'If you are in a public space or easily observed from one, or sharing one with someone, you have no right to privacy".
'

Free speech and the law are not in competition; the former only abides via the later. IOW, all things comes under the law - a public figure's rights are also under the law. While one can make comments and take a photograph of a public figure - only when they are in the public domain, as with a public building or a sun set - they cannot assume the law in their hands and do whatever they like.

A public figure does have a right to privacy; one can critique on their public works, such as with a movie star or politician; but one cannot physically touch or slander that person inappropriately and assume no onus from the law. All that has occured with a public figure, is certain assets and their works have fallen into the public domain, and that aside, they have full privacy rights which remain inseperable from one's inalienable human rights.

rstuart,
Thank you for your kind (?) comments (I think?).

A few points that may help you to decide.
• As my nom de plume indicates I try not to preach or convert others to my opinions rather EXAMINE the logic, completeness and context of what is said.
• Therefore they are contextual an attempt to ADD to comments already made .
• Likewise I try to or expand my previous comments on long running variations of the subject. Constant repetition of the same points is tantamount to preaching. Hence when I exhaust a line or its simply causing circular arguments I “END or Bye”

With regard to the issue of children.
• Years ago I was a founding member of a state’s Youth Line. About 40% of the calls were about being teased/bullied or publicly harassed on issues about which they had no control . Often because of someone else’s actions (family members actions was highly represented).
• Anecdotally, I remember talking down a suicide attempt by a 12 yo girl who was being bullied because her father (a high school teacher) had been sprung having an affair with a near 18 yo student (1month short). Was this story public need? Three months later after another distressing burst of publicity she succeeded.
• I have dealt with many other similar calls if less dramatically climactic .

As it would happen (limited experienced councilors) I was also a regular "graveyard shift" councilor (10pm to 7 am a time that received the most traumatic calls) on lifeline too and received a call from the mother. She was falsely accused of knowing and allowing her husband's activities had to move to the city and have longterm professional counselling because the reactions of her neighbours and people in the town.

Most ‘good citizens’ don’t seem to consider the effects (including bullying at school) of such publicity has on the children.
Children tend to reflect family prejudices. You decide which I am Brain explosion or trol. Do let me know what you decide.

IamJoseph, you are absolutely right (in theory) but the reality tends to be somewhat different.
There is a difference between a crowd shot and targeting an individual.
My point is that in PRACTICALLY observance of these rights are being ignored for profit.

Everyone,
Papparatsi should be banned as should the publishing of this type of pap.
It tends to go beyond rights to privacy and into the rights of parents, families and wellbeing of children and associated others.
If you have ever tried to cope with multiple children on or after a long day and how wearing or pressure laden it is, ask a mum. As a (new) parent you are painfully aware of your (self perceived) inadequacies. The last thing you need is public scrutiny or criticism of your parenting skills from the public.
Children learn how and when to pressure parents in public the consequences for the future can be unfortunate.

Average teenagers have enough problems dealing with raging hormones and life without the constant pressure of constant public scrutiny.

Have a look at the child stars and the problems that these pressures have engendered.

Imaging Duchess Fergie’s brood trying to come to grips with constant comment about their weight/looks?

It is ridiculous to try and legislate for all issues but there has to be rational and fair boundaries to the level of the public’s intrusive vicarious voyeurism. The public’s right to know needs definition.
In real terms freedom of the press in this type of intrusion solely to make money and nothing to do with the public’s (it simply doesn’t) need to know. Such issues should be banned unless the parents choose to allow it and then only for that specific circumstance. To do otherwise undermine their parental rights…they have primary responsibility. Would anyone out there tolerate interference in your homes/child raising? I doubt it!