When it comes to celebs, you can argue about the meaning of words like “invade” and “privacy,” but stealing someone’s au naturel pix - yeah, that’s an invasion of privacy. Reuters says:
Actress Scarlett Johansson on Wednesday spoke out for the first time since leaked nude photos of her appeared on several websites, saying that being a celebrity does not give others the right to invade her privacy.


Earlier this month, the "Iron Man 2" star joined the growing list of Hollywood celebrities, including "High School Musical" actress Vanessa Hudgens and "Friends With Benefits" star Mila Kunis, who have had private photos leaked online at the hands of hackers.


In an interview with CNN, Johansson said celebrities are no different than anyone else when it comes to the right of privacy.


"Just because you're an actor or make films or whatever doesn't mean you're not entitled to your own personal privacy ... if that is sieged in some way, it feels unjust. It feels wrong," said Johansson.

She’s right. But the point is spoiled by all the celebs who have a much more elastic definition of personal privacy - it’s not the nude photos they object to, it’s the leaked ones - and so the ones who spend all their time hopping up and down shouting LOOK AT ME leads people to assume that all celebs should share everything all the time, and we’re entitled, because we’re fans, and if they don’t, well, what’s so special about them?

Interesting use of "seiged" - most people would say "beseiged." Or most celebs would say "like, annoyed."

Older Post

New Jersey's 'Snooki subsidy' snuffed out

Newer Post

"Shining" sequel news