which is why you couldn't pay me enough to be famous. I like my privacy

Its wrong,, its not the price for EVERYONE who becomes famous, but it is an unfortunate risk until people start to do something about it.

This is where I disagree. They are made from their work, and paid for their work, their life should still be as much their own as anyone elses.

actually I was giving my opinion. My opinion is right for me. I disagree. they get paid for their work yes....but also on their fame.

When young impressionable people quit saying they want to be like Mike, Kobe, Miley, Tiger, etc. I'll agree.

Fanta,

correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this covered under the 1st Amendment? Just as Tiger Woods (in this case) has the right to sue for slander, make a press statement, etc?

Let me know when that happens and I'll run to defend them and their indiscretions.

No probably not. I hate an unfaithful spouse, whether they be male or female.

If it were false you might make a case, but it isn't false and he is a public figure.

I agree Mr Fanta .
Horny Bill embarassed himself too .

false yes...and I believe he can sue (whether he would win or notis a different story)

But is this not protect under the 1st Amendment?

I respect your opinion Yellowrose.

I feel that fame comes because the career is a public one. I feel that not everyone becomes famous just because they are in the business but because of how HARD they work in the business, which gets them more work, which makes them more famous. As a fan though, an actors obligation to me ends when he films a movie and I pay to see it, a singers obligation ends when she records a song and I pay to hear it,,etc,... thats it,, product made, product paid for, contract over.

Beyond being good at their job, like any other career, they should not feel like they OWE anyone anything, least of all the right to be in their personal business.

Rich and famous men, as this case is about, should know, if they go dip-stickin', they could be settin' themselves up to be shellin' out big bucks to shut 'em up.

Bidding war between the Enquirer and Tiger.

Heck no!

It's been tried before.
They make themselves public figures.
They choose the life. They benefit from being in the public eye.

How can anyone feel sorry for him?

He sits in his private gated community and refuses to talk to the local authorities for days.
If I tried that they'd kick my door down and arrest me.

This community he lives in has its own security force. Who knows how long it was before the real cops were even called? It could have been hours. Who knows?

I feel sorry because they are still HUMAN. They become public figures because they happen to be good at and enjoy something that the public watches,,this shouldnt give anyone the feeling that they deserve to be treated like animals in a cage. They deserve some basic human respect and a private life that is private.

He didnt have to speak to authorities for a one car accident on private property, he had his lawyer give them what they need. Had they kicked down his door they would have had a serious lawsuit.

the media has been in the lives of famous people since before I was born, so IMO anyone that wants to be famous should know that it comes with the territory. It is part of being famous IMO.

As far as the media goes....these things are protected under the 1st Amendment and I don't like the idea of the Constitution being changed for something like this.

Those that don't like it can simply change the channel or not read things. The media reports what will sell papers or get viewers

I dont know why everything has to even involve the constitution. I am speaking only in terms of decency and humane treatment. Many things are allowed under the constitution that are neither.

I agree that those who are famous probably understand the potential ramifications, just as women once understood the ramifications of wearing certain clothes, but none of that understanding means that it should CONTINUE to be that way or that people should continue feeling excused for doing it. It is the constitutional right of those in the spotlight to say 'That is a private matter which I dont choose to make public and people should be cautious about their sources and how reliable they truly are."

But if they did, I wonder how many journalists and reporters would take the high road and support their decision as opposed to blacklisting them and no longer giving them press for their WORK?

Oh, and I do plan to speak with my pocket by not participating in the smut for profit industry and not buying their merchandise. But I was just sharing my opinion about how scummy I think the reporters behave when they do these things. People miss that when they are busy calling the unfaithful spouse names.

He's a phenomenal golfer!

Fame and fortune, some folks don't handle very well.

He sold his soul and his family to da' devil. The first time he tasted fresh honey, he was lost. Now, he will be famous for bein' a ho.

Most men won't care. They see it a just a conquest and will tease each other about bein' jealous it wasn't them who got the gals to lose the laundry.

Human is as human does.

Did he feel for his wife and kids while he was dipping his pen in another ink bottle?

Personally, I think a cheater is lower than ant ****.

because under the constitution...the media has that right. Just as people have the right to chose to be famous or not.

At what point do we tell the media what they can report and can't report? and by who's guidelines?

I don't care about their personal lives myself, but I support the rights of the media to report these things and the rights of the readers/viewers that enjoy that stuff