By Dawn Cranfield
Steven Tyler Appears Before Legislature
Steven Tyler of Aerosmith appeared before the legislature to support a bill named after him. The bill was a direct shot at the legions of fans and the paparazzi who support their need to see celebrities in their normal lives.
“The original bill would give celebrities, or other public figures a means to sue over intrusive pictures or recordings.” (kitv.com)
Tyler appeared to contradict himself when he opined to senators, “Being a personality no matter where we go we get shot, and it’s OK. It’s part of the deal. It kind of drives us crazy. But, as my mom said, ‘You asked for it Steven.’” (kitv.com)
Rhetorically, does he intend to state it is “OK”, or now that he is superbly famous, he does not wish to have his picture snapped incessantly any longer?
Mick Fleetwood also weighed in on the discussion, claiming the pictures of a stars’ private life are “an intrusion, and it’s rude, and it needs to stop.” (kitv.com)
While I understand the desire for a private life, imagine a life without the celebrity du jour caused by the insatiable craving for peeking over the fence at a life unknown. There would be no Kardashian Klan, no Snooki, and no Heidi and Spencer.
Stars would be famous only for their talents and not for anything they have worn, said, ate, slept with, beat up, vacationed, or who they married or divorced. There would be no “OOPS! Accidentally leaked sex tapes!” or “wardrobe malfunctions”, the Rihanna and Chris Brown incident would be private business, and Lindsay Lohan could make all of her court appearances in peace.
The merry-go-round of paparazzi snapping pictures of stars in private is a direct result of the media paying for them, the media pays for them because fans want to see them, the fans want to see them because the stars are famous and loved (or hated as the case may be), and the horses go round and round.
If the stars want the right to sue, they could sue their fans, that will stop them.
2 thoughts on “Steven Tyler Appears Before Legislature”
What legislature is he appearing in front of/ You don’t say in the article.
Ahhh… my mistake. I was actually referencing another very short article where it was never mentioned (except as a caption under a picture), it was the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The original article is linked under mine, and the details can be found by following the link. As with the author of the original article, I found the specific committee to be less relevant than the rest of the information.
Comments are closed.