Singer Pink went on a slight tirade on her website today, depicting her frustration with the paparazzi and their obsession with being the first ones to get a picture of her new born daughter Willow, in order to sell the picture to the highest bidder. She explained that despite the fact that she is celebrity, that does not give paparazzi and the public in general the right to obsess over her private life and that she and her daughter are entitled to their privacy. Now, the comments on the article were mixed. While some agreed with Pink, there were others who felt that once you become a celebrity, you relinquish your right to a private life and that that is the price you pay. This is in their eyes, the burden of the beast they have embraced- Fame.

I read the comments and vehemently disagreed with the rationale behind that. So, let me get this straight. If I am a celeb, and my husband and I have a child, that gives the paparazzi, deranged fans and stalkers the right to harass, stalk, and outright ambush me and my family at their leisure? Simply because I sing and dance? The hell it does! Hello! Just because someone is an artist or public figure, and the public supports me and my art, that does not mean that now I have to relinquish my soul to said public. Truth be told, singer Pink and other artists definitely don’t own us an invitation into their private lives and homes. In fact the only thing they do owe us is a continued source of quality entertainment. I don’t understand the logic behind fans who feel justified in thinking that celebs have to accept being accosted by strangers, just because they buy their albums. The fact remains that no one forces you to buy that album. Also, just because you support a celeb it does not mean that you now own them or even a piece of them. That you now should be obligated to their personal lives. Their soul was not a part of that Itunes deal. This said celeb should still be entitled to their own private lives away from the fame, cameras and paparazzi at some point.

New Song: “Do That Beyonce”. Should Beyonce Be insulted?

Pink also made another good point when she mentioned that paparazzi will risk their lives for that thousand dollar shot. Nowadays, not only will they risk their lives, they will also risk the celebs as well! Case in point- Princess Diana. This woman could not even take a good, long, number two in the bathroom without some paparazzi peeking into her bathroom window trying to be the first with pictures of her on the commode.

The bottom line is that as an artist, entertainer, sports figure etc, performing is a job. Although their job does not have the stereotypical 9-5 hours, that does not mean that they should not be allowed their “off” time. Just as we all are allowed our own private lives once we leave the office. How would you like it if you boss started following you around while you were off work, popping up at the mall, watching you from a distance, trying to get a photo opportunity or check to see what you were doing? I think that we often deify these celebs and look to them as some sort of Gods to be worshiped constantly. When in reality they are just people. People who want to have successful careers, provide us with a products, and may even sign autographs at times, and smile for the camera, because that is a part of their job. However, when the camera’s are supposed to be gone, and their should be a time in their lives when the cameras are gone, they should be allowed their peace of mind. It is the one thing that every human being needs for survival.

There also should be limitations to what the paparazzi can and cannot do. I think if their actions were more legalized then there would be less room for anyone to be injured, or stalked for that matter. Don’t get me wrong, I know that some celebs play the paparazzi game where they call them to their particular location for a photo opp. However, I still believe that there should be limitations placed on paparazzi. Especially, if not only, when the celeb’s child is involved. These children did not ask to be born to a celeb parent. They have no understanding of fame or why the strange guy with the camera is hanging outside their school everyday and following mommy. If there cannot be any limitations placed on the celebs and paparazzi’s interaction with them, then there should at least be some in place when it comes to their children’s lives and the interaction paparazzi can have with them.

Pink’s Letter:

Due to the unsettling, surprisingly aggressive and unsafe measures that the paparazzi seem to be willing to go to in order to secure that “first shot” of our daughter–stalking us, chasing us in cars and sitting outside of our home all day and all night, as new parents Carey and I decided that we would release personal photos of our Willow, and donate all of the money to charity.

Like any parents, we believe our little girl deserves the right to have privacy and be protected, but unfortunately, this media climate doesn’t seem to provide for that. [...] In EVERY other country that I recall, children’s faces are blurred out in magazine photos. Why is USA the only country that continues to financially incentivize intrusive paparazzi behavior to capitalize on photos of babies, infants and children? Why is this acceptable to any of us? Why is this even legal? These are questions I ask myself as a new parent. Why are celebrities/public figures having to seek restraining orders to keep strange grown men with still and video cameras from sitting perched outside of their children’s pre-schools and elementary schools, preying on little innocent kids? After all, if a stranger was sitting outside of a school taking photographs of random little girls and boys, wouldn’t he be arrested? Or, at least in Philadelphia, he would have to face a more primal sort of recourse. But because it’s the child of a celebrity, somehow it’s okay? I’m just not sure what is wrong with us as a society, that we do more than tolerate this, but our appetite for it seems insatiable. We buy these pictures. We buy these magazines that publish these paparazzi pictures. WHERE DOES IT STOP?

So when you see our middle fingers up in all of our pictures, now you know the motivation. It’s all we can do to stop images of a newborn baby from being printed without our consent. Can you imagine a world where they would blur out our middle finger to protect a “consumer” over blurring out an innocent child to protect their integrity and privacy?

Here’s the bottom line: we don’t want you to take our little girl’s picture. We don’t want you to one day follow our little girl home from school. We don’t want our little girl’s picture in a magazine or on a blog. If you take or publish her picture, it is against our wishes, and without our consent as parents, as people.

Letter Via: Necole Bitchie