Mass Debate: Team Artest vs Team Weis

[Tuomas]

if you're a celebrity and paparazzis are haunting you, maybe you should look in the mirror because there is a reason for it, for example Michael Jackson's case

[Cameron]

What's the reason for it? Do the paparrazi try and take pictures of every child molester? There should only be one picture taken of them, and that's a mugshot. Same for Michael Jackson or anyone.

[AlwaysWhat,NeverWhy]

The initial evaluation one must make when determining whether or not an action is legitimately criminal, and thus could justifiably be made illegal, is whether the actor violates another individual's property rights. Libertarians refer to this idea as the "non-aggression axiom," a reflection of every individual's natural rights protecting them from involuntary coercive force, the only basis for valid criminality of actions.

In the case of the belligerent paparazzi, one must take note of any violation of the celebrity's property rights, the supposed "victim" of the paparazzi's plot. Contrary to mainstream understanding, harm to an individual does not make a violation of that individual's property inevitable.

For instance, suppose two young men, A and B, are wishing to ask the same young woman out for a date. If young man A asks first and the young woman accepts the invitation, young man B will probably perceive some level of harm. But, were any of young man B's property rights violated? Clearly the answer to this question, assuming no illicit activities or threats took place against young man B, is no.

The paparazzi-celebrity case presents a similar situation as this example. Although a celebrity may feel some level of harm from the acts of the paparazzi, a violation of property rights is not guaranteed. Therefore, one can deduce that an act is only criminal when the harm perceived by the 'unfortunate' party arises out of a violation of that party's property rights.

A common case celebrities present against the paparazzi is that they are guilty of assault. Once again, an analysis of the nature of paparazzi activities is necessary before passing judgment on such an allegation. In accordance with the aforementioned validity of a criminal act bringing harm in conjunction with a property rights violation, in contrast to a non-criminal act wherein harm does not arise from a property rights violation, a clear definition of assault must be constructed. In order for assault, be it physical or verbal, to be legitimately criminal it must pose a threat to violate property rights.

This idea is similar to the distinguishing element between simple blackmail and extortion. Although each act is a threat coupled with a demand, extortion consists of a threat to violate a property right or contract, whereas blackmail poses no such threat. Just as the blackmailer fails to threaten an individual's property rights, the paparazzi, assuming they are not bound by contract, fail to violate any property rights, and hence cannot be justifiably accused of assault.

Another pair of accusations celebrities set forth upon paparazzi relate to ownership. The first, concerning ownership of photos, charges paparazzi with theft on the grounds that individuals own images of themselves. This accusation fails to realize the very basis of property rights. they exist "to allocate ownership of scarce resources to a specified owner…. Thus, it is only things that are scarce… that can be property."

Scarce resources are homesteaded as property to alleviate controversy over their usage and allocation. The fact of the matter is that an image, be it perceived by an individual through their sight or captured in a photograph, does not restrict others from witnessing the same image. An individual cannot have ownership over another individual's senses or abilities to utilize those senses.

Another property issue that celebrities raise against the paparazzi is that photographs occasionally taint the reputations of the individuals they capture. Such allegations acquire popular support, and from time to time favorable judicial verdicts, given the mainstream belief that an individual's reputation is that individual's property. An individual's reputation is, in reality, nothing more than the subjective opinions others hold about that individual, thus an individual has no ownership over their reputation.In light of these ownership clarifications, any attempts to bring the paparazzi before the courts on the basis of theft or damage to an individual's reputation are illegitimate given the fact that, once again, no property rights are violated.


One notices in the analysis of paparazzi and individual property rights that the underlying cause of any debatable occurrence regarding paparazzi activities is a "tragedy of the commons." As is the case with any incident within the arena of public or unowned property, be it public goods or public services, the involved parties in the paparazzi-celebrity case face a conflict of interests. The only clear-cut solution would exist within an absolute free market whereby privatization would alleviate many social disputes and disturbances individuals face today.


PS: Colin, one cannot base the entire fabric and run of this world on 'ethics'. That's why Law is there. To define 'ethics' and preserve them from violation. And as I have repeatedly stated in this debate, the Law DOES NOT agree with the statement ' Paparazzi go too far '. That must say something, no?

[Cameron]

Jae, can we have a max post size limit for these debates? I didn't think in real debates you were allowed to talk endlessly without giving people a chance to argue your points.

Dweaver, being a 17 year old who got an 84 in gr 12 english (although the teacher was a jerk) I clearly lack the ability to write arguments so intellectual that they become almost totally incomprehendible to anyone to doesn't have a degree in law or the patience to read them over a few times. However, I'm going to attempt to argue the general concept of your post, as I took it.

It seems that basically you're just trying to show that the paparazzi aren't breaking any laws, by showing that what the celebrities claim as violations aren't really against the law. The issue I have with this is that the purpose of the debate is an opinionative on whether or the paparazzi "go too far". Obviously, breaking laws could probably be considered as going too far. But I really think that the two are totally separate. I mean, lets say you were late for work and sped 10km/h over the limit. It's against the law, but is it going too far to attain your needs, in this case getting to work on time? I don't think so.

In the case of the paparazzi, sure what they're doing (for the most part) is law-abiding. The thing is, I know if I had someone following me around taking pictures, after a while, I would call the cops on them. Even so, this is also besides the point.

The point is really that when the paparazzi become more than just photographers and really become disruptions in people's lives, then the have gone too far, period.

[AlwaysWhat,NeverWhy]

Dweaver, being a 17 year old who got an 84 in gr 12 english (although the teacher was a jerk) I clearly lack the ability to write arguments so intellectual that they become almost totally incomprehendible to anyone to doesn't have a degree in law or the patience to read them over a few times.

In my book, a 17 year old native English speaker should be at just about the same level of language comprehension and usage as a 24 year old European, non-native English speaker, with a mother tongue of his own that has little or nothing to do with the Latin language, which is the mother of most European tongues. With that aside, I respect your wishes and will leave this now to my teammates to follow. If anything interesting pops up, I'll join in, and I'll try to keep it simple.

[Cameron]

Meh, I understand English. You're writing law-y stuff though. Notice I said I wouldn't be able to write it, not read it.

In my book

Your book would be long and hard to understand.

Anyways, this debate's winner is going to be decided by a vote, most of those who are voting considting of 13-16 year old males who probably don't read anything other than NLSC (no offense anyone) so you would probably want to cater your posts to them anyway.

I'm not trying to get you to stop posting... I respect your arguing ability, I just wanted you to keep them a tad shorter is all

[AlwaysWhat,NeverWhy]

Your book would be long and hard to understand.

Those are the ones that provide the greater amount of satisfaction once you're done with the last page .

[The X]

sorry to but in and I won't post again and not to help either side in the debate, but I have no problems understanding exactly where he's coming from....

then again I did a couple of law subjects in my business degrees

[Cameron]

Anyways, this debate's winner is going to be decided by a vote, most of those who are voting considting of 13-16 year old males who probably don't read anything other than NLSC

I'm assuming you don't fit this category the X, you're a cool guy.

Didn't mean to get everyone off on such a tangent... lets stick with the debate topic

[Colin]

Libertarians refer to this idea as the "non-aggression axiom," a reflection of every individual's natural rights protecting them from involuntary coercive force, the only basis for valid criminality of actions.

Great, an axiom. Does this have a point or are you justy trying to seem more educated than the rest of us.

For instance, suppose two young men, A and B, are wishing to ask the same young woman out for a date. If young man A asks first and the young woman accepts the invitation, young man B will probably perceive some level of harm. But, were any of young man B's property rights violated? Clearly the answer to this question, assuming no illicit activities or threats took place against young man B, is no.

What you said is true; however, that is not what paparazzi do. Had person A broke onto the property of person B and taken unflattering photographcs of him, then showed them to the girl to get her to go out with him instead, then[i] it would be like what the paparazzi do. As it stands your comment is not relevant. You may say that taking those pictures is "illicit activities or threats", but then that would render your previous statements about the paparazzi being within the bounds of the law false. That would be contradictory.

PS: Colin, one cannot base the entire fabric and run of this world on 'ethics'. That's why Law is there. To define 'ethics' and preserve them from violation. And as I have repeatedly stated in this debate, the Law DOES NOT agree with the statement ' Paparazzi go too far '. That must say something, no?

Speaking of contradictions...

So what you are saying here is that this world cannot be controlled and policed by 'ethics'. But then you say that law's define ethics. Wouldn't that therefore mean that [i]the laws were based on ethics? Just a thought.

Paparazzi should just leave the celebrities alone when they're trying to relax and be normal for a while. They have no right to be snapping pictures while these celebrities are at home on their property. That's a space for you to do whatever you want. The same thing applies in crimminal investigations (using the law against the lawyer? It can't be done!) The police cannot simply break into a person's home and take evidence. The same way paparazzi should not be able to just take pictures of them doing whatever on their property without being invited.

[AlwaysWhat,NeverWhy]

Okay, since you're making this personal, I'm unretiring myself temporarily. and I'll try to keep this simple,as requested...

First of all, this is a DEBATE. You know, DEBATE... As you might have notices, this sentence is the first one of mine that includes teh word 'you'. In a debate one is supposed to defend his side of the story, rather than trying to attack the opposed debater. What is all this crap about law-talk, trying to prove my higher education, blah-blah shit? Stick to the topic, and if you do not understand something I have written, ask me about it and I will clarify things...

Great, an axiom. Does this have a point or are you justy trying to seem more educated than the rest of us.

I would use a question mark at the end of that sentence. But wait, no, that would make me look more educated, right?
In addition, 'axiom' is a Greek word, and I happen to be Greek, whether you were informed of that or not. So let's just say that I heve heard that word a few more times than you have. Guess that makes me more educated again, no?

Had person A broke onto the property of person B and taken unflattering photographcs of him, then showed them to the girl to get her to go out with him instead, then[i] it would be like what the paparazzi do.

What kind of nonsensical nonsense is this? Are you trying to say that the sole purpose of the paparazzi is to take photos of celebrities, sell them to a mag, then provide the 'appropriate' caption, in order to destroy their subjects' lives??? Are you serious? The man is a working professional. He is asked to provide pictures by his employer, and he does so, using whatever means he deems appropriate. Since when have paparazzi become evil people who intentionally seek to destroy people's reputation? This argument of yours does not stand on solid ground,mate.

So what you are saying here is that this world cannot be controlled and policed by 'ethics'. But then you say that law's define ethics. Wouldn't that therefore mean that [i]the laws were based on ethics? Just a thought.

Ethics are created in the hearts and minds of individuals ---> The majority of individuals who share similar ethics comes together , joined by similarity and the common purpose to protect their ethics ----> they need to create a social structure where people who violate those ethics are punished accordingly ----> Rules are created,non-written ones at the beginning ----> Those rules change along with time ----> when those rules mature enough, they are being written down thus acquiring formal substance ----> Written rules taht stay written for a substantial amount of time turn into LAWS, meant to preserve the original ethics. THE END. Which part of this whole process did you not understand?

Paparazzi should just leave the celebrities alone when they're trying to relax and be normal for a while. They have no right to be snapping pictures while these celebrities are at home on their property.

Oh God. Paparazzi this, Paparazzi that, yhey are the scum of the world, they should be burned at the stake, blah-blah-blah... Have you even read what I wrote before? Why do you keep staring at the tree forgetting that there is a forrest surrounding it? The main issue here is MEDIA INTRUSION... read my aforeposted 'essay' again and you'll see what I'm getting at here.

[Colin]

First of all, this is a DEBATE. You know, DEBATE... As you might have notices, this sentence is the first one of mine that includes teh word 'you'. In a debate one is supposed to defend his side of the story, rather than trying to attack the opposed debater.

Sorry, I've never been in a formal debate. And I wasn't 'attacking' you, see the end of the post for details on that.

Since when have paparazzi become evil people who intentionally seek to destroy people's reputation? This argument of yours does not stand on solid ground,mate.

The more "damaging" the photo, the more they get paid. They are all trying to get the most controversial and reputation-destroying pictures they can. Sure there are some pictures that aren't reputation-destroying that fetch high prices. For example wedding photos. But to get those, paparazzi have to break into the ceremony.

Ethics are created in the hearts and minds of individuals ---> The majority of individuals who share similar ethics comes together , joined by similarity and the common purpose to protect their ethics ----> they need to create a social structure where people who violate those ethics are punished accordingly ----> Rules are created,non-written ones at the beginning ----> Those rules change along with time ----> when those rules mature enough, they are being written down thus acquiring formal substance ----> Written rules taht stay written for a substantial amount of time turn into LAWS, meant to preserve the original ethics. THE END. Which part of this whole process did you not understand?

You seem to be the one who can't understand it. You said that "one cannot base the entire fabric and run of this world on 'ethics'", yet you just explained for me how the laws are based on ethics.

Oh God. Paparazzi this, Paparazzi that, yhey are the scum of the world, they should be burned at the stake, blah-blah-blah... Have you even read what I wrote before? Why do you keep staring at the tree forgetting that there is a forrest surrounding it? The main issue here is MEDIA INTRUSION... read my aforeposted 'essay' again and you'll see what I'm getting at here.

No the issue here is "Media intrusion, do the paparazzi go too far?", so that is why we are talking about the paparazzi. The opening post states this clearly.

As for the "personal" attacks you claim I made. I guess the purpose wasn't evident to you...
I am aware of the term axiom, I am not insulting you for having a higher education. I am wondering why you threw that in. It really doesn't explain anything, it only makes you look like you're more educated. But wait-didn't you say "I'll try to keep it simple".
Oh and I'm sorry I had a typo. I guess keyboarding skills are evident of ones knowledge. I shouldn't have missed that huge distance between the period and question mark key.

[AlwaysWhat,NeverWhy]

And I wasn't 'attacking' you, see the end of the post for details on that.

No sweat.]

The more "damaging" the photo, the more they get paid. They are all trying to get the most controversial and reputation-destroying pictures they can. Sure there are some pictures that aren't reputation-destroying that fetch high prices. For example wedding photos. But to get those, paparazzi have to break into the ceremony.

True, but their own individual purpose is not to damage their 'subjects', just to make more money. That is the thin line you do not seem to grasp...

You said that "one cannot base the entire fabric and run of this world on 'ethics'", yet you just explained for me how the laws are based on ethics.

"one cannot base the entire fabric and run of this world on 'ethics' ". This I said. The point was that ethics, as stand alone rules, cannot have the official stature needed to make people adjust their actions accordingly.LAWS DO. Yes, ethics are the deep emotional and sentimental base of this world, but alone they simply cannot cut the mustard. They need the acknowledgement and support of laws to achieve that.

No the issue here is "Media intrusion, do the paparazzi go too far?", so that is why we are talking about the paparazzi. The opening post states this clearly.

Media intrusion=General Issue , Do the paparazzi go too far= Specific Issue, part of the General Issue. When a debate topic is formulated and presented as such, this is how it should be analyzed. I do not know if Jae had that in mind when he posted it, but me, having been in debates, took it by the letter.

It really doesn't explain anything, it only makes you look like you're more educated. But wait-didn't you say "I'll try to keep it simple".

Maybe it's because I said I'll keep it simple after my 'axiom' post. Dunno, maybe that makes it clearer...

I guess keyboarding skills are evident of ones knowledge. I shouldn't have missed that huge distance between the period and question mark key.

Well, considering you have to keep the SHIFT key pressed to get that question mark symbol up, maybe you are correct...

[Colin]

True, but their own individual purpose is not to damage their 'subjects', just to make more money. That is the thin line you do not seem to grasp...

It doesn't matter if it's not their purpose, they still do it. Manslaughter may not be murder, but it's still a serious crime. Not to say a damaged image is the same as a death, it's just a comparison.

Media intrusion=General Issue , Do the paparazzi go too far= Specific Issue, part of the General Issue. When a debate topic is formulated and presented as such, this is how it should be analyzed. I do not know if Jae had that in mind when he posted it, but me, having been in debates, took it by the letter.

Regardless, it's not like I keep bringing paparazzi into this out of the blue, it is in the title.

I really have nothing else to say that wouldn't just be grinding my argument into the ground. The paparazzi go too far.

[AlwaysWhat,NeverWhy]

Manslaughter may not be murder, but it's still a serious crime.

I was under the impression that , legally, it's the same thing. Here in Greece, anyway. Maybe in English-speaking countries the terms are differentiated...

I really have nothing else to say that wouldn't just be grinding my argument into the ground. The paparazzi go too far.

If only my colleagues kept their closing arguments that simple... Then half the people in the courtroom would actually be awake to hear the verdict

Closing statement: The paparazzi do not go too far, but even if they did, there are greater issues to pay attention to before we start gagging certain aspects of the press, because it just might come back to haunt our vaunted freedom of information. And that, as they say, is that.

Awaiting the jurors' decision...

[Colin]

In the States and Canada
murder = pre-meditated (ie. you stalked someone home from work and killed them)
manslaughter = accidental (ie. took a corner in your car too fast and hit someone)

Closing statement: The paparazzi need to respect the celebrities privacy and property. As Jowe pointed out "If [it] looks like stalking, smells like stalking, it is stalking." These people are destroying people's reputations, and whether it's their sole purpose does not matter, only the result of their actions matter. The fact that through this legal loophole something that is normally a crime is considered legal is reason enough to realize that the paparazzi do go too far.

[Jowe]

The initial evaluation one must make when determining whether or not an action is legitimately criminal, and thus could justifiably be made illegal, is whether the actor violates another individual's property rights. Libertarians refer to this idea as the "non-aggression axiom," a reflection of every individual's natural rights protecting them from involuntary coercive force, the only basis for valid criminality of actions. etc etc etc ........

You took your whole post from the net you dipshit.

http://www.mises.org/story/1366

[AlwaysWhat,NeverWhy]

Yes I did. I studied Mattei's texts back at Uni. Couldn't have put it better myself... Is there a clause that prevents us from using other people's words in this debate. Lawyers do it all the time, without quoting the original. If there was a rule in this task against it, I was not aware of it...

[Jackal]

You took your whole post from the net you dipshit.

http://www.mises.org/story/1366

When Lanky Man did it, it was to be expected. But Dweaver? The Lawyer?

Post. Of. The. Year.

[Cameron]

Shut up, retard. You're not in court

It totally nullifies your posts, if you just copy what people say. Every other post in the debate is distinctly individual. Anyone can just copy a webpage, there's no skill involved.

And yes, it's called copyright. Quotes are quotes.

[AlwaysWhat,NeverWhy]

And yes, it's called copyright. Quotes are quotes.

I was told to present a case, and I did. Just as I would in real life. If I broke some NRS debate rules, then I take the blame. The rest of teh Weis team had nothing to do with my post selection. 'Quotes' are necessary only in print. In a debate, which is supposed to be verbal, you can say pretty much everything. No one copyrights sound. Anyway, if I offended anyone by this, then I sincerely regret this.

[IronMan]

So music has no copyright laws...

[J@3]

The initial evaluation one must make when determining whether or not an action is legitimately criminal, and thus could justifiably be made illegal, is whether the actor violates another individual's property rights. Libertarians refer to this idea as the "non-aggression axiom," a reflection of every individual's natural rights protecting them from involuntary coercive force, the only basis for valid criminality of actions. etc etc etc ........

You took your whole post from the net you dipshit.

http://www.mises.org/story/1366

Lol! That's gotta hurt.

[Jowe]

Yes I did. I studied Mattei's texts back at Uni. Couldn't have put it better myself... Is there a clause that prevents us from using other people's words in this debate. Lawyers do it all the time, without quoting the original. If there was a rule in this task against it, I was not aware of it...

Actually. They don't just steal other peoples statements word for word and claim them as theirs. When lawyers or any otehr profession use material, they have to reference it, by the original author, date, paragraph etc etc.

Erich Mattei is an economics major at Loyola University of New Orleans.

He's still in university and he has a text book out?