Read the questions below and click "comments" to respond here in a well-written paragraph ofat leastfive sentences.
40 comments:
Anonymous
said...
2-06: I think that Famous/Infamous people should be able to protect their privacy. I think that the media should show the world only what the person they are interviewing say that they should, and the other stuff that the person they're interviewing should be off limits. The media can be regulated by the person taking them to court. The Regulation would infringe upon those two rights. If the media isn't regulated, they will just keep doing it. The public access of the lives of Famous/Infamous serves a good purpose, because some people need to know about these people.
Famous people shouldn't be able to protect their personal privacy. What's the point of being famous if you protect your personal privacy? People who know famous people shou8ld know everything about them, even their personal privacy. The world should be able to show everyone everything about one another. World peace man. The media can be regulated by just using media for important things like a kid dieing or something. I don't think it would infringe on the media. If the media wasn't regulated than most likely a lot more than private information would be showed on the news, if you know what I mean. Well if they're famous we should know stuff about them. It would serve purposes, if you like the stuff you know about the famous person it might make that person even more famous.
2.7 I think all famous or infamous should be aloud to have their own personal privacy because how would you like if random people took HORRIBLE picture of you and a few days later see it in a magazine! The only time i think it would be okay is when they know that some one is taking a picture of them.I don't really think it serves any good purpose because those pictures are of someone who wants to have privacy like everyone else! Clearly I think that anyone and everyone should be able to have their own privacy!
2.29 i believe that people should not be able to follow a certin person. it is a right of privacy to not be followedd by the media and the press. it ruins peoples lives. people cant enjoy their lives. it does not serve any good purpose what so ever to expose some persons life. the more the media follows someone like erick the more i would feel that i would be a bad ass if i would be able to kill a person while being followed. so, if i wasnt followed i would feel less pressured to do anything, less pressured to do anything wrong, and be able to feel like i can just go back to loving life.
2.12 I think famous people should Have privacy too just like everyone else. They should be able to protect that. The media shouldn't be able to take pictures of your family or be on any of your property. The media shouldn't be allowed to publish anything that doesn't relate to that persons reason for being famous. If it isn't regulated then people could have a lot of problems being famous. Clearly, I think everyone should have privacy and the media should be regulated.
2.28 All people should be able to protect their privacy. The media should only be allowed to show what they do on stage and behind. No, regulation wouldn't infringe upon the rights of free speech and freedom of the press. I don't think public access to the lives of the famous/infamous serves any good purpose.
2.22 I think that famous and infamous people should be able to protect what they want and show what they want to show. The media should tell people the stories and if they need to show details about the infamous and famous people. The media can be regulated by getting a fence and having dogs that will protect the famous and infamous people. I don't think that regulation should infringe the rights of free speech and freedom of the press because they are interfering with peoples personal lives. I don't think media about a famous and infamous people serve any good purpose. That is what i think about media on famous and infamous people.
2#-27 I think that no matter who you are you should be able to have some kind privacy. The reason I think that is because that is why this is America to have freedom. I think there shouldn't be a media because all they do is make people look worse then what they really are. The way the can help is say better things about people and if they do something really bad then talk about it. It does have good things like letting people know about murders and kid nappers and etc. But over all there is bad and good things that go on so make it half an half not all bad.
If people want to be left alone they should be. My life is not open the public there's should not. Why should we have our nose's in there lives. All in all but out.
2.19 Famous and infamous should be able to protect their privacy. The media Should not be aloud to show personal private things. Media can be regulated by passing a law to allow famous or infamous people to be okay with what is being posted. Regulation probably would infringe medias rights but its only fair. If the media isn't regulated things would be the same as they are now. Public access with the lives of infamous and famous people can serve good and bad purposes. Over all the media is bad.
2.8 I believe famous people should be able to protect their personal lives. People who spend their time taking pictures of others are trying to demonize (make them look bad)them. Thats not right because they are human like us and make mistakes. Infamous people who commit murder shouldn't be able to be released anyway but if they are they should have a parol officer should meet with them on a regular basis. I don't think it can be regulated now because people will find ways to get around the rules we make.
2-03: I think that Famous/Infamous people should be able to protect their personal privacy from the whole world. I think the media should be able to say only what the person they are interviewing wants them to, and everything else they say should be off limits. The media can be regulated by having the police talk to them about privacy issues. Regulation would probably infringe upon freedom of speech and freedom of the press. If the media isn't regulated, they will just keep doing the same things they were. Public access has a good purpose, and that is it helps people learn who the person was.
2.14- Yes i think that they should be able to protect there privacy because they are people to. Just because they have money does not mean go take pictures of them. The limit should be when they go out to do every day thinks and like when they go to dinner or a bar. I think that they should be able to tell the media if they want to talk. Maybe i dont know. I think that they will end up in trouble for showing something there not able to. Not really in less they have something they have to say.
2.10 I think that famous or infamous people should be able to protect their personal privacy. I think that the media should only be able to show things that the person wants them to show and things that they don't want them to show they shouldn't, they have to get their permission to show anything about them. I think that there should be a law that states that you can't show things that the famous or infamous people don't want them to show. I don't think that that the the regulation would infringe upon the rights of free speech and freedom of the pres. I think that if the media isn't regulated then the famous or infamous people will never have any private time for themselves. I think that the only good purpose that public access serve is that if they do something really bad then they cannot get away with it.
2.16 I think that famous people should be able to protect their privacy and same with infamous. The media should be allowed to show the world regular things such as if a famous person wins a grammy , or comes out with a new movie or song, but they should show if their on drugs or pregant. The same thing with infamous. They shouldnt should their privacy cause thats their buisness and their responcibility. The media can be regulated by , someone fileing an complante. Yes, regulation would infrige on the rights of speech. If the media wasn't regulated then every famous and infamous buisness would get out. No they do not serve good purpose. Clearly, you see that my opinon is strong and good deatails and you see why I think what I do about this situation.
2.#9 I think yes people famous or not should be able to have there own privacy. The can show there face in like public but like with Eric they are standing in front of his house making a mess and getting in to his personal life.The media shouldn't be able to regulated because what Eric did, yes it is a crime but it is over and this has for my point going on to long. Sure the press is free speech but some times the paper and news is not right. Clearly, there is no purpose of public access, some people like that kind of stuff but Eric doesn't.
2.28 to 2.29 I agree. People should not be allowed to follow people around to get their privacy. Nobody should be followed by the media. It is a right.
2.16 I think that famous people should be able to protect their privacy and same with infamous. The media should be allowed to show the world regular things such as if a famous person wins a grammy , or comes out with a new movie or song, but they should show if their on drugs or pregant. The same thing with infamous. They shouldnt should their privacy cause thats their buisness and their responcibility. The media can be regulated by , someone fileing an complante. Yes, regulation would infrige on the rights of speech. If the media wasn't regulated then every famous and infamous buisness would get out. No they do not serve good purpose. Clearly, you see that my opinon is strong and good deatails and you see why I think what I do about this situation.
2.24 Famous and infamous people should be able to protect their personal people. The media should be allowed to show what they want, but not be able to spy on famous or infamous people. I think the media should be regulated by going to prison if they spy people. If the media isn't regulated famous people could get mad. public access to the lives of infamous people serve to to maybe stop a crime.
2.5 Famous and infamous should be able to protect there privacy. What the media should be allowed to show is the important stuff like people being murdered or other important things. They shouldn't be allowed to show things about people that are not important. Public access to lives of famous and infamous does serve a good purpose.
2.1 I think that famous people should be able to protect their personal privacy and infamous people shouldn't be able to. One reason for that is because infamous people know should be watched because there bad and bad people shouldn't be trusted.The reason i think that famous peoples should be able to protect their privacy is because there people like us just are known a lot more.,i think that the media should only be able to show their faces and nothing else.in conclusion yes i do think that public access is a good purpose because we know if there doing something good or bad.
#20 I think that an infamous person should have his own privacy. Even though they did do something bad the still have their rights. People like their privacy so you should respect that. Over in all, I think infamous people should still have their privacy.
I think yes people famous or not should be able to have there own privacy. The can show there face in like public but like with Eric they are standing in front of his house making a mess and getting in to his personal life.The media shouldn't be able to regulated because what Eric did, yes it is a crime but it is over and this has for my point going on to long. Sure the press is free speech but some times the paper and news is not right. Clearly, there is no purpose of public access, some people like that kind of stuff but Eric doesn't.
2.4 I think famous people should be able to have privacy. I don't think infamous people should have privacy though. The media should be allowed to at least show what the famous people are doing. Regulation would not infringe upon the rights of free speech and freedom of the press. I don't know what could happen if the media wasn't regulated. I think the live of Eric does not serve any good purpose.
2.8 I believe famous people should be able to protect their personal lives. People who spend their time taking pictures of others are trying to demonize (make them look bad)them. Thats not right because they are human like us and make mistakes. Infamous people who commit murder shouldn't be able to be released anyway but if they are they should have a parol officer should meet with them on a regular basis. I don't think it can be regulated now because people will find ways to get around the rules we make.
2.8 I believe famous people should be able to protect their personal lives. People who spend their time taking pictures of others are trying to demonize them (make them look bad) Thats not right because they are human like us and make mistakes. Infamous people who commit murder shouldn't be able to be released anyway but if they are they should have a parol officer that meets with them on a regular basis. I don't think it can be regulated now because people will find ways to get around the rules we make.
Why did you put "world peace"? And i agree with you when you said that if you want to be famous you should know you will get followed because you are famous.
40 comments:
2-06: I think that Famous/Infamous people should be able to protect their privacy. I think that the media should show the world only what the person they are interviewing say that they should, and the other stuff that the person they're interviewing should be off limits. The media can be regulated by the person taking them to court. The Regulation would infringe upon those two rights. If the media isn't regulated, they will just keep doing it. The public access of the lives of Famous/Infamous serves a good purpose, because some people need to know about these people.
2. 26
Famous people shouldn't be able to protect their personal privacy. What's the point of being famous if you protect your personal privacy? People who know famous people shou8ld know everything about them, even their personal privacy. The world should be able to show everyone everything about one another. World peace man. The media can be regulated by just using media for important things like a kid dieing or something. I don't think it would infringe on the media. If the media wasn't regulated than most likely a lot more than private information would be showed on the news, if you know what I mean. Well if they're famous we should know stuff about them. It would serve purposes, if you like the stuff you know about the famous person it might make that person even more famous.
2.7
I think all famous or infamous should be aloud to have their own personal privacy because how would you like if random people took HORRIBLE picture of you and a few days later see it in a magazine! The only time i think it would be okay is when they know that some one is taking a picture of them.I don't really think it serves any good purpose because those pictures are of someone who wants to have privacy like everyone else! Clearly I think that anyone and everyone should be able to have their own privacy!
2.29 i believe that people should not be able to follow a certin person. it is a right of privacy to not be followedd by the media and the press. it ruins peoples lives. people cant enjoy their lives. it does not serve any good purpose what so ever to expose some persons life. the more the media follows someone like erick the more i would feel that i would be a bad ass if i would be able to kill a person while being followed. so, if i wasnt followed i would feel less pressured to do anything, less pressured to do anything wrong, and be able to feel like i can just go back to loving life.
2.12 I think famous people should Have privacy too just like everyone else. They should be able to protect that. The media shouldn't be able to take pictures of your family or be on any of your property. The media shouldn't be allowed to publish anything that doesn't relate to that persons reason for being famous. If it isn't regulated then people could have a lot of problems being famous. Clearly, I think everyone should have privacy and the media should be regulated.
2.28 All people should be able to protect their privacy. The media should only be allowed to show what they do on stage and behind. No, regulation wouldn't infringe upon the rights of free speech and freedom of the press. I don't think public access to the lives of the famous/infamous serves any good purpose.
2.22 I think that famous and infamous people should be able to protect what they want and show what they want to show. The media should tell people the stories and if they need to show details about the infamous and famous people. The media can be regulated by getting a fence and having dogs that will protect the famous and infamous people. I don't think that regulation should infringe the rights of free speech and freedom of the press because they are interfering with peoples personal lives. I don't think media about a famous and infamous people serve any good purpose. That is what i think about media on famous and infamous people.
2#-27 I think that no matter who you are you should be able to have some kind privacy. The reason I think that is because that is why this is America to have freedom. I think there shouldn't be a media because all they do is make people look worse then what they really are. The way the can help is say better things about people and if they do something really bad then talk about it. It does have good things like letting people know about murders and kid nappers and etc. But over all there is bad and good things that go on so make it half an half not all bad.
2.11
If people want to be left alone they should be. My life is not open the public there's should not. Why should we have our nose's in there lives. All in all but out.
2.7
to 2.26 I understand what your saying but if you where a famous person wouldn't you want your privacy!?
2.19
Famous and infamous should be able to protect their privacy. The media Should not be aloud to show personal private things. Media can be regulated by passing a law to allow famous or infamous people to be okay with what is being posted. Regulation probably would infringe medias rights but its only fair. If the media isn't regulated things would be the same as they are now. Public access with the lives of infamous and famous people can serve good and bad purposes. Over all the media is bad.
2.28 to 2.26
I disagree. People should have privacy even if they are famous. there are somethings people don't need to know.
27-22 I also think that people should people able to do what they want in there time with out everyone knowing.
2.8 I believe famous people should be able to protect their personal lives. People who spend their time taking pictures of others are trying to demonize (make them look bad)them. Thats not right because they are human like us and make mistakes. Infamous people who commit murder shouldn't be able to be released anyway but if they are they should have a parol officer should meet with them on a regular basis. I don't think it can be regulated now because people will find ways to get around the rules we make.
2-03: I think that Famous/Infamous people should be able to protect their personal privacy from the whole world. I think the media should be able to say only what the person they are interviewing wants them to, and everything else they say should be off limits. The media can be regulated by having the police talk to them about privacy issues. Regulation would probably infringe upon freedom of speech and freedom of the press. If the media isn't regulated, they will just keep doing the same things they were. Public access has a good purpose, and that is it helps people learn who the person was.
2.14- Yes i think that they should be able to protect there privacy because they are people to. Just because they have money does not mean go take pictures of them. The limit should be when they go out to do every day thinks and like when they go to dinner or a bar. I think that they should be able to tell the media if they want to talk. Maybe i dont know. I think that they will end up in trouble for showing something there not able to. Not really in less they have something they have to say.
2.10 I think that famous or infamous people should be able to protect their personal privacy. I think that the media should only be able to show things that the person wants them to show and things that they don't want them to show they shouldn't, they have to get their permission to show anything about them. I think that there should be a law that states that you can't show things that the famous or infamous people don't want them to show. I don't think that that the the regulation would infringe upon the rights of free speech and freedom of the pres. I think that if the media isn't regulated then the famous or infamous people will never have any private time for themselves. I think that the only good purpose that public access serve is that if they do something really bad then they cannot get away with it.
to:27
from:19
I agree with you because no matter who you are you should be able to have privacy.
2.22 to 2.26 I agree with you because I think people should be able to have their own personal lives.
2.16 I think that famous people should be able to protect their privacy and same with infamous. The media should be allowed to show the world regular things such as if a famous person wins a grammy , or comes out with a new movie or song, but they should show if their on drugs or pregant. The same thing with infamous. They shouldnt should their privacy cause thats their buisness and their responcibility. The media can be regulated by , someone fileing an complante. Yes, regulation would infrige on the rights of speech. If the media wasn't regulated then every famous and infamous buisness would get out. No they do not serve good purpose. Clearly, you see that my opinon is strong and good deatails and you see why I think what I do about this situation.
2.#9
I think yes people famous or not should be able to have there own privacy. The can show there face in like public but like with Eric they are standing in front of his house making a mess and getting in to his personal life.The media shouldn't be able to regulated because what Eric did, yes it is a crime but it is over and this has for my point going on to long. Sure the press is free speech but some times the paper and news is not right. Clearly, there is no purpose of public access, some people like that kind of stuff but Eric doesn't.
2.28 to 2.29
I agree. People should not be allowed to follow people around to get their privacy. Nobody should be followed by the media. It is a right.
to 10. great deatial supporting your responce and good argument.
to:26
from:19
I disagree with you because no matter who you are you diverse privacy.
2-03: I agree with 2-19 because I think that a law should be used to regulate these people.
2.16 I think that famous people should be able to protect their privacy and same with infamous. The media should be allowed to show the world regular things such as if a famous person wins a grammy , or comes out with a new movie or song, but they should show if their on drugs or pregant. The same thing with infamous. They shouldnt should their privacy cause thats their buisness and their responcibility. The media can be regulated by , someone fileing an complante. Yes, regulation would infrige on the rights of speech. If the media wasn't regulated then every famous and infamous buisness would get out. No they do not serve good purpose. Clearly, you see that my opinon is strong and good deatails and you see why I think what I do about this situation.
2.24 Famous and infamous people should be able to protect their personal people. The media should be allowed to show what they want, but not be able to spy on famous or infamous people. I think the media should be regulated by going to prison if they spy people. If the media isn't regulated famous people could get mad. public access to the lives of infamous people serve to to maybe stop a crime.
2-03 I disagree with 2-26 because people shouldn't have to let everyone know about there personal life.
2.5
Famous and infamous should be able to protect there privacy. What the media should be allowed to show is the important stuff like people being murdered or other important things. They shouldn't be allowed to show things about people that are not important. Public access to lives of famous and infamous does serve a good purpose.
2.1
I think that famous people should be able to protect their personal privacy and infamous people shouldn't be able to. One reason for that is because infamous people know should be watched because there bad and bad people shouldn't be trusted.The reason i think that famous peoples should be able to protect their privacy is because there people like us just are known a lot more.,i think that the media should only be able to show their faces and nothing else.in conclusion yes i do think that public access is a good purpose because we know if there doing something good or bad.
to 28. you have a good idea but your not getting to the point and you need to write more.
#20
I think that an infamous person should have his own privacy. Even though they did do something bad the still have their rights. People like their privacy so you should respect that. Over in all, I think infamous people should still have their privacy.
2.#9
I think yes people famous or not should be able to have there own privacy. The can show there face in like public but like with Eric they are standing in front of his house making a mess and getting in to his personal life.The media shouldn't be able to regulated because what Eric did, yes it is a crime but it is over and this has for my point going on to long. Sure the press is free speech but some times the paper and news is not right. Clearly, there is no purpose of public access, some people like that kind of stuff but Eric doesn't.
2.4 I think famous people should be able to have privacy. I don't think infamous people should have privacy though. The media should be allowed to at least show what the famous people are doing. Regulation would not infringe upon the rights of free speech and freedom of the press. I don't know what could happen if the media wasn't regulated. I think the live of Eric does not serve any good purpose.
2.24 I don't agree with you 2.26 because I think everyone should be able to have some privacy
to:27
from #9
I agree with you because no matter who you are you should be able to have privacy.
2.8 I believe famous people should be able to protect their personal lives. People who spend their time taking pictures of others are trying to demonize (make them look bad)them. Thats not right because they are human like us and make mistakes. Infamous people who commit murder shouldn't be able to be released anyway but if they are they should have a parol officer should meet with them on a regular basis. I don't think it can be regulated now because people will find ways to get around the rules we make.
2.8 I believe famous people should be able to protect their personal lives. People who spend their time taking pictures of others are trying to demonize them (make them look bad) Thats not right because they are human like us and make mistakes. Infamous people who commit murder shouldn't be able to be released anyway but if they are they should have a parol officer that meets with them on a regular basis. I don't think it can be regulated now because people will find ways to get around the rules we make.
to:26
From:#9
Why did you put "world peace"? And i agree with you when you said that if you want to be famous you should know you will get followed because you are famous.
2.24 I agree with you 2.7 if I was famous I'd hate if someone took a horrible picture of me and published it.
Post a Comment