Kristen Bell on celebrities calling paparazzi: ‘I’m not here to come down on them’

Screening Of 'Veronica Mars'
Above is a photo of Kristen Bell at the Veronica Mars premiere in New York yesterday. Bell looked pretty great at most of her appearances this awards seasons with the exception of The Critics Choice Awards, where she wore way too much eye makeup. She repeated that misstep here, and was in a fug gothic-looking Monique Lhullier lace strapless gown with tulle overlay. The film is getting mixed to good reviews, with many reviewers saying that it’s geared to fans of the show rather than new viewers. It’s out in the US this weekend.

Bell and her husband, Dax Shepard, have taken up the cause of protecting children from aggressive paparazzi. Their daughter Lincoln was born about a year ago and they recently had their first run-in with unwanted photographers. As a result they called for a boycott of celebrity magazines that run paparazzi photos of children. They also started the hashtag #pedorazzi on Twitter.

Dax wrote an essay for the Huffington Post in late January titled “Why Our Children Should Be Off Limits to the Paparazzi.” Dax acknowledged that some celebrities do call the paparazzi to photograph family outings, but he had nothing but disdain for them. “It’s a vile notion [that celebrities call the paps while out with their kids], 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?

The couple won a victory of sorts when People Magazine clarified their editorial stance last month on children’s photos. People did not adopt a “No Kids” policy, but said that they were sensitive to the issue and would not publish photos “taken against their parents’ wishes.

In a new interview with Huffpo Live, Kristen Bell spoke at length about her issues with the paparazzi, but she conceded that some celebrities do call them and that it’s their right to do so. This is a definite departure from her husband’s tough stance. Here’s some of what she said.

On an encounter with the photographer:
Bell: “First of all, they’re really rude and I don’t know where their mothers are, but I had a guy, just when I was leaving my interview before this, I was pulling into the garage, he was banging on the window and because I didn’t roll it down, he called me the C-word and he said, ‘I’m posting your hotel,’ as a threat saying there’s going to be more people now following you all the time… Aren’t you shocked I didn’t stop to pose for him? People act like animals and that’s just not okay with me… It’s absurd and it’s gotten to a point where we’ve just lost a humanity…”

On the importance of parental consent:
Bell: “You cannot be stalking 6-year-olds…To me, it’s [about] consent. If a parent consents, that’s like signing a permission slip. Because I signed up to be an actress, I also signed up to be a parent and I take my role as a mother very seriously and you do not have permission to photograph my daughter. So, if someone gives you permission, that’s fine. If a celebrity sets something up, I’m not here to come down on them, but it really should be up to the parent.”

On the paparazzi’s dangerous behavior behind the “cute” photos:
Bell: “After having a baby and experiencing first-hand what goes into the foot soldiers in Los Angeles that procure these pictures, it’s really aggressive towards kids, it scares them and they’re running red lights around schools… Really all we’re seeing is the cute little snippet at the park, and what you’re not seeing is the kid who is followed by a group of strangers all day, which, in my book is just not appropriate.”

[From Huffington Post, received via e-mail]

I wonder if Bell has always thought that it’s somewhat ok for celebrity parents to call the paparazzi, if she’s just saying that to not offend other celebrities, or if she changed her mind after People Magazine’s essay on their “no unauthorized photos of kids” policy. If Bell has felt this way from the beginning, she’s differed from her husband’s belief that it’s despicable for parents to call the paparazzi. She makes a lot of sense here and I don’t disagree with her, it’s just hard to relate to this issue when it affects such a small subset of highly privileged people. I do agree that their kids should not be harassed.

A clip from Bell’s interview is below. Another clip is here and you can watch the full interview here.

Here’s Kristen at SXSW, in Naeem Khan.

Screening Of 'Veronica Mars'

Screening Of 'Veronica Mars'

Photo credit: WENN.com and FameFlynet

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

156 Responses to “Kristen Bell on celebrities calling paparazzi: ‘I’m not here to come down on them’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Lindy79 says:

    I’d rather she took her husbands line on it to be honest.
    It seems a little like she doesn’t want to burn any bridges…or maybe that she’s realised it happens more often than people are led to believe.

    Either way I agree that kids shouldn’t be photographed and the way these paparazzi guys behave can be absolutely shameful.

    Also the # doesn’t sit well with me. I know the pedo/paedo is a reference to the Greek word for child but it has very definite connotations in todays world so to put it there directly implies something that even these people (as morally ambiguous as they are) aren’t.

    • Kali says:

      Cosign to every single point you made. It seems a little bit like she’s had a few people call her up and “explain a few things” so she’s trying to backtrack a bit?

      • cinnamonboo says:

        I’m skeptical about their motivations. For the first time in a long time, it seems the rags don’t even bother with true celebs (certainly not B and C-listers like Bell & Shepherd) and instead fill newstands and their pages with reality stars (kardashians, bachelor contestants, pop music people, etc). I would think for a certain tier of celebs they’re catching quite the break. I have it on good authority that Dax Shepherd & Kristen Bell would probably get trampled over in the Papz rush to snap Kloe & The Game. Lmao I wonder if them actually getting LESS love these days is the impetus. Like, ‘GotDarn you Kim & kourtney kardashian how dare they put Baby Kimye and Mason Dysick on the cover of STAR with Shiloh and Suri BEFORE my incredibly cute and ultra special C-list child!!’ Teehee.

        Also reading this piece Dax seems to disagree with the notion that celebs do call papz on kids, but describes the notion as ‘vile’ if they do. While Bell seems to say to each their own. People Mag claims they won’t publish photos “against parents wishes,” I call B.S. on this level of commitment from People Mag as it seems to require that the celeb has to contact them every time their kid is snapped to expressly say don’t run it in order for them to NOT run it..come on & PLEASE… who has time for that?

        Lastly, Bell’s incident that she relayed about the Papz pounding on her car, and screaming ‘c-word’ at her had nothing to do with her kid and everything to do with an actual attack on her and her property. She could have called the police and filed charges and/or sued! Why didn’t she? (that awful thing still would have happened to her even without her child there)

    • mom2two says:

      I have to agree with this 100%. I think she either has just realized that some celebs do call the paps or has been forced to admit it. And she does not want to burn bridges, definitely.

      That being said, no paparazzi should be hunting down the children of celebrities. I cannot fault Dax and Kristen for making this an issue.

      • qwerty says:

        I just realised what they were doing at the VF after party – they probably went there to bug people about their Z-lister problems with paps lol. I wonder how that went.

    • Your last paragraph–totally agree. How can she be wishy-washy against the people who call them, but then use/start a ‘pedorazzi’ hashtag???

      • cinnamonboo says:

        I agree. Also..that term bothers me so much. It’s not cute relating a child sexual predator to a guy or gal snapping you and your kid coming out of The Ivy. Bell and her husband need to have a seat.

      • ScrewStewrat99 says:

        I don’t think she’s being wishy washy. If a celeb parent calls the paps and wants their kids pic taken then it is their right and who is to say it shouldn’t be allowed? That is a whole different thing, but if a parent doesn’t want their childs pic taken then that is also their right and it should be respected. Their child is not a celebrity and should be off limits if the parent wants it that way. The papparazi should respect that and not take pics of a child when the parent asks them not to.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        I don’t see it as wishy-washy. If a pap has the permission to take pictures, they aren’t going to run up to the kid and start cussing at them because they know they are guarenteed to get the shot and the celeb will work with them until they do.

        When the paps aren’t called by the parent, that is when they will ambush children, cuss at them, threaten them, tell the horrible things, etc, trying to provoke a profitable picture.

        I have seen paparazzi in action, and I have no problem with her #. Honestly, they frighten me. Give a creep a camera, and they don’t magically change into professional people. They have no regard for traffic safety, the safety of the public, the safety of children, respect for women, etc.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      I agree with everything you said except for the # comment. It reminds me of when that man from (I think) the treasury department was fired and rehired for using the word “niggardly,” just because people didn’t understand what it meant. I actually think pedorazzi is clever if you know what it means, and has no connotation at all except that people are confusing it with pedophile. Do you confuse pediatric or pediatrician with pedophile?

      • Lindy79 says:

        I think, for me anyway, it’s because pedophile/paedophile can be and often is shortened to pedo/paedo. Its the “o” letter that makes the difference when comparing it to pediatrician etc.
        I agree that it shouldn’t be confused as it comes from an origin word but they’re using it in a negative way and, I believe, on purpose.

      • Kali says:

        I think she’s trying to deliberately bring in those connotations though and then play the game of “wait, that’s not what I meant!”.

      • emmie_a says:

        I agree with Kali.

      • Nina W says:

        That # is terrible, they never should have put it out there. This is such a first world celebrity problem, I like both actors but seriously there are much bigger problems facing kids (even celeb kids) today then paps wanting their photos. Why not address homelessness, hunger and the travesty of our public education system? If you’re going to get on your soapbox, save some lemur habitat or something.

    • msw says:

      Or maybe she genuinely believes everyone has the right to decide for themselves, even if that isn’t what she chooses for her family. She is a very smart person. I don’t doubt her sincerity at all.

      • ^^That’s what I think.

      • ol cranky says:

        My guess is that she found out that many more celebrity parents do this (and pretend to be upset that their or their child’s privacy is invaded) because many of those parents want to eventually capitalize on their children being seen as celebrity in their own right to craft a career for them regardless of whether they have talent to justify it

      • Elle Kaye says:

        I agree with you. Perhaps her husband feels more strongly than she does. His opinion does not have to reflect her own.

    • mercy says:

      Maybe she’s not taking a hard line because she realises that for some celebrities, allowing photos of their children is one way to undercut pap photos, or to get them to leave more quickly. I’m talking about the children of really well known celebrities, or even lesser names where there is an intense interest in their personal lives and they are stalked at their homes, hotels, etc. In those cases, I can see situations where it might make sense to go ahead and release photos taken by an agency that does not stalk, or even let a pap have a few shots if they agree to leave.

      And lets be honest, it’s the demand for these photos that drives this business, not the celebs – not even the ones who call paps, or frequent areas where they hang out.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        I think I read something where she addressed the demand of the photos, and asked the public to do their part. I haven’t heard that in recent soundbites, but I haven’t been reading every word of her comments.

  2. Anna says:

    Maybe she changed her stance somewhat when she realized that her actor friends do call the paps to take pictures of their children and do benefit from it..

    • starrywonder says:

      Yep. I think that’s why she changed her comments too. Dax seemed surprised that parents do that. Um hello. There seems to only be one pumpkin patch in LA around Halloween if I go by all of the actors with kids who seem to end up there.

    • mercy says:

      Possibly. I can see the logic of ‘If it helps my career or charity, helps put money in the college fund or a cause I believe in, it’s the right thing to do for my family.’ And if the paps are called and shots are arranged, it’s not like being stalked or caught unawares. Maybe it’s their version of family portraits. ;)

  3. Liv says:

    I think she’s right, of course she is. There are very rude paparazzi out there and especially kids should not be stalked by them. I also think there should be better laws, for example that paps have to give celebritys more space or something like that.

    That said there campaign rubs me the wrong way. Their “pedorazzi”-tag was very inappropriate and stupid. Plus there are tons of parents who sell their kids out. It’s not fair nor smart to push the responsibiilty towards us or the magazines. The celebritys are a big part of problem too.

    • Wren33 says:

      Well, it is a newer phenomenon. Celebrities set things up because now there is a market for it. There is a market for it because magazines buy the pictures. Magazines buy the pictures because readers respond. You need to act on all parts of the equation. It is not fair just to focus on the paparazzi, but they are the most dangerous and physical part of what happens.

      • TG says:

        Your comment is food for thought. I wonder is it wrong for celebs to call the paps? I mean someone like Jessica Alba thrives off of it and the image she gains with thise stupid moms helps her business. Jen Garner and Ben Affleck used it to their advantage for his Oscar campaign. Politicians do it all the time to show that they are one big happy family. The sad thing is why do actors even need to do it? Shouldn’t their talent or likeability on screen be enough? I am not going to deny that I like seeing pics of some celebs with their kids, but I wouldn’t miss it if I didn’t see them again. I have a lot more thoughts but I will shut up now. I do believe that the paps have gotten out of control and are rude to people. I would think a good photographer could get the money shot without ever having to scream at or chase a celeb or their child.

      • Jaderu says:

        @Wren33 very true, but it isn’t a “newer phenomenon”. Old Hollywood was chock full of set up park strolls, happy family time photo-ops and so called caught on the street photos. I love reading the stories about old Hollywood and how much of a well oiled machine it really was.

        I do agree with the paps being the most dangerous part of it. Not all of them have been called by the celebrity and some of them are vile and will get the shot at any cost.

      • Green Girl says:

        @TG – great comments, and I agree with you.

        I think some celebs call the paparazzi because they feel they need to stand out from the other actors their age, with similar talent, etc. If you can get a picture of you and your kids in a celeb magazine or blog, then you’re building name and face recognition from the public, directors, producers and so on.

        You can also cultivate a different side of your image. If you’ve only done work as a foul-mouthed police officer, as an example, being seen with your kids can sort of soften your image. Remember that celebrities want to appeal to a broad range of demographics because you need everyone you can get to see your movie or watch your TV show.

      • Marianne says:

        I think some celebs rely on calling the paps (whether their kids are there or not) because it help keeps them relevant. Look at someone like Hilary Duff. When was the last time we saw her in a movie? If she didn’t have the paps, people would probably forget about her.

    • sandie says:

      LIv, agree with your comment except for your sentiment about the #pedo hashtag. It DOES seem appropriate since the paps are stalking and harassing kids – v.s. focusing on the adult celebrities. Just the image of a pack of men surrounding a school and frantically yelling at young children taking their photo is very creepy and disturbing.

      • Liv says:

        It’s creepy and disturbing, but it’s not pedophiliac. Pedophils exists in all social levels – paps, actors, politicans,….the conclusion that men who harass children are pedophils is just wrong.

      • claire says:

        @Liv: I can see why you’re making the connection, but the usage is correct. The prefix Pedo- means ‘related to children.’

      • Liv says:

        Language always changes. In our time the term pedophile is used for people who desire children – at least in german. #Pedorazzi obviously pointed in that direction.

      • Nina W says:

        Claire, I agree with Liv,, this was a deliberate attempt to use language to slander the paparazzi and imply evil intent. Why is it not pediarazzi? We all know why.

  4. Mia4S says:

    If this really catches on it could be very very interesting to see the result. What is we see Jennifer Garner with her kids at the market in People? Alba at the park? Do celebs have to start showing when they’ve struck deals? Notice how Halle Berry managed to vanish?

    Harassment is wrong, and so is hypocrisy.

    • qwerty says:

      I wonder how Alba will make a living if things really change.

      • mercy says:

        I may not like how they operate or evencare, but everyone has as much if not more right to profit off of their own likeness as an unsolicited photographer does.

      • TG says:

        @Qwerty – LOL and how will She-Man and Hilary Duff and how will Jen Garner show is that all is well, organic and idealic in her life? Also how will Halle Berry show is that her violent husband is really a devoted step/dad, etc., etc.

    • Nina W says:

      Publicity has always been part of the job for celebrities, there is nothing new in that, it has been going on since before the Golden Age of Hollywood. What has changed is the 24 news cycle and the never ending need to feed the beast new images. Harassment is wrong and if laws need to be written to protect kids, we should do it otherwise I’m having a hard time seeing this as anything other than a consequence of career choice.

  5. Mark says:

    If she doesn’t call out other celebrities then her campaign isn’t going to go any where. Typical slacktivist celebrity behavior

    • vic says:

      I agree. These two have really started to bug me. Celebrities or their p.r. people are known to call paparazzi. Or they call them when they want attention to their causes. These people want it both ways. And her comment about not here to come down on them is arrogant. She should take care of her own and stfu.

      I know people will get mad at this but this is just another way of a celebrity getting the attention they thrive on.

    • Meme says:

      ^THIS x1000

    • Kiddo says:

      She has a movie coming out. What better way to make herself more high profile than pure sanctimony?

    • Green Girl says:

      I would have so much more respect for this campaign if they started calling people out, too.

    • mercy says:

      Why? She’s saying people have a right to try to control what goes on with their lives and families. Who can disagree with that? If their campaign is successful, it will probably put a damper on those celebs who do court attention from paps, or at least make their cooperation more obvious. I see it as a win-win situation.

      • msw says:

        Right? What is so disagreeable about a mom being concerned about her child’s privacy? Do the folks railing against her have a guilty conscience?

  6. lucy2 says:

    I just happened to catch that film about paparazzi, Sellebrity, on TV last night. What some of those paparazzi do is unbelievable, and I’d imagine it’s only gotten worse with the kids. The demand for those photos needs to go away. Some celeb parents may allow it, but that doesn’t mean that they all do, yet they’re all treated as fair game.

    I’m looking forward to seeing the VM movie – it was for the fans and paid for by the fans, of course it’s going to cater to fans of the show, not newcomers to it. I don’t know why reviewers are surprised by that.

  7. kibbles says:

    Can’t stand this hypocritical C-list couple and their holier-than-thou attitude. She’s obviously backtracking because she doesn’t want to offend A-listers and their wives who call the paparazzi when awards season rolls around. Wanna bet some celebrities took this wannabe A-list couple to task at the Vanity Fair Oscar party and told them they might be taking things a step too far with their anti-paparazzi campaign?

    • V4Real says:

      +1 Maybe it was Garner who told her to back off that stance if she wants to sit at the AList table.

    • vic says:

      Agreed 100%. Posted same time you did. They are C list and using this to get attention. Dax S. acting like a big wheel at the Oscar red carpet. Please.

    • diva says:

      I have to agree. If this was coming from a couple that the tabloids/blogs had interest in I could understand it more but who is interested in the two of them and their kid? This is the most coverage the two of them have gotten by pulling this silly stunt.

    • Meme says:

      Me neither. majority of people don’t even know who they are. I don’t care about them or their baby. they do seem to like the attention though, don’t they?

      • Erinn says:

        So if a regular person started this campaign, we could just dismiss it because they’re not even a Z list celeb? I think that’s a really poor attitude. I don’t care who’s making the point, the fact is that children shouldn’t be sought out by the Paps. Remember the incident where Suri was called a little bitch by a pap?

    • Kiddo says:

      Yep.

    • Scarlet Vixen says:

      I don’t see anything ‘holier than thou’ or hypocritical about what Kristen Bell is saying. If she were obviously calling the paps for photo ops around town then saying she thinks it’s inappropriate then that would be hypocritical. But saying that she thinks the paps are rude and nasty and she doesn’t feel they should be stalking children? What is ‘hypocritical’ about that? I have never even seen a single picture of their daughter–it seems to me that she is living by her message.

      I also don’t see the problem with her and her husband disagreeing on whether other celeb parents should be allowed to call the paps. I disagree with my husband on issues all the time. Dax Shepard happens to take a harder stance than Kristen Bell–big deal. I don’t see that as wishy washy or her backing down. I saw it as each of them drawing a different line in the sand.

      I was a big fan of Veronica Mars, and have always found Kristen Bell to seem extremely down to earth and charming. She’s from Michigan, so I like her on principle of being a hometown girl, but I also think she’s real and a sweet person. I think that even tho she’s been in the business awhile now (she’s one of those actors who is constantly working but you don’t always realize who she is) she’s still on the naive side and just doesn’t know how to ‘play the game.’ I personally find her refreshing in a sea of calculated bimbo starlets and celeb moms who’ll pimp their kids out to sell some products.

    • bns says:

      Agreed.

  8. Elisabeth says:

    Leanne Rimes has blocked her on twitter, since her contacts list is NOTHING BUT paps

  9. Sarah says:

    I think the consent thing is good, it would also expose the ones who do sell out the children. they dont only call the paps but deny it and complain about them. so why not make it about consent of the parents? if they give their permission the pictures can be printed so if you see kids in the papers you know their parents are fine with it. celebs who want to protect their kids will be protected and celebs who call the paps cant pretend to not be ok with it.

  10. Tiffany says:

    I still believe that there is not a high demand for photos of them or their child. I think one maybe two paps recognized them while out and about and they are blowing it up make it seem they are getting Pitt Jolie level attention. Also, they had to ride this out because they would have looked like bigger idiots if they had just went away.

    • Algernon says:

      I’ve actually heard that. I was in a magazine office the other day and some people were talking about this issue, and someone said the photographer claims he was just walking down the street, recognized Dax Shepard, and started taking pictures. He didn’t follow, stalk or even yell at them. He just snapped some photos, they went inside a building, and he left. It was, as far as those things go, as peaceable as it gets (assuming he’s telling the truth). I’ve always thought this was more about them wanting to control everything rather than actually feeling threatened. They want to post photos on Instagram, not have “unauthorized” images in People.

    • someone says:

      I was just going to post the same thing but then I saw your comment. There is no way Dax Shepard and Kristen Bell are being stalked. I like him well enough in the tv show Parenthood and she is cute in movies but I have no desire to see what their daughter looks like. Meanwhile I really do enjoy the pictures of the Jolie-Pitt kids or even Sandra Bullock’s little Louis. I only wish the photogs would stop saying mean things and getting in their faces in order to get a response. THAT is uncalled for. It kinda seems like Dax and Kristen are using this for publicity for themselves.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      I have personally seen low level celebs be chased and harassed. Security had to be called in order for a “lower than C-lister” to leave a building I was in because there were paps who chased her, surrounded the building, and then they were going floor to floor in order to find her.

      Paparazzi are BOTTOM FEEDERS. Even a photo of a low level celeb can be sold. If they aren’t lucky/tricky enough to getting the huge stars, their only other choice is to sell a LOT of lower priced photos of lower level celebs.

      • Nina W says:

        Maybe the c-list celeb should just let the stupid photographers get their shot and everybody moves on with their lives. I just have no sympathy for the Lindsay’s of the world who want attention when they want it and on their terms and then play the poor me pity party card when things don’t go their way. Don’t want to be harassed by paps? Pick a different line of work. Move away from LA. Hire a lookalike. Wear a mask. Ignore the mean men. So many choices.

  11. sarah says:

    I’m betting she has friends who totally let paparazzi take photos of their kids (for profit/just for attention) + she doesn’t want to make enemies. She’s trying to be smart on a touchy issue, but honestly it makes her opinion not as strong. I like Kristen though! Her husband too (I have a bias since Parenthood is my parents fav show + my mom loves Dax’s character Crosby). Both Kristen + Dax seem like they take immediate action on anything/everything they have issue w/ which is refreshing, but truthfully can come off as ‘too much’ at times.

    (Also, Kristen should find a stylist who specializes in dressing petite women! As one myself, dressing in clothes meant for women 5’3 +above a.k.a everything, hardly ever works… *sigh*)

  12. eliza says:

    Since when is Kristen Bell a “Thing”? Are people that excited about that old chestnut, Veronica Mars?

  13. lena says:

    Interesting that no one has any actual proof whatsoever that any celebs call the paparazzi yet you’all believe it as the truth. I think if that were true the Photo agencies would have called them out on it long ago. So far I have only heard of Paris Hilton actually being named by a photo agency and she has no.kids. I also think that when she said when a parent sets something up she meant when they show their kids in a magazine shoot which many do

    • Tiffany says:

      Because paps got bills to pay as well. Do not bite the hand that feeds you. If you can get solid work and have a working relationship with your go to celebrity, so be it. I am doing my best not to justify anyone but if all parties iinvolved have something that works for them so be it. Just don’t get on your high horse about it in the press.

      • mercy says:

        Agreed. If Tori Spelling or someone like that signed on to their campaign, it would look pretty ridiculous. But no kid deserves to be stalked or abused, even those with pap friendly parents.

    • emmie_a says:

      There was a time that LeAnn Rimes gave the paps the wrong time to show up for her bonus kid’s baseball game and the pap showed up and LeAnn was the only one there — so that’s proof to me that she called the paps.
      And I think a ton of celebs do it.

    • hy says:

      It is not just calling them, it is going to areas where paps are known to camp out.
      Celebs who keep going to the Brentwood Country Mart (Garner), the pumpkin patch, Coldwater playground etc. where they know paps will be, want to be photographed. They pretend to oh so shocked/ annoyed that the paps are there, but it is stupid because they were photographed the day before there, and the day before that……

      There are lots of areas in LA with no paps, where they could go the playground, get coffee etc.

      • AG-UK says:

        @hy
        exactly LA isn’t some small town there are loads of places to go and if you want to be “seen” then go to the other places, The Ivy (yuck) Mr Chow eeek. Even with that one stretch of beach they always go to the same spots. I do think if you don’t want to be bothered there are ways that you don’t have to be.

    • Artemis says:

      I used to watch a show about celebs and the business of paparazzi and one of the popular places they hung out was the Ivy. And guess what, all those C and Z-listers got their ‘lunch’ there (e.g. Paris Hilton). Some celebs are took pictures with one famous paparazzo. Some paparazzi admitted that they got a ‘call’ about where celeb A would be. When you seek out hotspots (see hy’s comment above me), you are guaranteed to be snapped. Funny how all the celebs go to the same pumpkin patch no? :)

      Or what about those celebs who are snapped at the gym at various times? What pap wants to waste time at a gym? Do those pictures make a lot of money? It’s set-up.

      You can also tell when a celeb is dressed to the nines and being super friendly, in a great setting (think beach, casual stroll with dogs or children) and the pap happens to hang out there too. Usually when something needs to be promoted and they need the visibility.

      Or KK who wasn’t snapped for months post-North and then 24/7 again.

      Then you have plain admissions from paps who admit celebs call them (e.g. Miley Cyrus in 2009) or articles about paparazzi hotspots (Gawker’s top 40 places celebs hang out).

    • Algernon says:

      My go-to example of celebrity involvement with paparazzi is Matt Damon. He lives on the same block as Ben Affleck/Jennifer Garner. Going only by the Aff-ners, you would think their neighborhood is crawling with paparazzi, given how much their family is photographed. But I couldn’t pick Matt Damon’s kids out of a line up. They live on the same street, go to the same schools, etc, yet I don’t know what even one of his kids looks like. Either Matt Damon is a ninja or the Aff-ners are participating in the paparazzi cycle.

      I don’t think it’s very likely that Matt Damon is a ninja.

      • HappyMom says:

        This exactly.

      • Green Girl says:

        Good point about Matt Damon. I can’t even tell you how many kids he has without consulting Google, let alone their names and ages.

        While I do wish a paparazzo or photo agency would dish on which celebrities actually call, I doubt it will ever happen (unless someone who is out of the business comes forward, of course).

      • mercy says:

        His wife isn’t famous and he’s been out of L.A. for awhile, but his family has still been papped and he’s talked about them quite a bit. Maybe they live behind gates and are afforded other perks that come with being a ‘A-list’ celebrity. When he was dating actresses, his personal life got more coverage by the tabloids.

      • AG-UK says:

        Exactly but Brentwood has a lot of gated places… or at least there are big gates on the properties at the main street entrance so unless someone is waiting for you there and you get stuck with traffic and can’t move they will catch you.

      • Algernon says:

        @mercy

        And Ben Affleck isn’t A-list? They don’t get perks? I’m not saying Matt Damon and Family never gets papped, but it’s a marked difference, and there was no uptick when he returned to LA. And for the record, not only are they both behind gates, they live on a highly patrolled street. You can’t get lost in that neighborhood without a security officer pulling you over and questioning why you’re driving slowly and/or in circles. Believe me, I’ve been lost up there. Point is, it shouldn’t be easy to get so many photos of the Aff-ners. And yet, we do.

      • grace3 says:

        Algernon, what about Jennifer Garner’s claim – and she’s said this repeatedly – that the paps are literally waiting right outside her door waiting for her to leave her house so they can follow her? I guess she needs to beef up her security if they get past all the checkpoints….

      • mercy says:

        @Algernon,

        Ben is ‘A-list,’ but he’s had a higher profile personal life than Matt has for a long time. Matt kind of fell off the tabloid radar when he moved out of L.A. and married a civilian with a child, but his wife and kids still got papped on occasion – as long as they were with him. They both have access to more perks than you average working actor, but the level of interest is different. Presumably paps know their way around celeb heavy areas and have some experience with evading security and anti- loitering laws.

      • Algernon says:

        @grace3

        That’s exactly what I mean, though. Matt Damon is literally just a few houses down from Ben Affleck, yet somehow photographers don’t follow his family around. You can say it’s because his wife isn’t famous, but what about when *he* leaves with his kids? Sure, they do get photographed occasionally. But it’s comparatively rare and given that they live just a few doors apart, it’s always been fishy to me that his family is relatively undisturbed while the Aff-ners are so “hounded”.

        @mercy

        Matt Damon’s personal life being more low key is the entire point. He has made it low key. Ben Affleck/Jennifer Garner have made theirs a spectacle. Celebrities can’t control the paparazzi environment entirely, but they have a lot more control over it than people think. Even the most famous celebrities in the world can disappear for months at a time, and it doesn’t even take extraordinary measures. It’s just a matter of if they actually want off that radar or not.

      • msw says:

        Women get targeted much more, as do the children of female celebs. Especially when they have two famous parents.

    • littlemissnaughty says:

      The whole game is based on the notion that these pictures are of celebrities in everyday situations. Candid, if you will. If anyone (photo agency of celeb) admitted that they were set up, it would be nothing but a low budget photoshoot. No side wants that. They depend on our voyeuristic side and if everyone admitted that these were “allowed” or even planned, it wouldn’t work.

      But it’s not hard to figure out. Just pay attention to how someone’s visibility goes up when they’re promoting something. Remember Ben A. during Oscar season? Please. Or that girl from The Bing Bang Theory during her fling with Henry Cavill? Or Kate Bosworth who once got pap’d at the frickin post office. It pays to stalk Brad and Angelina. It does not pay to stalk Kate Bosworth.

      And why would we believe the celebrities and not the paparazzi? Because their rudeness is out there and the gross sh*t celebs do to sell out their kids is not?

      • mercy says:

        If it doesn’t pay, who is buying the pics? That’s another wrinkle to consider. Maybe a celeb like Bosworth is paying sites to use her staged pics? Or maybe she has more fans than I know about. Either way, it doesn’t speak to what I feel is the heart of the issue: abusive behaviour and the right of every parent to control who takes pictures of their kids.

      • Virgilia Coriolanus says:

        As for Bosworth, mercy, she may not be famous for her films, but she’s a fashion girl—the fashion sites/blogs are the ones who pay for her pictures.

      • littlemissnaughty says:

        It doesn’t pay to follow her for days/weeks in hope of a shot of her at the airport or the post office. Sure it pays to sell a picture of her that took half an hour to get but the time you put in to find Brad and Angelina or any other A-lister has to be worth it. And to get away from Bosworth, it also does not pay to stalk Jessica Alba. So if you look a how often some celebs are “found” in unlikely places, it makes you wonder how the hell anybody found them there. And if it really pays to go looking for hours on end.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      Kitson named Brintey Spears and Lindsey Lohan in a lawsuit against paparazzi for NOT taking pictures. They said that Britney and Lindsey had agreements with them (Britney would be buying kid clothes to show she was a “good mom”; Lindsey was going to be photographed buying Just My Luck keychains). Kitson sued the paparazzi agency, saying they told the celebs they would be photographed…and they weren’t.

    • metallicwow says:

      Not sure if you live in LA, but it’s huge. For paparazzi to be in an underground parking garage when X celeb is walking through it, or in front of a nail salon, or on some street in the Valley – they would have to have super powers to know to show up at the exact right time. Or how about when some couple gets off their private jet and there were photogs on the tarmac to capture it? Or the couple happens to be caught kissing on some secluded beach in Africa? Someone HAD to tip them off. Maybe at times it’s a parking attendant or waiter, but many, many times it’s the celeb’s people that calls because they want the attention.

    • Nina W says:

      You’re not naive enough to think Hollywood isn’t in bed with itself are you? Paps and celebs go hand-in-hand via their publicist or whoever. It’s mostly a mutually beneficial relationship, and is nothing new. I’m amazed how many people think this is a recent phenomenon. The word paparazzi is from a film made in 1960, hardly new.

  14. Lisa says:

    I find it hard to believe that the general public is clamoring for pictures of her kid. I agree that paparazzi should not be anywhere near schools, though.

  15. Sarah says:

    i dont understand why people bring her fame level into this. that is a very weak point and only looks like people are trying to find something ad hominem to belittle what she says. she obviously gets harrassed by paparazzi. moreover if someone has a point it does not matter if it applies to themselves or not. its about the message not the messenger.

    • Cirque28 says:

      Completely agree on all points.

    • Cicero says:

      I was just thinking about whether Kristen’s fame/ level of paparazzi-harassment is a factor in this discussion. I personally think that her point should stand regardless of whether paparazzi are chasing after her kid or not. It is totally reasonable to make a point in the abstract about whether kids should be hounded by paparazzi without having to be a model of virtue oneself. That said, does she stand to benefit by making these statements and drawing attention to herself while promoting a movie? Yes. Do celebs call the paparazzi or at the very least, frequent areas where they know the paparazzi are? Yes. Do Matt Damon and Ben Affleck live in the same neighbourhood (according to comments above; unverified by me personally), yet the former goes mostly incognito and the latter parades his family around all the time? Yes. Does Jessica Alba have a career and income because of the paparazzi’s interest in her family? Most likely. I think it’s possible to support Kristen’s idea in theory while acknowledging that she benefits from making noise about it, and many other celebs benefit from working with the paparazzi.

      • Nina W says:

        I just don’t think it’s a one-sided issue. The paps exist as part of the media cycle they all want to be in and I just don’t see it as a right side/wrong side issue. No one should ever be harassed but there’s also no way to stop people from doing their job. I am not entirely convinced of the evil of the paparazzi, yes I’m sure they are obnoxious and foul but that is not the same thing as being criminals that must be stopped.

      • Cicero says:

        Nina W, I find myself totally agreeing with you. I think Kristen Bell’s characterization of the paparazzi relies heavily on narratives that demonize all paparazzi as horrible people who are all but criminals. Perhaps some are as terrible as the paparazzo in the incident she described where she was harassed. I believe it. But others perform a function as a part of the media cycle from which some celebs reap benefit. You’re right that it isn’t a one-sided issue.

  16. MissWilson says:

    I think she was very diplomatic. She basically says it’s the parents prerogative to let their own kids be photographed or not, and she choose not to allow it. However, I have, and have always had, a major problem with her raccoon eyeliner. Heavy eye shadow doesn’t enhance her beauty, and she is very pretty naturally.

  17. Luca26 says:

    There are celebrities that won’t be left alone if they don’t set up photo ops with or without their kids but I think they are the exception rather than the rule. I don’t think anyone was clamoring to see the Shepard/Bell baby although they both like getting as much press as possible and have ALOT of their personal life out in the public eye. It is wrong for the paparrazi to stalk and harass children and ultimately who can honestly argue against it?

  18. V says:

    Due to my sister being a big Veronica Mars/Kristen Bell fan, I’ve seen/read far too many interviews of Kristen and Dax…and they backtrack on life itself. When they started dating, they said they wouldn’t talk about their relationship publicly because they wanted to keep it private…and started posting photos and talking about their relationship within a year. When they said they’d wait until gay marriage was legal to get married, they later clarified that they meant Prop 8 or just in California. They started calling each other husband and wife, were called on it, initially said that they didn’t mean it that way, then said that that’s how they thought of each other. Kristen said no one would know when they got married and started making jokes about just going down to the courthouse…and we know how that turned out. Kristen initially declined to talk about her pregnancy because it was personal and she didn’t want to violate the baby’s privacy…of course she then turned around and talked quite a bit about it.

    I don’t know. I guess to me, they seem to be trying too hard to be a different type of celebrity, but keep failing at it. As if they want to be leaders when they’re actually followers. Does that make sense?

    I don

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      Totally agree with your assessment. Perfect.

    • The Original Mia says:

      All of this. They are two try-hard wannabe A-listers, who like to pretend they are so above the fray. No one cares about their kid. No one.

    • Marianne says:

      Not too mention that if they are so for their child’s privacy, then why show a picture of her daughter’s feet on Ellen? Or make a public announcement over the child’s name. Etc.

      I get that she thinks Paps are rude (and they are). But they both seem a little hypocritical.

  19. mena says:

    I know Kristen & Dax are walking a fine line here, but I’m kinda glad they are. I think it had to be the celebs who are lower on the food chain to expose the parental collusion issue, because it’s not like anyone on the A-list would have done it.

    If Halle Berry or Jennifer Garner truly believed the sob stories they told to the CA Senate, you’d think they’d support what Kristen & Dax are doing too. I mean, everyone just wants to protect the kids, right? But IMO Halle & Jennifer have been very noticeably silent. The more Kristen & Dax talk about this issue, the more noticeable the silence from the A-list becomes.

    I think it’s about time the celebs who work with the paparazzi were exposed and if a C-list couple can stumble into doing that, then more power to them.

  20. FLORC says:

    I agree with the no kids papped bit, but other things really bug me…

    Was she getting papped before they came out with this crusade? It seems like they could have lived an amazingly private life had they said nothing. I guess that would have also kept them out of the papers (no pr).

    And their friends absolutely call the paps. That they believe this doesn’t happen shows their tunnel vision.

    This all just seems like a ploy to become household names and promote their current and future projects.
    And I wonder what will happen if Dax records another home video and posts it to youtube.

    • sandie says:

      I saw an interview where she said she would leave the business in a heartbeat if the paps continued to harass her and she felt it affected her daughter. If the paps take her literally and totally left her alone and her career hit the skids (as it very well could) she would be singing a different tune IMO

  21. QQ says:

    While I think is admirable she herself isnt trying to pimp out her kid is RIDICULOUS All this railing about she is doing in the very shows that STAY talking about celebrity kids, moreover there are people with actual Hollyweird power that stay fronting like they dont want their kids to be seen or whatever all the while building a cottage industry around them ( alba, klum, celebrity mommy bloggers) or trotting them out come campaing times (HI AFFLECKS!) or at any sign or trouble in paradise to deflect the convo (hi Halle Berry!)

  22. Paige says:

    I do think the paparazzi harassing small children is completely wrong but celebrities can’t have it both ways. Many benefit from their kids pics being taken and yet they act like they don’t. I don’t think half would be as famous without parading their kids in front of the camera. I don’t think anyone is looking for pics of Kristen Bell’ s daughter anyway. Why do the C-list actors do the most complaining while the actors that are more accomplished can find a way to protect their kids from the paparazzi. Not to be rude or anything but who is breaking their neck to get pics of their kids.

    • Virgilia Coriolanus says:

      That’s the thing about it for me. I fully believe that celebs shouldn’t be able to pimp their kids out–I fully believe that paparazzi should only be taking pictures of the parents (with the kids, as by products). But there is a shift towards babies—I remember in the Oscar Roundtable thing last year–Amy Adams said that she had to issues with the paparazzi taking pictures of her and her husband, and her baby. But it was when the paparazzi aimed the camera right at her daughter–she told him that she didn’t want any pictures of her daughter out, that SHE wasn’t in. I think that’s the way it should go–the mommy blogs should go. I think that’s weird to focus on a CHILD of a celeb. I’ve never been on one and the majority of pap photos I see are on this site.

      But it’s a hard thing, because people who do want to avoid the paparazzi–kids or not–they do. It’s pretty simple, especially if you’re not especially famous. But it’s also harder if you live in LA, near the hotspots…..like the Farmer’s Market or that grocery story where 99% of celebs go to shop–even Askars goes there. But I think in the end, it’s the media/Hollywood. I remember Sally Fields talking about how the studio, back in the 50s or wherever, made her go on this fake date in a park, so that they could get pictures of her and some fellow actor. They’re the ones who benefit from this the most—there might be a few low tier celebs who get paid for their photos–but compared to the rest? Very few profit from it.

  23. Dizzle says:

    Honestly though, are the paparazzi and people in general really THAT interested in her and her husband?

  24. Bridget says:

    Ultimately, she’s chosen to devote her time and energy on a crusade that affects such a small number of privileged people that it’s hard to really drum up a lot of interest or passion for her. There are so many fabulous children’s charities in LA and needs to be addressed, and she’s made paparazzi her big issue. It just feels so trivial.

    • roxyb says:

      @Bridget EXACTLY, thank you!

    • mercy says:

      Very true, but it’s still an issue worth addressing, imo, and someone had to speak up. Stalking should not be acceptable under any circumstances.

      • Bridget says:

        For the most part, we’re talking annoyances, not stalking. Actual stalking is a crime, following someone around is not. Yes, there is bad behavior. But on the whole, this is such a narrow problem, affecting a tiny group of people who are VERY financially rewarded for chosen career, that again it just feels so trivial. If it’s so tramatizing for her, move out of LA. Problem solved.

        And I would also like to point out that the laws protecting paparazzi are some of the same laws that protect our own free speech and free press.

    • kibbles says:

      +1 This is elite Hollywood celebrity rich people problems. The 98-99% of the population does not care that a C-list couple is over exaggerating the few times they were photographed outdoors with their newborn. They are not A-list status. They do not garner nearly the same amount of attention as Brangelina, Sandra Bullock, Halle Berry, or the Afflecks.

      The popularity of Berry’s child as well as Suri Cruise have died down along with the news of Berry’s custody battle and the divorce of Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise. Brangelina and their children seem to garner the most attention at the moment, but even they haven’t made a big deal out of this issue.

  25. Renee28 says:

    This makes her a bigger target than she ever was. I don’t think the demand for her is that high. How often is she actually in a magazine?

  26. msw says:

    I don’t really understand the complains that she’s “just doing this for attention” or that no one cares about her daughter, so why would she bother making a big deal of it. Her daughter WAS snapped by paparazzi and the pictures were published after she made her wishes very public. KB has a very big cult following. You may think no one cares about her, but the Veronica Mars movie is coming out this week–that’s why you’re seeing her everywhere, and what started the roll on this anti-pap thing in the first place.

    Criticizing celebs for daring to go to grocery stores, pumpkin patches or parks where paps hang out? Why shouldn’t they go the places they want? I don’t blame them at all for wanting to go the places they choose to go (stores they like, places where they have happy memories with their kids) just because paps are there. I don’t see how they forfeit their right to be annoyed about being stalked by paps just because they know ahead of time there might be paps there.

    I don’t think it’s so awful for people to call the paps themselves so they can work with paps who aren’t jerks to them or their kids. If you know you’re going to be papped anyway, why not take control of the situation yourself? It makes perfect sense to me. Besides, inviting some paps to photograph you does not mean you have no right to complain about being harassed and stalked by others.

    I admire her for placing the blame directly where it bleongs–on the publications which consume she photos and the paps who endanger innocent civilians and photograph children without the parents’ consent. She’s not berating others because she is smart enough to recognize that there is room for more than one opinion. I have a lot of respect for her. She is one of the smartest celebs talking. If not her, who? Someone had to help put an end to this nonsense.

    • mercy says:

      “I admire her for placing the blame directly where it bleongs–on the publications which consume she photos and the paps who endanger innocent civilians and photograph children without the parents’ consent.”

      Yes!

    • mila says:

      There are plenty of pap free playgrounds, stores, coffee shops in LA.
      If I were a celeb, I would choose to go to a grocery store with no paps then one with paps.
      I would make an effort to avoid the paps, it is not hard to do. If I saw paps at the grocery store, I would actually drive a block to the one without paps.
      If I knew ahead of time where the paps are, I would not go there!

      You actually can’t complain about paps if you have invited paps to photograph you. That makes you kind of a hypocrite.

      • mercy says:

        Not all photographers are paps, and not all paps are the same. If they are truly being abusive, they should be called on it. Claims from a Kardashian type might not appear as credible or seem self-inflicted, but there is no excuse for abusive behaviour from a pap, celeb, or anyone else.

      • msw says:

        I addressed your point already. I don’t see why someone should have to go someplace else just because they know some paps will be there. They should be able to go where they want without being harassed, just like private citizens. It’s easy to say they should just go somewhere else, but if you were continuously prohibited from going to your favorite grocery store, coffee shop or playground you would probably say f it sometimes, too.

        I’ve also already addressed why I think you don’t relinquish all rights to complain if you tip off some paps. I realize I am just about the only person on this site who doesn’t think this makes them hypocrites. If I give you a key to my house to water my plants while I’m out of town, that doesn’t mean I’m happy with someone else going into my house and doing it. But according to your logic, I GAVE you the key and told you when I’d be out of town, so I should shut up and stop complaining if some stranger is in my house. They pick people they can work with to spare the stalking, harassment and dangerous encounters.

      • Seán says:

        @ mila
        “There are plenty of pap free playgrounds, stores, coffee shops in LA.
        If I were a celeb, I would choose to go to a grocery store with no paps then one with paps.
        I would make an effort to avoid the paps, it is not hard to do.

        Unless your Ms. Kunis, you really have no clue on whether it’s true or not to avoid the paparazzi. I’m sure you don’t like being inconvenienced in your life and have to avoid your choice of playground, store or coffee so why should celebrities too?

    • Bridget says:

      Well we can’t have everything we want. Life’s tough like that. If the trade-off for working a dream job that pays fabulously is that you have to drive a couple of extra blocks to go to the grocery store, or to get your coffee, then smile and thank your lucky stars as you drive those 2 blocks. There are so many things in life that are truly not fair, so a celebrity having to be inconvenienced doesn’t exactly ping on my radar, even if it ‘shouldn’t have to be that way’.

      • msw says:

        Well, you clicked the story, so something pinged your radar, even if it was indignation at her audacity to be upset. Let’s talk next time you complain of thirst when there are kids in other parts of the world with no clean drinking water. Everyone’s problems are relative.

        I think its perfectly reasonable to expect not be verbally abused by strangers or have others make money off pics of your kids without your permission (which you have to admit goes far beyond “having everything we want”), but that’s just me. she has stated repeatedly that she and her spouse signed up for this life, but does not believe its a free pass for paps to photograph her child, who did not pick celebrity or her parents.

    • Nina W says:

      You can’t simply blame the publications, that is far too simplistic. Media is a machine and celebrities and paps are both part of it. I can get behind protecting children from exposure and I can get behind no abusive behavior but I cannot accept the paps evil, celebrity good premise. That is total BS. Celebrities want to have their pictures taken, I understand that they want it only on their terms but you make the deal with the devil and you get what you get.

      • msw says:

        Nope, sorry, I think there is a reasonable limit which can be agreed on by decent people (therein lies the problem, which is why this escalated to its current state). But you are right, there is more blame than just the publications. If you consume the rags, buy the pics, or solicit them, you are participants.

  27. lithe says:

    There are sites that I stopped visiting because I was growing increasingly uneasy with some of the pictures that they were publishing of Suri Cruise when her parents were still together. (I even stopped coming here for awhile.) So I agree with what Kristen and Dax are trying to achieve. But having said that, it really rubs me the wrong way how he always seems so sanctimonious. As a huge Veronica Mars fan, I have a lot of respect for Kristen’s talent, but I don’t like the effect Dax seems to have on her. I’m finding her a little hard to take. YMMV.

  28. Chrisy says:

    Anyone watched Kristen & Dax on Access Hollywood last week? They ran a special, brought some photo agency people to talk with the two face-to-face. Kristen & Dax were very aggressive. Not smart at all. Dax thought he could ask every agency not to buy photos of children without parent’s approval.

    • Cali says:

      I did. They came off as really unlikeable. They were so hostile and ridiculous.

      • Seán says:

        I couldn’t disagree more. They were very passionate about the issue and talked over the opposition and each other from time to time but I’m really behind their case all the way. How were they ridiculous? You can’t take a photograph of an average civilian child without permission from the parents/guardians and I don’t see how there’s any exception when it comes to celebrities.

        It’s one thing to take a photograph of a child at a public event that a celebrity parent takes their children to but another thing entirely to capture them while they’re off-guard and going about their average day. Kristen Bell and Dax Shepard have chosen to put themselves out there and pursue very public careers. They’re fair game when they’re out and about on their own but their child (or any celebrity child) should not be subjected to that. It’s another thing for a parent to post pictures of their child on the web or do a reality TV show with them. I personally wouldn’t do that myself but at least the parent has control in that situation. A parent doesn’t have control in a situation where paparazzi have “the constitutional right” to take a picture of a child doing things in public. It’s a violation, plain and simple. Candid photographing of celebrities is a form of stalking. Seeing as they call for that attention themselves and there’s a big demand for it, it’s just one of the parts of being a celebrity. But kids didn’t ask for that and they deserve to be respected. The photo agency people they were talking to put on a big show of respect for the cameras but ultimately admitted that they won’t change their rules because they’d lose out on a small fraction of money. Even if the photos are harmless pictures…you can’t monitor a paparazzo’s behaviour which has regularly proved to be hostile, obnoxious and damn right dangerous (running red lights, knocking over others to get their money shot). Not to mention…a candid photo of your child is up there for the world to judge. People do on this site with the Jolie-Pitt kids all the time and while it’s mostly glowing, I don’t think it’s right for people to formulate personalities and cult-like fan followings for kids who didn’t choose to be in the public eye.

        I don’t care about how relevant Bell and Shepard are in terms of celebrity status or that this issue only affects a tiny percentage of people who we believe have too much anyway. They might sound whiny and entitled when there are kids dealing with much worse than photographers in the world. But still…every child deserves the best shot at life possible. I’m single, childless, non-famous and a long way off from having kids but I know that when I do, I don’t want people photographing them without my, my partner’s or our family’s consent. This is one issue where I can put myself into a celebrity’s shoes and feel a great deal of sympathy for them.

      • Nina W says:

        So what’s the solution Seán? We throw out the constitution? No thank you. And as the law stands now you can take a picture of anyone in public and I don’t know why you think celebrity children have some special circumstance, they don’t. Their parents or guardians take them to public places and that’s where paps photograph them.

      • msw says:

        This isn’t a first amendment issue. No one is trying to take their right to photograph away. They aren’t asking for legislation about who can be photographed. Even Halle and Jennifer didn’t ask for that; they wanted legislation to protect children from being tormented by photographers.

        KB and DS are asking for the ETHICS of the industry to change. They asked paps not to photograph their daughter; some did it anyway. They asked mags and blogs not to publish them; some did it anyway. So they decided they wouldn’t work with mags/blogs who publish those pics against the parents wishes. Its simple. They’re doing what they can by saying its not ok and they won’t work with people who violate the wishes of a child’s parent.

        If only more parents were like them, instead of pimping out their kids.

    • Seán says:

      @Nina W, I never said to throw out the constitution or that celebrity children are “special snowflakes” that deserve special treatment. I think taking a picture of any child without parental consent is wrong. If someone went up to the average child on the street and started taking photographs of them without their consent or their parents’ consent, I’m pretty sure that person would be in trouble with the law. Particularly if someone was caught snapping pictures of children through a hole in a surfboard as shown in the example that Bell and Shepard provided.

      I’m not a US citizen so I don’t know how things work in your country but it’s common practise in most places for parents to sign a permission slip if a child has their picture taken by strangers. It’s a code of ethics rather than a legal one. No child…famous or non-famous…should have their photograph taken by complete strangers. It might sound like whining from a duo of entitled celebrities but would you like your kids or your potential children to be snapped by a bunch of strangers? I know I wouldn’t and that’s why I support their campaign.

  29. Comity says:

    I get their position and agree. However, what dumb pap is breaking his neck to get a photo of these two or their kids? I’ve heard more about them and seen more pics of them in relation to their crusade than with regard to their work or popularity. ” Everyone look! It’s Dax’s and Kristen’s baby”. ZzzzzzzzSnoozefest.

    • caitlin says:

      +10 Even though their argument is valid – leave the kids alone – I have a hard time believing that these two are pap targets.

  30. Jackson says:

    Meh. IDK. Whatever. Rich celebrity 0.00001%er problems just don’t get me in Crusade Mode.
    I’m not sure who is clamoring for pics of their kid, but whatever. Fight your fight, protect your child, but maybe try to be a little less sanctimonious about it. Let’s also not pretend that a celeb wouldn’t use their child as a “don’t take my picture shield” on days they don’t want to be photographed.

  31. Cali says:

    This whole thing has completely backfired. Jennifer and Halle were ridiculous crying a river over paparazzi – but they really just wanted the yelling and such to stop, which I agree shouldn’t happen. But Kristen and Dax, both of whom I used to genuinely like, have turned a little too high and mighty for my taste. They did this whole back and forth with a photo agency on Access Hollywood. Kristen was on my last nerve. And the way she’s “giving her seal of approval” to the magazines and sites who are bending to her “demands” is irritating. Making announcements on Twitter “okay everyone it’s safe to once again read PopSugar, LilSugar, because they’ve agreed to stop the pictures!”. Like she’s been named the head of censorship on kid pics. It’s ridiculous. Dax’s letter was just ugh. He’s clueless and rude. I worked for several celebrity websites and the celebs’ PR reps. There are many, many, many who call the paps, who have arrangements with the agencies, with big name brands to have their kids photographed with their products, etc. Sorry, but there’s not a pack of photogs just hanging around outside of David the Dentist’s office in Studio City on a random Tuesday at 1pm and just so happens to catch you-know-who and her kids leaving by coincidence!

    Sorry for ranting. I get their desire to keep their child from being photographed. IT CAN BE DONE without this campaign to bully mags into submission. HUNDREDS of celebrities keep their kids out of the spotlight. I know regular people who didn’t even KNOW that Philip Seymour Hoffman had any kids, let alone three, until his death! So, it’s very do-able, no matter how big the star is, to keep the kids out of the media.

    • anon33 says:

      EXACTLY. I had no idea he had a wife OR kids. Not a clue and I’ve been a fan of his work since Boogie Nights.

      • Marianne says:

        I knew PSH had a son. I think his son attended the oscars with him once. But thats it. Honestly didn’t know he had 2 other children.

    • shellybean says:

      Thank you! I agree with everything you just said. Kristen and Dax are highly annoying. No one truly even cares about seeing their child. We probably wouldn’t have even known she was pregnant (or cared) if she hadn’t made a big announcement and talked about it all the time. I’ve enjoyed her in some movies, but she’s really not as interesting as she seems to think she is.

    • Virgilia Coriolanus says:

      Same here! I was a big fan of PSH–he was an amazing actor. I had no clue that he had a long term partner (and Mimi is SO pretty, and she looks like she’s in her early 30s, not half way to 50), and had three kids. And until he died, I don’t think I’d ever seen a pap pic of him–he lived in NY because of that very reason. He had no issues finding work–well, I guess you have to be talented, but still.

  32. jwoolman says:

    I’m surprised that people are assuming she must have some ulterior motive since she’s not ultrafamous. She’s in an industry where this is indeed a problem, and that makes it her problem. She’s had awful experiences with paps herself and doesn’t want her kid to be photographed by such people. Sounds normal to me. The paps are really wild today. And they do go after anybody they recognize. A few years ago, Ashley Tisdale (hardly Angelina Jolie level, I know her for her work with Disney) was just picking up something from a regular store, she just had something in a small paper bag and was dressed for errand running. TMZ had a video of a pap or paps bothering her when she obviously had no interest in them. They kept bothering her with idiot questions. She just rolled her eyes and kept walking to get into her van. TMZ also kept publishing zoom lens pictures of underage actors just trying to swim in the ocean. The kids obviously were not there for publicity shots, TMZ was just trying to imply sleazy things as usual. It really is harassment. The fact that some actors use the paps for publicity doesn’t change the fact that many don’t. Kids especially are easy to scare and should be off limits entirely. But adults also should not have to give up their private life to do end runs around these stupid paps.

    When a pap tried stalking Britney Spear’s little sister after she went back home to Louisiana during her pregnancy, local police arrested the guy and made it clear that what he was doing was illegal. If somebody started doing that to you for any reason, you would quickly understand that this can’t be dismissed as just a “rich people’s problem”.

  33. idk says:

    Is it just me or do Dax and Kristen look like they could be brother and sister? I have seen this many times where people marry others that look just like them (or look like their mother/father). Interesting.

  34. Kate says:

    Test – My comments do not seem to be getting posted.

  35. Stacy says:

    It is not a problem that only effects 0.001%. If my children are in school I have to give permission for the school to publish their pictures, so why is it different for the paps? And if the photographers are at the school it effects every child there. Not just the children of famous people. There is something wrong with photographers who will terrorize children to make a few bucks and that makes the “pedorazzi” label completely justified. They prey on children just as a pedophile does. You have no clue what the lasting effects are on any of the children that are around when this kind of behavior happens. No child should walk out of a school and walk into the hell of yelling, screaming paps.

    • Nina W says:

      The difference is your child’s school is not a public place, paps are not allowed to roam freely there, nor is anyone else. That’s why they lurk outside the school, down the block, across the street, whatever. Once you’re in a public place anyone can take your picture.

      • Jadzia says:

        The reason that you have to give permission for your child’s school to publish pictures of your child is the FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act) law. That’s an issue that is distinct from the issues raised by non-school-employees taking pictures of kids.

  36. StaCat1 says:

    I think she may not have realized how many celebs call the paps since they know the kid pictures are more likely to be posted/published if it was just them. Some celebs def use their kids in their PR- which i personally do NOT understand exposing your child to such an experience.

    I have been in the wrong place at the wrong time when these guys swarm in and for the most part, they are aggressive, rude and do not care who is in their way- even if it’s a kid of a non-famous person– they have to get the shot and to hell with anyone in the way.

    Any legislation/policy that curbs them and the endangerment they cause – I am for. They knock people down on sidewalks, they jump in their cars to pursue regardless of traffic or other cars- their needs to be MUCH more stringent laws. not just for the safety of kids of celebs but for the random person who just happens to be in the way.

    • msw says:

      That’s the exactly why some of them probably call paps. Would you rather get one like that, or one you know won’t hurt people to get a pic of you or scream at your children? If you call them, you control it.

  37. Peanut buttrr says:

    Christian Bale never gets papped. Neither does Cate Blanchett. Amy Adams seems to only show up on these sites during awards season. So yes A listers can live life without being hounded.

    And even famewhores like Jolie and Pitt can keep certain things private if they want. I mean there was no hint that Angelina had a masectomy until she announced it.

  38. Dee Kay says:

    I like Kristen Bell as an actress but she and her husband didn’t go about this “campaign” or whatever very well, imo. First of all, they should have just joined the Garner-Berry effort to get paparazzi to stop yelling at kids and being so aggressive. I think that is really the main point that Bell and spouse are trying to get across. But the way they’ve made a huge deal about magazines needing to stop buying pics etc. makes it seem like they wanted to tag *all* celeb baby pics as bad/wrong/evil – and then they backtracked (or she did) when they got a clue that, duh, some celebs call the paparazzi as part of the promotion of their movies or other products. Now Bell and spouse just sound weak on the issue (as people say about politicians), and sort of confused about what the stakes are (“we asked mags to never buy baby pics from paparazzi again” “oops except when celebs are selling the baby pics to those very magazines”). I think they have a good point about the yelling and aggressiveness towards children but they just weren’t savvy in getting up in the press and becoming the public spokespeople for this.

    • Nina W says:

      I agree, I think they were naive about the reality of media and celebrity and how thinks work in Hollywood. There is nothing new in celebrities selling photos of their kids, nothing new at all, it’s as old a game as the movie biz itself and I don’t know why anyone is surprised by it.