Are celebrities public property with no right to a private life?
- poodle powerLv 72 months agoBest answer
No they should have the right to a private life like everyone else. And even if paid by out by the public purse they shouldn't be allowed to be hounded by the tabloid trash. If people believe that then all public sector workers and those on benefit should be fair game too. As it all public money. Our press and its reader obviously learned nothing from the terrible death of Diana. Shame on them.
- tillan2kLv 72 months ago
they have right to private life if it is not supported by tax payer money
- FOXY DiLv 42 months ago
They are if the taxpayers support them as in the case of Prince Harry and Megan Markle so they can stop moaning about their mental health issues and get a proper job. Hod knows what their offspring will be like especially when mixed race debauchery enters the equation.
- 2 months ago
No, most are shallow talentless gods to chavs.
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- 2 months ago
Very true I. I'm a nosey sod so I want to know everything about no mark z list celebs in weekly chick mags like ok heat etc
We the public own their souls. Bastards deserve everything they get 🤣🤣🙄🤔
- SharonLv 62 months ago
a concept which would surely greatly reduce the number of "celebrities"
- Ding DongLv 52 months ago
No, with the exception of the royals until they stop taking public money.
- Mr ScepticLv 42 months ago
No, until either they make their private life public, or they express views or demand trust when their own private life shows that to be hypocritical.
For example, if a soap star has numerous affairs outside his marriage, impregnating at least two other women, procuring abortion and trying to use the law to keep it out of the press, that’s a very different matter to a prime minister doing the same.
- abdulLv 72 months ago
No, not at all.