Kristen Bell, Dax Shepard call for boycott of celeb mags that show kids’ pictures

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Kristen Bell and Dax Shepard welcomed their first child, daughter Lincoln, about 10 months ago. I believe they live in the same gated community as Justin Bieber, as they’ve said in the past that the parties at Bieber’s house can be loud. (Or maybe one of them has moved since.) So they live in a paparazzi zone, and they’re very aware of it.

The couple has not posted any photos of their daughter on social media, nor have they shared a photo in an interview, as some celebrities do. Paparazzi recently caught the first image of Dax and Kristen out with Lincoln. (I saw the photos and you can clearly see the baby’s face.) In response, Kristen and Dax sent a series of tweets asking consumers to boycott magazines that run paparazzi photos of celebrities’ children. The couple also pledged to not do interviews with those magazines.

 

This morning The Today Show aired a pre-taped interview with Dax and Kristen in which they explained their position on paparazzi photos of children and how they hoped to make a difference. That video is above and here are some quotes:

Kristen Bell: We’re not saying that we can’t be newsworthy, we’re saying that our child is not newsworthy.

Dax Sheard: We have chosen this life and that’s why we’re not asking you to boycott magazines that we are in. We’re asking you to boycott the magazines where the people haven’t made that choice.

I would draw a distinction between a parent taking a picture of their child in their home while playing and putting it on Twitter than five strangers jumping out of your bushes. You’re in control in one situation.

Kristen: It’s all how the child is affected. That’s the bottom line.

If the consumer says ‘no, we don’t want this anymore,’ the publications don’t pay for the pictures, the paparazzi aren’t getting paid, they stop taking pictures of the kids. That’s the mathematics.

[From The Today Show, video above]

I went into this prepared to roll my eyes, but Kristen and Dax made some good points. We have no idea what it’s like for these celebrities who get followed with their kids. We don’t know how scary it is for their kids. I’m sure it’s worse for the more famous people, and the people who live in certain neighborhoods. And just like kids in reality shows, the kids don’t give consent for this.

As the Today segment mentioned, Halle Berry and Jennifer Garner testified in front of the California State Assembly last year on behalf of an anti-paparazzi bill protecting children. The bill was made into law in September and has stricter penalties for anyone who “seriously alarms, annoys, torments or terrorizes a child.” The law just went into effect January 1, and I don’t believe anyone has been charged under the new law yet.

While there are definitely countless situations where families are harassed by paparazzi, there are many other cases where celebrities, particularly reality stars and less famous people, benefit from paparazzi photos of their kids and welcome them. There are many staged photo ops. I would say that maybe a distinction could be made between kids stalked by photographers seeking candids and parents who call the paparazzi to document an outing. In Dax and Kristen’s view, that doesn’t seem to matter because it’s the kids who are affected, and the kids don’t have a say.

Practically though, how would this boycott work? Even People Magazine uses paparazzi photos of children in stories. Unless we’re refusing to buy any celebrity magazines at all, it doesn’t seem possible. I think the solution would be a legislative one, something that has more teeth than the recent law.

Update: Dax also has an essay about this, in The Huffington Post. I found it through Lainey Gossip, and Lainey points out that even Huffpo has a celebrity baby section, where they post paparazzi photos. Dax addresses some of the arguments against his position. As for people who call the paps on their own kids, he writes “It’s a vile notion, and I’m happy to say none of our actor friends do this. But if you really believe this happens, isn’t that all the more reason to boycott? Don’t you want to take that option away from those vomitus parents?

'Hit & Run' Los Angeles Premiere

The 70th Annual Golden Globe Awards in LA

2014 Variety Breakthrough Of The Year Awards

photo credit: WENN.com and FameFlynet

Related stories

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

89 Responses to “Kristen Bell, Dax Shepard call for boycott of celeb mags that show kids’ pictures”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Erinn says:

    I agree. In no context should a child of celebrities be hounded by photogs. It’s creepy, it’s insensitive, and it’s just wrong.

    Look how people are ripping on North; saying she’s ugly, etc etc. That’s a perfect case of being punished for who her parents are.

    There is absolutely no situation where it is right to judge the way that people like to judge celebrities.

    • HappyMom says:

      But who is putting photos of North out there? Her own mother.

      • Erinn says:

        Very true. Maybe not a good example – I was mainly using it for the recent vitriol that was spewed over that baby -, but the same thing happens with kids that have been papped. People start commenting on the looks of the kids, how they’re acting and so on.

    • IzzyB says:

      I agree. Dax and Kristen are trying to give their child a normal upbringing away from paparazzi and pre-judgement based on her parents. I wish them the best of luck.

      I’ve never been interested in celebrity children. When they turn 18 and decide to publish a tell all or follow in their parents footsteps, I might start to get interested.

      Why is everyone so obsessed with these children?

      • Mitch Buchanan Rocks! says:

        I think maybe this could be applied to the celebrity baby blogs as well? These kids are too young to choose if they want their childhood moments blogged about to the public.

    • Nighty says:

      I so much agree with her… Photos of kids shouldn’t be posted. Here in Portugal, if they photograph famous people and their kids, they always, always blur the kids faces to prevent recognition from schoolmates to crazy people….

  2. Kiddo says:

    I don’t think there should be legislation. That said, the magazines themselves shouldn’t buy the photos. But in all honesty, I’ve never seen a pic with these people and their kids.

    Who still buys magazines?

    • Lori says:

      I know…………who buys magazine’s anymore. That’s what the internet is for.

    • Zwella Ingrid says:

      It seems to me that celebrities who don’t want pictures of their kids published are able to keep a low profile. There are celebrities that rarely if ever have their children photographed. That leads me to believe that most paparazzi attention (for celebrity’s children) is secretly solicited by the celebrities themselves. Certainly not in every case, but often.

      • Jill says:

        Agreed. For example I have no idea what Christian Bale’s kid looks like. I’ve never sought that out, but I also read quite a few entertainment blogs and still haven’t ever come across one. I know he has a kid, but that’s all.

        Keeping this info to a minimum is not that hard. Don’t be a famewhore. THAT is the absolute best place to start when trying to protect your kid.

      • Kate says:

        Agree, also why don’t the public/fans boycott all the celebrities who call the paps

  3. eliza says:

    Do this mean the Patron Saint of Celebrity Ass kissing, People magazine, is included in this boycott because in their front section they often have pap shots of celebrities with their children featured. There were several during the holidays.

    • Chalky says:

      Absolutely not. Just as there will be no call by Dax and Christine to boycott celebs that solicit these magazines specifically to showcase their children for $$ and publicity when it suits their purpose. Apparently, this is some sort of myth some people believe because none of Dax’s celeb friends do it.

      While I think children should NOT be fair game with the paps, there is plenty of self-serving hypocrisy among the very people calling for boycotts and legislation…looking at you Halle Berry.

      • HappyMom says:

        +1000000000000

      • eliza says:

        Thank you.!!!!!!! Up votes for you!

        The Affleck’s are also prime offenders. They pearl clutch when they have no movie to promote or awards season in which Ben is a contender, but watch out for them to roll out those kids when it serves their purposes.

        Anyone who thinks these paps just happen to be staked out 24/7 at these random places are quite naive. These shots are mostly thoughtfully crafted PR schemes to keep the popular celebs front and center.

      • Liv says:

        Yep, I find it so ridiculous when Jennifer Garner tries to make a point to protect her kids. It’s like Shia LeBeouf is rooting for non-violent behavior or something. Besides people like Streep and Blanchett and Roberts prove that you can raise your children without appearing every week in the outlets. Even the Jolie-Pitts are rarely papped, although I pity them the most for being harassed by paps.

  4. Lori says:

    Why are they not rallying other celebrities to stop selling baby photos? Why are they not tweeting about those celebs that sell newborn photos etc etc that have created this market. I personally don’t buy mags with baby photos on the cover. I’m not supporting that market at all. I’m not supporting someone who purposefully pimps their baby. But There’s no way for me to know as a consumer which parents are pimping and which ones are being invaded in candid shots. Legalisation that requires the blurring out of children’s faces if there is no parental consent for the photo makes more sense.

    • Marty says:

      Dax doesn’t really believe that there are actual celebrities who pimp their kids and lives like that.

      • Lori says:

        Maybe he’s just confused about which hand actually feeds. There seems to be a common thread amongst celebs to not rock each other’s boats because they may need/have to work together at some point. But they don’t give much credit to the actual consumer who pays to see their work..

      • Marty says:

        Then he’s being naive, or just plain lying. I absolutely agree with their core message, I just think this “don’t but these magazines” is pretty low-brow. They are putting all the responsibility on the dealers and none on the suppliers. And yes, it is easier for them to go for the magazines who buy the photos instead of the A-listers who sell them. I just think it’s a bit of taking the easy road, you know?

      • please no says:

        celebrities pimp their kids and thats a fact dax. and then we have the american baby fetishing celebrity worshiping bread & circus. its an industry and the dealer blaming the junky for him having to keep dealing and making money is just hilarious. stfu jax.

    • VON says:

      This is an excellent point, Lori. There needs to be accountability from the people who are making this arrangement so common and lucrative. The worst offender is Allyson Hannigan. She papps her kids all the time.

      Does anyone know specifically what are the rules that the Daily Mail uses for photos of celebrity kids? Sometimes the child’s face is digitized out, but at other times it’s not. Sometimes the same child’s face is blurred in on instance, but not another. Is it a press rule in the UK or something coming from the photos agencies.

      • mom2two says:

        I wonder the same thing about the Daily Mail. Lori, blurring out the photo of the child sounds like a great solution. I don’t blame Dax and Kristen for speaking out on this issue and I agree with them, the child of the celebrity is not asking to be famous and therefore should be excluded from pap photos based on the fact they are a child.
        And there is the issue of the celebs who do call the paps even when they are with their child/ren. I don’t know which celeb parents do that and which ones don’t.

      • MynameisPeaches! says:

        It has to do with the photo agencies. Some of the photo agencies blur the children’s faces others don’t. The Mail Online just buys the photos from the agencies. So it’s nothing to do with the Mail Onlineall. You can see wwhich agencies do blur the faces by looking at the picture credits.

      • Roberta says:

        It’s the law in the UK for childrens’ privacy to be protected: J K Rowling sued after her son’s photo was published in 2008, which is why you see the kids faces blurred in UK publications.

    • QQ says:

      THIS Lori!! How about; Are you gonna gather the Garners, Albas and other celebrity mom complex ladies and c-d listers and tell them to cut out the crap and the “baby’s first cover” stuff?? Cause that is where this is coming from, the whole inviting US weekly to you vaginal cavity, birth, 1st steps etc etc, and these are her peers playing into their cute kids whenever it suits their publicity purposes

    • Kali says:

      I guess it’s easier to say mags are bad as opposed to making Joe and Jane Public aware as to how actively many celebrities participate in the “machine”. Plus they could potentially burn a lot of bridges if they start calling out some of the egregious offenders.

    • don't kill me i'm french says:

      In France,the kids’s faces are pixelled in the paps’s pics: it’s the law

      • bsh says:

        Same in Italy, although, if you are voluntarily releasing an interview/photo-spread which features your kids, they will show their face. But if a celebrity is papped with her/his children, their faces must be blurred out by law.

  5. Marty says:

    This is an eyeroll because they are being hypocritical. Kristen says she’s passionate and cares more about her family then her career? Well, why are she and Dax still living and working in Hollywood? Many celebrities are still able to work without living in L.A.

    Dax also wrote a piece for The Huffington Post about this, even though THP has their own “celebrity babies” section. Hypocritical.

    • dizzylucy says:

      They both are on television shows that film in Los Angeles (I think), so it’s not like someone who only does movies and can have a home base outside of the LA area.

      • Erinn says:

        This. And maybe they like LA. Just because they try to prioritize family doesn’t mean they should have to move if they don’t want to.

      • Marty says:

        Yes, true. But she specifically states that she is doing this boycott because she cares MORE about her family then her career. So if that statement is true, why wouldn’t you take your child out of that enviorment. Even moving just somewhere else in California other than L.A.? It just doesn’t make sense that she make that kind of statement but still live in an enviorment that promotes the very thing she is against.

    • jj says:

      There are many celebs who live in LA and they keep their private lives away from paps. Living and working in Hollywood does not automatically make you a hypocrite.

    • Pumpkin Pie says:

      No, having your under-age children papped does not come with the actor territory. Dax and Kristen are not hypocritical. They can choose and I think they are making the right choice. Then there is a difference between the “celebrities” that call the paps, and those who don’t.
      Regarding the Jennifer Garner and Hale Barry bill, I don’t find them hypocritical either. They want to make it illegal to photograph (an actor’s) child in a way that brings them serious discomfort – “alarms, annoys, torments orterrorizes” them – see the Dax essay. And they are RIGHT. It’s one thing to call the paps when you go to the park, and another one to pass through the airport with paps screaming at you and you small child, using strong flashes etc. I think they are talking from experience. I would find it annoying myself, as an adult.
      So, Dax and Kristen want to PROTECT their daughter. OK, Marty?

  6. GMarchetti says:

    Do paparazzi really follow these two?

  7. Lucinda says:

    Nice idea but boycotts seldom work. I’m not blaming them for this situation but since their life has changed, perhaps they should move to a different neighborhood. People, ordinary people, make those kinds of changes all the time once they have children.

  8. Anon says:

    Denise Richards looked stressed out (the DM claimed it was just CS making her tired and stressed) while out with her oldest daughters, wanna bet the paps were screaming things at her and her girls?

  9. April says:

    She should also be asking people to boycott the celebrity baby websites..

  10. merski says:

    While I generally agree that kids should never be papped, some of this smells of terrible hypocrisy.
    I just can’t help but roll my eyes at Jennifer Garner weeping at a court hearing about her children’s privacy. Because when it’s time for her husband to pimp out his new movie and hustle for an Oscar, somehow there are suddenly thousands of photo-ops with their children to show what a happy family they are.
    They generally do have a point. But let’s not just blame the consumer or the paps. There is a bigger problem here. Why not point fingers at your fellow actors since you’re being so brave and idealistic?

    • Deehunny says:

      ITA. And anyway, who are these ppl? They are stirring up controversy to stay relevant themselves…

  11. Talie says:

    They seem to gloss over the everyday reality that it was B/C List celebrities who created this industry to stay relevant and continue to set up photo-ops.

    • Tania says:

      YES!! These actresses have turned their babies into an industry!! They use photos of themselves out with their children to promote their family/wholesome image, or to promote the lifestyle brand they are shilling. It’s disgusting.

  12. ValerieM says:

    The whole celebrity give and take around child photos seems to have become a way to market fame now. It’s tacky, but I don’t think having a posed family picture in People magazine is going to traumatize a child. The trouble is it doesn’t stop there. I was appalled when I saw that video of the pap hurling insults at Suri Cruise, calling her a brat and a bitch because she wouldn’t turn around and pose for him. She’s not a celebrity, but this creep was going on about her fans and how she was obligated to please them. That kind of thing can do tremendous harm, to a child or an adult, especially if it’s happening all the time. And you can’t tell by looking at the pictures what kind of situation the subject is actually in. They just put on the shades, keep their heads down, and pretend it’s not happening because they come to know that ugly reaction shots will always be used against them. Which also makes the pictures that much more valuable so the photographers crank up the insults. Paps are not polite, they are not considerate, and many of them will do ANYTHING for a picture, including become completely uncivilized. I think celebrities should start filming the paps. I suspect we’d be watching a far more vulgar and offensive sight then we realize.

    • jaye says:

      You are 100% right, but I would still open 4 cans of whoop ass if anyone called my kid a bitch. Unflattering photos be damned.

  13. LAK says:

    I agree with them. Can we sue on Suri Cruise’s behalf? The way that particular child was hounded was criminal and I don’t care that the parents were in on it.

  14. Algernon says:

    I don’t care about anyone’s kids, but I do think stalking celebrity kids is creepy and weird (mostly because I don’t like kids and I don’t get the charm of gazing upon walking snot factories). But that problem is largely on the celebrities who sell their kids out and the people who consume the images. Celebrity baby culture is a huge business and the magazines/blogs are just the way station on the supply and demand chain.

    Honestly I feel like this is a ploy for attention. They’re not selling their kid out, but they’re still using their kid to garner attention. There are plenty of celebrity parents who don’t feed the celebrity baby mill but also don’t make a big thing of it when their kids get photographed. I know I have seen photos of Liev Schreiber and Naomi Watts’ kids, but I couldn’t tell you how many they have, their genders or their names. Ditto for Cate Blanchett and Rachel Weisz.

    It just seems inherently hypocritical. “We don’t want you to pay attention to us, but pay attention to us!” Also, their target audience for this is fellow (sympathetic) parents and these are the people who will cluck their tongues and say, “They’re right, the poor children,” and then turn around buy a copy of InStyle Magazine’s special Celebrity Baby Nurseries edition and post opinions on mommy blogs about the Jolie-Pitt kids.

    Basically them calling for this boycott is not going to do anything. Except get them more attention than they’ve had recently.

    • Virgilia Coriolanus says:

      I don’t get how the kids of celebs are that popular. I mean, if I see a pic with a celeb kid, I might say something like they’re cute, or if it’s been a while, I’ll say they got big–other than that? I would have no problem, feel no ‘loss’ if I never saw another pic of a celeb kid, or, better yet, only saw pics of the celebs on the rc.

      As a sidenote–I saw this pap video of these paps talking about Leonardo Dicaprio. This was from when he was w/Bar though–they said that the pics with Leo at the LA basketball games were probably worth the most, because that was the only time they could ever get him. Whenever he goes out and he sees them, he always covers his face, and when he’s promoting his films, he always tries to stay in NY–so they can’t get his picture.

  15. Sam says:

    While I can agree with some of his points, I think these two play both sides. They’ve both talked extensively about their daughter in interviews and used the “new parent” angle to promote their careers. So they want to use their daughter, but it seems like they want it on their terms. I compare them to somebody like Evan Rachael Wood, who really is against her kid being in the public eye. All we know is that she had a boy. No pics, no nothing. She won’t even discuss him in interviews – all she says when people ask is “he’s fine” or “he’s doing well.” She gives no details. He’s simply not a part of her public persona. I can respect that fully. But these two want their daughter to be a part of the public persona while having full control over that persona, and that smells slightly like trying to reap the benefits of being celebrity parents without the attendant burdens.

    I also think that people need to be very clear about what “hounding” by the paparazzi means. There’s stuff that’s clearly out of line – car chases, screaming at kids to get reactions, getting in people’s faces, etc. But simply taking a picture from across the street or down the block? I’m not sure. I find that I often can’t tell what behavior people are referring to.

    • The Original Mia says:

      All of this!

    • IzzyB says:

      I think it’s ok for them to say that they’re enjoying being parents and that it’s affected them, every new parent I know wants to talk about it a bit. They didn’t say anything really personal about their daughter, and I think that they still have the right to keep her protected and away from the spotlight.

      • Sam says:

        They have people to talk about it with. Friends. Family – you know, the usual suspects. They are sharing the details of her life with the general public – something most people don’t do. And my whole point is that they aren’t keeping her out of the public eye. They talk about her at length. They want to control what aspects of her life become public and which don’t – and I think that’s having your cake and eating it too. They want to generate interest but then act mad if that interest oversteps the bounds they personally set.

    • Zwella Ingrid says:

      Thanks Sam. Well put.

  16. knuckles says:

    I’d take this a lot more seriously if these two were actually A-list and didn’t live in California. Not to mention how much they like to share their personal lives on twitter. Seems like they want to have their cake and eat it too.

  17. V says:

    I think actions speak louder than words. I know many parents who’ve moved to protect their children and they don’t have the amount of money that celebrities do. If they move out of LA, I’d be more inclined to believe that they truly are thinking of their child.

  18. EammesP says:

    I don’t know what it is, but I really can’t stand Kristen Bell. I think she tries so incredibly hard to come off as unaffected and everything about her seems so disingenuous and calculated.

  19. Marianne says:

    But will Jen and Ben do when they’re oscar campaigning? They need to sell you the “We’re a happy family” photo-op.

    Listen, I agree that the kids didn’t sign up for this life. And I definitely don’t agree with the paps who scream at kids or call them names (like that incident where Suri was called a bitch). But its hard to control. Even if paps did stop, whats gonna stop a fan from taking a picture and loading it onto the web?

  20. Heath4z says:

    I watched the documentary ‘$ellebrity’ last night, which interviews many celebs on the paparazzi and how they so negatively affect their lives and invade their privacy. There was a section which discussed the taking photos of celeb children, and how that crosses the line. One part in particular showed Sarah Jessica Parker walking her son to school, and it was creepy to see so many photogs taking pics of them. None of them were right in their faces or yelling at them, but it was off-putting nonetheless and made me feel bad for the poor little boy. That’s gotta be a really weird way to live your life, always having your photo taken.

    That said, I do have to agree that if celebs really cared THAT much, they’d move out of LA. There are ways to avoid it. Look at what Bruce Willis and Demi Moore did when their kids were young–moved them to Idaho and completely out of the spotlight.

  21. lisa2 says:

    The celebrities that are really big gets and who are actually hounded seem to know how to give their children privacy for the most part. We don’t see those people nor their children on a daily basis. Going to get coffee or the gym.. or the celebs that are not posting those private pictures on instagram or twitter. Ask the photogs who they make money off of. And those are the people we see less.

    They Kristen and Dax remind me of the Yuppies of times past. But the thing is they are not being hounded by the press. We have seen nasty and disgusting stories on the cover of tabloids about Shiloh and Suri. Where were these people and their outrage and moral code then. They were silent. Not one word when these children were and are to this day being called names that should never be associated with children. SILENCE.. now that they have a child they are waving the WE are Concerned parents.

    They should have been screaming then. Same with Jennifer and Halle..

    • Jessica says:

      “now that they have a child they are waving the WE are Concerned parents.”

      Well no sh-t. The paps taking photos of children hadn’t affected them until they had a child, so I totally understand why they would all of the sudden have an opinion on it now.

  22. Kay says:

    Back when I was an education reporter we had a rule that you had to get parental permission to use a photograph of a child. My editor had had a child he had photographed years ago in a ballet recital stalked after her picture appeared in the paper. So from then on as a precaution we had a spot put on the emergency card at the school where parents could opt their children out of media photos. If you were out in public you simply asked the parents then and there. It was easy and routine. The same could be done for celeb parents. Those that are ok with it can sign off. Those that aren’t don’t. Celebrity children are not public figures unless they are actively doing something to warrant that. Being carried in a baby carrier hardly warrants a photo.

  23. dizzylucy says:

    I think their general idea is a good one – the kids didn’t chose a public life, and should have a right to privacy, and certainly don’t deserve to be harassed, scared, followed, etc. If outlets would stop buying the photos, the demand would dry up, or at very least slow down.

    The problem is, as others have pointed out, it’s a 2 way street and there are a lot of celebs who use their family for their career and publicity, and actively participate in making their small kid a celebrity – magazine photoshoots, parading them on red carpets, etc. Because of that, I don’t think the interest is ever going to completely disappear, so maybe something like this legislation, which at least aims to help keep the situation from getting out of control and potentially dangerous, is the best solution right now.

  24. WendyNerd says:

    You know, the more I read about these two, the more I like them. The fact that they are willing to go on record about this and actually take the time to explain their reasons shows humility and actual investment in this. A lot of celebs, when they express a lot of their opinions, usually don’t give a lot of reasoning or engage much discussion. They just expect people to take what they say as gospel. They just want to make statements instead of invite any sort of discussion. But Bell and Shepard seem totally invested in actually explaining themselves.

    Okay, and yeah, maybe I’m a bit biased because lately I’ve kind of been fangirling a lot over Kristen Bell after seeing Frozen. Like, before I saw that, I just saw Bell as a fairly decent actress who played a lot of opinionated characters. Not bad, but nothing special. But I saw Frozen and I was like, “I never thought Kristen Bell was a bad actress, but I had no idea she was AMAZING.” Seriously, her singing in that movie was so good. I know some people are about to say, “Eh, Auto-tune”, but the thing about Auto-tune is that it isn’t subtle. It’s pretty easy to hear and I didn’t hear any of the tell-tale signs of Auto-tune. Plus, not only did she study musical theater at Tisch, but Idina Menzel has backed her up. And she really did hold her own against Menzel, which I didn’t actually think was scientifically possible for someone who isn’t Kristen Chenoweth. And even when she wasn’t singing, she brought so much heart and dimension to Anna. Her performance was so good, a prime example of why voice-acting deserves to be recognized in the major awards categories. I mean it. She, like pretty much everything else in that film, was fantastic.

    But the fact is, they are trying to protect their kid. And when children are involved, I throw my full support behind that. I know that there are celebs who profit off pictures of their kids, but there are plenty who don’t and magazines and paps tend not to draw distinctions there. I support this. I’m not saying magazines can’t ever have pictures of celeb kids, but paps taking secret pics of these kids when their parents are just trying to get out of the house is ridiculous.

  25. HoustonGrl says:

    This is an interesting issue, because it really pins celebrities up against their own famewhoriness. There are many times when these individuals use their families to self-promote, by bringing their own children to public events or red carpets; or bragging about their families in interviews. This actually comes down to a first amendment issue in my opinion. When it’s inconvenient they feel that they should be entitled to manipulate how those images are dispersed and handled, but that’s not how freedom of the press works, it is not dictated by the subjects. Me thinks they doth protest too much. Don’t forget that these people are millionaires with plenty of resources at their disposal, security, private drivers, planes etc.

    • don't kill me i'm french says:

      Some A list celebrities like RDJ or Christian Bale are able to “ban” their kids’s pics from the US mainstream magazines ,go to see on People.com or US Weekly.com and search the pics of their kids. We’ll find nothing

      • Lola says:

        Uh, I have seen pics of their kids on those sites. They have not banned their pics, they just are not that popular. People are not that interested or searching for their kids pics.

  26. Courtney says:

    celebs have sold photos of their kids to magazines for at least 75 years it not going to change. ask Nell Newman she was in magazines with her parents a fair number of times when she was a kid though they didn’t sell the first photos until she was 6 months old and baptized but she also attended film screenings and award shows with them when she was older like the 1969 NYC Film Critics awards where they were both nominated and won for Rachel, Rachel in which she also appeared as the child version of the title character. these people are hypocrites at best though its true that the children didn’t ask to be born of famous parents. besides that these two are c-lister’s at best not in the upper echelons of Hollywood by any stretch of the imagination though paparazzi are vermin but in that case some forms of vermin come with the choice of being in the entertainment business of which paparazzi is one.

  27. don't kill me i'm french says:

    I don’t buy tabloids but i go on the sites on People.com or US and you can see that some A list celebrities are able to protect their kids ,where are RDJ’s younger kid pics ? On People.com,there is no recent pics of Christian Bale’s daughter SINCE 5 YEARS for example whereas there are 300 pics of Jessica Alba’s daughters or Jennifer Garner/Affleck’s daughters

  28. lisa2 says:

    One more thought.. the problem now is that a lot of the pictures taken are coming from just the average John and Jane and they are posting them on twitter and other social media. Outlets are finding those pictures and posting them in magazines and blogs..

    How do you police the average person that is also becoming a photog. Have you seen celebrities surrounded by fans taking pictures..

  29. Gal says:

    I don’t get why paparazzi got to park outside houses and all that shit to get pictures. I know for a fact that those high tech cameras can take pictures from miles away. That’s what is making celebrities feel unsafe. I mean surrounding a car in motion to take pictures really?? Celebrities need to get together and stalk some US Weekly children and let them get a taste of their own medicine.

  30. Leah says:

    There are more actors and musicians who go about their day to day lives not being papped rearing their kids than those that are which leads me to believe that those that are are either in on it or following a very typical “LA” lifestyle.

  31. Squeakie says:

    I do agree with what they are saying, but if this is really an issue for them they shouldn’t live in LA where there are paps lurking in every corner. It’s hard to take their complaints seriously when they live in the same compound as Justin freaking Beiber. There are probably photographers waiting by their gates at all times. I don’t think the interest level in them is high enough where they would be stalked no matter where they go. Just move or suck it up. No one is going to stop buying tabloids, sorry.

  32. Tiffany :) says:

    “believe they live in the same gated community as Justin Bieber,…So they live in a paparazzi zone, and they’re very aware of it.”

    I wouldn’t say that Calabasas is a paparazzi zone (unless you go to the Commons, etc.). Beiber has disrupted the community, but they have gated neighborhoods, making it IMPOSSIBLE for the paparazzi to be in their neighborhood and around their homes without passing the security gates.

  33. Green Girl says:

    I have so many thoughts on this!

    1. I agree that paparazzi shots of kids is weird, and should be stopped.

    2. I also think Dax and Kristen’s argument would be stronger if they approached fellow celebrities and asked them to stop selling pictures or posting them online. Although I can see where they might not; as posited above, there’s always a chance you will have to work with a fellow celebrity in the future, so you don’t want to get on their bad side.

    3. Finally, are people just curious to see how a celebrity looks in “parenting mode”? In other words, are they curious to see what Mr. or Ms. Movie Star is like with their kids versus on the set?

    • pru says:

      Agree on every point.
      Paparazzi following celebs with their kids is weird and dangerous.
      Celeb parents need to take more action within the celebrity community as well, They can’t one day think it’s ok to bring there kids along on the red carpet, or to a fashion show, etc, and the next complain that a paparazzi photo walking the kids to school is off limits.
      And how does the celebrity fandoms extend to the celebs kids? If I’m a fan of the Jolie-Pitts, or Gwen Stefani, should it be ok that I recognize their toddler on site?? That just seems like a really bizarre extension of celebrity worship.

  34. ella says:

    Their argument would be a lot stronger if anybody actually wanted pictures of their kid. They have annoyed me since their whole, “we won’t get married until gay people can,” a la Brangelina. Let’s keep the focus on the people who really are affected.

    • Jaded says:

      You’re missing the point. It’s not about how famous the actors are, it’s about harassing little kids. The paps are horrible, shouting and screaming and firing flashbulbs off in their faces. They simply don’t understand, it frightens them, and any parent would freak if their kids were being harassed.

  35. GirlyGirl says:

    What’s this all about? I tuned out completely when I read the words “Kristen Bell, Dax Shepard…”

    Didn’t even make it to the verb…

  36. Dommy Dearest says:

    I think they are trying to make people remember they still exist. Her husband doesn’t even get a letter to be on any sort of list A through Z.

    • homegrrrl says:

      Perhaps this couple haven’t been photog’d abandoning a monkey or divorcing on a post-it, but they are famous, talented, wealthy hollywood celebs. Let’s not become so numb and calloused as a population that we require anything in the spotlight to twerk or light up. The point is, this is an issue, our cultural worship and fascination with celebrity, and our intrinsic needs for kindness and respect. The issue of harrassing children is completely relevant because, ah duh, they are famous and we are on a celeb website!

      Thanks for printing the good stuff, and not just the pear clutching salacious junk gossip!!

  37. Walice says:

    I haven’t purchased a “magazine” in over a decade. Maybe more!!

  38. Tessa says:

    They are creating more interest around their kid by doing this, I’m sorry. People didn’t care to see Lincoln before, but I bet you they do now. This seems so idiotic. Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner? Sure, they are A-list and people are ravenous about their kids. Kristen Bell and Dax Shepperd? It’s almost comical.

    • Jaded says:

      I’m sure they get their fare share of paps in their faces too. Anyone who harasses, frightens and gets all up in the faces of little kids should be horsewhipped. It doesn’t matter if you think Kristen and Dax aren’t A-list, they get their fare share of pap intrusion too, and I don’t blame them for trying to protect their baby.

  39. homegrrrl says:

    Didn’t some paps call Suri a “brat” etc, and it was recorded? That is cruel, and we all know paps can bait celebs, and we now know they bait their offspring. I can’t stand when star mag or whatever does a section on “who wore it better” with toddlers. It’s completely beyond stupid into creepy territory. I do not care who wore it better, they’re all cute, but I’m not in the market for 3T fashion. I do buy those mags for their salacious gossip, but not for children looking stalked and frightented. Every mag on the rack has kids these days. Where am I going to get my fix? Celebitchy. Ooooh. Threre may be a publication in your future:)

  40. Minxx says:

    In Poland if a celebrity is papped with her/his children, their faces must be blurred out by law. Of course when they bring a kid to an event and pose with him/her, then it’s shown.