tyson jailed again

[phail]

http://blogs.reuters.com/fanfare/2009/11/13/it-was-self-defense-mike-tyson-says/


man when i saw this guy on oprah ( YES i watch oprah) i thought he was really through the worst.

old behaviors repeat themselves i guess

 

[mr.cat]

What esle is new, he's just a bully

 

[Captain Fantastic]

He may be a bully from the 'hood, but I have a question:

Why are paparazzi trying to take pictures of his child, knowing what he had just been through...?

For once, I'll say this: Good for Mike. Fuck the paparazzi.

 

[SkyRider]

Fuck the paparazzi.

So many horror stories about the paparazzi. Look what they did to Princess Diana, hunted her down like a pack of wolves.

 

[slowandeasy]

Why are paparazzi trying to take pictures of his child, knowing what he had just been through...?

For once, I'll say this: Good for Mike. Fuck the paparazzi.

Great point. The paparazzi might be scum, but as long at they have a legal right to do their jobs, no one should be allowed to injure them.

I am sorry for Tyson, and if he had a Mother Teresa type track record, I would say that he deserves the benefit of the doubt.

I personally don't think that the press should be allowed to take pictures of a person and publish it without their consent.

There is also the bigger picture of this story.... The paparazzi exists because
"the public" watch their shows, or pay to read their magazines, etc...

 

[The Oracle]

Why are paparazzi trying to take pictures of his child, knowing what he had just been through...?

For once, I'll say this: Good for Mike. Fuck the paparazzi.

I tend to agree. Tyson is the last guy I would want to aggravate.

 

[Captain Fantastic]

Great point. The paparazzi might be scum, but as long at they have a legal right to do their jobs, no one should be allowed to injure them.

I am sorry for Tyson, and if he had a Mother Teresa type track record, I would say that he deserves the benefit of the doubt.

I personally don't think that the press should be allowed to take pictures of a person and publish it without their consent.

There is also the bigger picture of this story.... The paparazzi exists because
"the public" watch their shows, or pay to read their magazines, etc...

To me, the question is, does the paparazzi have the right to photograph the children of "celebrities?" In any work I have done, a waiver is required to use the images of children.

(You posed the question about whether or not the media should be allowed to publish images of people without their consent. While I don't like it, I concede that it is part and parcel with the "celebrity life." But I will not concede this includes the children of said celebs.)

Therefore I say NO, and give my full support for the normally otherwise unacceptable and antisocial behaviour (at least in these types of incidents in the past) of Mike Tyson.