This is exactly the type of logic I'm talking about, though. You are automatically assuming an actor chose their career path because they were motivated by fame, when there is no evidence of that and you don't know anything about them as a person. Then you argue that because they are now famous, they no longer have any right to privacy even when they are not at work.

[–] calliope@retrolemmy.com 5 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

I’m with you. People always choose the wrong celebrities to take this stand about, too!

Panettiere first appeared on-screen in a commercial in 1990, at eleven months old.

“SHE CHOSE THIS! THIS IS HER FAULT!”

So children can consent, but just to start a career in entertainment. …Right?

Her full-time acting career began in 1994 when she played Sarah Roberts in the ABC soap opera series One Life to Live until 1997. She played Lizzie Spaulding in the CBS soap opera series Guiding Light from 1996 to 2000

Her full-time acting career began before she was five years old. She was in A Bug’s Life when she was nine.

She had already been in sixteen movies by the time she was 18.

It’s possible to have empathy for people you don’t know as human beings. Even celebrities.

[–] im_fine_sandy@nord.pub 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

That's kind of the opposite of what I've said.

I said there's an interface with the public. A public persona and a private life.

Of course they're entitled to privacy, because as I said anything else is harassment.

I also did not say that actors are motivated by fame.

What I am saying, is that if you want to be a well paid actor or actress you need fans. Fans need something more than seeing you on the big screen.

[–] Ilandar@lemmy.today 2 points 2 hours ago

What does any of that have to do with paparazzi harassing her in an airport when she is not at work...?