sun, a national newspaper in Great Britain, was the only newspaper to actually publish the pictures of Harry nude (2). They went internationally viral due to this. The managing editor of the Sun said, “This is about our readers getting involved in the discussion with the man who is third in line to the throne.” He adds that, “There is a clear public interest in publishing the Harry pictures, in order for the debated around them to be fully informed. Further, we believe Harry has compromised his own privacy….For us, this is about freedom of the press” (2) (3).  Other outlets, like the Daily Mirror and the Independent, claim that they did not publish the photos because they considered it to breach the privacy of the prince (2). In turn, there are two sides to this situation:

  1. Publishing the image was part of public interest and free press.
  2. Others who think that there is no public interest in this matter, that the Sun published the photos for monetary benefit, self-regulation and censorship were neglected, Harry deserves personal privacy, and most importantly, that new rules governing the conduct of media should be established.

 The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution promotes freedom of speech, expression, etc.. This amendment protects everyday persons, public figures like Harry, as well as the media. Moreover, the term “invasion of privacy” refers to a person’s right to keep their life private and free from the intrusion of others (4). This term is often associated with public figure’s right to be left alone by media (1). When discussing modern day invasion of privacy laws, the U.S Court have recognized four major branches of privacy law: Intrusion, private facts, false light, appropriation (4).

In light of this scandal, one could argue that publishing the nude photos violates law number two, “Private facts.” The law states, “One who gives publicity to a matter concerning the private life of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion of privacy, if the matter publicized is of kind that (a) would be highly offensive to a reasonable person; (b) is not legitimate concern to the public” (1). Before we get into that, let’s also note that “public figures, voluntarily expose themselves to scrutiny, waive much of their right to privacy” (1).

I do believe that the initial publications of Harry’s photos violate the invasion of privacy because it slanders his character. I believe that the publication should have received consent from Harry because it was an invasion of privacy taken from private property. I also find the initial publication of the photos to be utterly distasteful. But then again, that is my opinion, which I am sure I share with a majority. However, the media is simply doing its job. Whether the content is newsworthy or not, entertaining content regarding public figures, like Harry, obviously receives tons of attention from the public. I think the main issue is the term “privacy.” It has never been agreeably defined and there is no clear, custom law regarding privacy standards. As technology develops, the lack of privacy increases. There are thousands of mediums and thousands of opinions. The media regulates itself, therefore, decisions regarding publication is ultimately up to the editor. Some may agree, some may disagree, and that is where the debate lies because the term “privacy” is up for grabs, putting the public AND the media in an uncomfortable position.

My stance is that publishing photos like the ones of Harry is distasteful. However, it is the media being the media and they have a job to fulfill. Being in the spotlight requires one to adapt to the expectations and requirements of that role. Unfortunately, Harry did not appropriately live up to his expectations as a royal and as a solider.

 image

Footnotes

(1) “A Primer On Invasion Of Privacy.” News Media & The Law 31.4(2007): 2-3. Communication & Mass Media Complete. Web. 5 Feb. 2014.

(2) “Prince Harry Naked Vegas Photos Published by Sun.” BBC News. BBC, 24 Aug.2012. Web. 05 Feb. 2014.

(3) Staff, CNN Wire, and Jo Shelley. “UK Tabloid Prints Naked Prince Harry Pictures.”CNN. Cable News Network, 01 Jan. 1970. Web. 05 Feb. 2014.

(4) “The Privacy Torts: How U.S. State Law Quietly Leads the Way in Privacy Protection.” The Privacy Torts: How U.S. State Law Quietly Leads the Way in Privacy Protection. N.p., July 2002. Web. 05 Feb. 2014.

 

Flea For President!

Drama erupted when people recognized that Flea’s bass was not plugged in to the amplifier during the Super Bowl halftime show. When my friend first told me this, I genuinely laughed. There was no way that the RHCP faked their performance.

Over the summer I was at Firefly Music Festival in Dover Delaware and RHCP was one of the headliners. When I say that their performance was unmatchable, I legitimately mean it was unmatchable. I’ve seen the Boss and yes, he puts quite a show, but there is something about the way in which RHCP performs. They cherish it. They preform like it is the last time they will ever hit the stage. You can actually see and feel how much they care.

So, in turn, finding out that the bass was actually not plugged in made me kind of pissed off. First of all because Flea kills it, second of all because RHCP are better than that.

I did my research and I found out that the NFL made it clear that vocals would be live (so Anthony Kiedis was all real), but the bass (Flea), drums (Smith) and guitar (Josh) would all be pre-recorded. Hmm, Interesting. Well, I thought, I guess it does make sense given that there is only a few minutes to set up the entire stage, for Bruno, too! Apparently, Flea says, there was “not any room for argument.”

Take that, haters!

Check out his letter:  http://liveforlivemusic.com/news/flea-why-red-hot-chili-peppers-had-their-instruments-unplugged-at-the-super-bowl/#.UvKkS0JdXcm

image

Performing: “It is a sacred thing for us, and anyone who has ever seen us in concert, knows that we play from our heart, we improvise spontaneously, take musical risks, and sweat blood at every show.”

CLICK! 13-year-old girl brings Simon Cowell and everyone to their feet.

A Bowl of Boring.

Well, I don’t have much to say in regards to the actual game last night, aside from I feel bad for Payton Manning. The best part overall was the 2 minute performance from the Red Hot Chili Peppers, of course. P.s. I totally called it: Kiedis and Flea obviously didn’t wear a shirt.

Anywho, happy 10 years since Janet Jackson’s nip slip.

image

Oh, and…for any of you who did not watch the Puppy Bowl, you really, really, really missed out. Fortunately, my friends and I went to our guy friends apartment where they had one TV on top of the other. So while the Super Bowl was playing on one TV, the Puppy Bowl was playing on the other simultaneously! 

peoplemag:

Celeb Quote of the Week #4

"When women succeed, America succeeds."

– President Barack Obama, who addressed the gender pay gap during the State of the Union address

See more star quotes here!

peoplemag:

Celeb Quote of the Week #4

"When women succeed, America succeeds."

President Barack Obama, who addressed the gender pay gap during the State of the Union address

See more star quotes here!

LOL!!!! CLICK!: Why Society Should Stop Paying Attention To Justin Bieber And Focus On Real World Problems | Elite Daily

Bridges, Scandals, Politics.

Fun fact: Gov. Chris Christie is from my town and I actually met him at a Bruce Springsteen concert.

image

Anywho, does anyone else think it’s funny that he actually knew about the traffic-blocking operation? Well, I do. Especially after he denied, denied, denied for 2 hours at conference a few weeks back. Although he still keeps denying, I don’t think that the 2016 presidential campaign looks too bright for him.

#tbt

Throw back to when I ran a half marathon!

image

He Likes Blondes.

image

Johnny and Amber Heard. Now engaged - and let me tell you, it is a ROCK.

Before Amber, Depp was in a 14-year relationship (they were never even engaged!) with Vanessa Paradis, a French actress with whom he shares two children, Lily Rose who is 14 and Jack who is 11.

image

According to USweekly: "Vanessa wished him happiness," and she wants "No drama."

So, aside from Vanessa being totally awesomely chill, and aside from Amber being the luckiest girl in the world…the moral of the story: Johnny likes blondes and not brunettes.

So, where does that leave me…?

Amanda Knox for Dummies.

Let’s dumb it down.

Amanda Knox Timeline:

1. 2007-2011: Served four years out of the 26 year sentence

2. 2011:  Murder conviction was overturned

3. 2011-2013:  Living happy-ish life in Seattle until March 2013 when the Italian justice system chose to reconsider her acquittal and reordered a new trial

4. Sept. 2013-Jan. 30 2014: Trial occurred without Know. She was found guilty

5. Today, Jan. 30th 2014: Lost acquittal, is being re-accused, re-tried and is sentenced to 28.5 years in jail

However…

Unlike the U.S., Italy doesn’t prohibit double jeopardy, or in other words, a retrial of an acquitted person for the same crime.

I honestly feel bad for her. I really don’t think she did it and I really hope that the US will decline to extradite her.

 image

Scarlett Johansson Versus Soda Pop.

Personally, I think comparative advertising is so distasteful. Example: I HATE that commercial when Amazon’s Kindle mocks the Apple iPad (see here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhTl00uili4). I’m sure that there’s some sort of marketing strategy behind it. Maybe it enhances recall? Who knows. All I know is that it makes me less inclined to purchase the brand doing the call out. But in regards to Fox pulling the SodaStream’s Super Bowl ad for directly calling out Coke and Pepsi (Fox was “afraid” because Pepsico is hosting the halftime show), well…that’s just silly. 

First of all, freedom of speech. Second of all, what is advertising without competition? Especially when all this ad said was: “Sorry Coke and Pepsi.” That’s like, not even distasteful comparative advertising in comparison to what else is out there! And third of all, Scarlett Johansson. Period.

But if anything, it’s kind of a blessing in disguise for SodaStream. They’re going to save millions and all this publicity is actually giving the brand so much attention. I mean, the YouTube version already has over five million views.

You can judge for youself:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxq4ziu-wrI