Ok late to the thread and its probably already long left the rails but I'll post anyway.
Question on the table:
Is it moral to seek out and look at pics of celebrities that were made public without their consent?
This is not a question that can be answered in strict black and white yes or no terms. This one is about shades of grey.
If you remove the word celebrities and replace it with 'random anonymous person' then the issue becomes a bit closer to black and white. But that's not the question. The question specifically states celebrities.
So the first order of business is to define the word celebrity. Is that term exclusive to a person who actively sought fame or does it also include those who became household names through no fault or intention of their own? Lots of people know who Jenny McCarthy is and lots of people know who Mary Jo Buttafuoco is but there is definitely a difference there.
So if we're going to limit our definition of celebrity to those who sought fame, then I'm going to lean toward the opinion that it is probably ok to google nude pics of them even if those pics were leaked against their will.
And here's why. Life isn't fair. It isn't even close to fair and no one has ever presented an even remotely plausible case that it should be. If you willingly put yourself out there in the public eye, you willingly waive your right to a completely private life. That's just how it is. And yes that doesn't automatically mean you have to just be ok with the public gaining access to every last orifice of whatever privacy you might have. But it most certainly does mean that because you actively sought out this position in society, you must also accept that you can no longer do all the same things that people who are otherwise not targets get to do.
Whether you seek fame or not, there is always a 100% bulletproof way to make sure nude pics of yourself don't end up on the internet. And that is to never allow anyone to take nude pics of yourself. It really is that simple. So the moment you choose to give up that level of bulletproof protection, you willingly put yourself at risk. No one put a gun to your head. You made that choice on your own. If you also happen to be a person who has actively sought fame, you have just willingly put yourself at significantly greater risk. And again, no one put a gun to your head, you made that choice yourself.
There are TONS of people who do not seek fame and who will therefore never be famous and yet they refuse to allow nude pics or video of themselves to exist for the simple reason that they would not like it if that material were to be made public. Every single celebrity out there has this option readily available to them.
If they willingly choose to ignore that option, they willingly put themselves at risk. So if their nude pics/video ends up posted on the net, I see no moral reason why I shouldn't google it if I'm so inclined.
Question on the table:
Is it moral to seek out and look at pics of celebrities that were made public without their consent?
This is not a question that can be answered in strict black and white yes or no terms. This one is about shades of grey.
If you remove the word celebrities and replace it with 'random anonymous person' then the issue becomes a bit closer to black and white. But that's not the question. The question specifically states celebrities.
So the first order of business is to define the word celebrity. Is that term exclusive to a person who actively sought fame or does it also include those who became household names through no fault or intention of their own? Lots of people know who Jenny McCarthy is and lots of people know who Mary Jo Buttafuoco is but there is definitely a difference there.
So if we're going to limit our definition of celebrity to those who sought fame, then I'm going to lean toward the opinion that it is probably ok to google nude pics of them even if those pics were leaked against their will.
And here's why. Life isn't fair. It isn't even close to fair and no one has ever presented an even remotely plausible case that it should be. If you willingly put yourself out there in the public eye, you willingly waive your right to a completely private life. That's just how it is. And yes that doesn't automatically mean you have to just be ok with the public gaining access to every last orifice of whatever privacy you might have. But it most certainly does mean that because you actively sought out this position in society, you must also accept that you can no longer do all the same things that people who are otherwise not targets get to do.
Whether you seek fame or not, there is always a 100% bulletproof way to make sure nude pics of yourself don't end up on the internet. And that is to never allow anyone to take nude pics of yourself. It really is that simple. So the moment you choose to give up that level of bulletproof protection, you willingly put yourself at risk. No one put a gun to your head. You made that choice on your own. If you also happen to be a person who has actively sought fame, you have just willingly put yourself at significantly greater risk. And again, no one put a gun to your head, you made that choice yourself.
There are TONS of people who do not seek fame and who will therefore never be famous and yet they refuse to allow nude pics or video of themselves to exist for the simple reason that they would not like it if that material were to be made public. Every single celebrity out there has this option readily available to them.
If they willingly choose to ignore that option, they willingly put themselves at risk. So if their nude pics/video ends up posted on the net, I see no moral reason why I shouldn't google it if I'm so inclined.
