Tikkabik

I've been thinking lately about the first amendment and the paparazzi. Why? Because of the constant tabloid media fixation on Britney Spears, a celebrity who, by any measure, has had a pretty lousy year.

Now, I'm not a big fan of Britney either personally or professionally, for whatever it's worth. Don't own any of her albums (though I'll cop to downloading the single "Toxic" from iTunes). And for the most part, the public obsession over celebrities is something that eludes me. I've got enough drama in my own life without needing to compensate by living vicariously through someone else more glamourous than me.

But the video footage I see of Britney on shows like Inside Edition or Web sites like Perezhilton.com (I know, what am I doing watching that crap) tell me that things for celebrities at the top tier of visibility are just horribly out of control. Do we really need to see her and an associate parking her car at 2:30 AM in the morning? Wearing sunglasses, because the flashes from the paparazzi cameras are so bright, and a squinty-eyed look is bound to be followed with a headline "Is Britney on drugs?"

This associate of her gets out of her car and you see the cameras rushing toward the open door for a clearer shot of the celeb, shouting questions and comments.

I imagine what that must be like, and think that no amount of money can be worth that sort of emotional terrorism.

Of course, the first amendment protects paparazzi, as long as they're shooting in public. I'm not arguing that at all. But there's a more fundamental human right to be treated decently that just gets trampled on a daily basis by the celebrity media. It's wrong and it should stop. But it shouldn't stop because a new law gets passed. It should stop because it's just the right thing to do.