Moonlightaholics

Dear Moonlightaholics,

Recently, some pretty stalkerish pictures and videos of Alex have surfaced. Photos of Alex that were taken inside a grocery store have prompted a discussion on the Appreciating Alex thread, about whether or not the photographer violated his privacy. We would like to take this opportunity to invite a discussion among all of our members on how to decide what is too much... and what to do about it.

We all know that one of the prices of fame is a loss of privacy. And actors understand that price. They accept it as a necessary part of being a successful actor. The Moonlight cast--bless them--have been amazingly gracious and accommodating to their fans, both in the past and in their work after Moonlight. But even the most gracious star has limits. And when those limits are reached, everyone loses. Stars may become more secretive. Access may be cut off. The public may be kept farther and farther away from location shoots, and situations may arise like the one at The Punchbowl shortly after the anniversary of Pearl Harbor Day, where a group of veterans was possibly interfered with by people hired to keep a shooting site secure.

We all love to see new pictures of the actors we admire, and it's no surprise that new pictures spread quickly across the Net as soon as they are released. But when should we resist the urge to share what we see? How do we decide when pictures and videos are too invasive?

As moderators of this forum, we have an obligation to do our best to maintain an open, friendly atmosphere, where people feel free to say what they think--while avoiding things that we view as being over the line. But since that line is sometimes hard to define, we're inviting everyone to say how they feel about the issue of privacy. Have you seen the recent photos of Alex grocery shopping? Do you think the photographer invaded his privacy? How do you feel about reposting pictures that you think are too invasive--should we allow our members to post things like this? If so, why? And what do you think is too invasive?

Thank you for your opinions, and for giving us the opportunity to explore how our members feel about this. We look forward to a healthy debate, and your opinions will help us decide how to handle things like this in the future.

Your MLA Admin and Mod Team

Really really hard question. I understand that we'd like to define a very hard and fast rule of what is and isn't invasive. However, the line seems to be moving or maybe is really crooked.

Yes, I think the idea of taking pictures of Alex grocery shopping inside the store seemed creepy, but I don't remember anyone saying anything when there were photographs of him eating breakfast at a sidewalk table outside a restaurant right after he shaved his head last spring. Looking back on it, it was a very similar situation. Is it because all the pictures were outdoors? With the grocery shopping pictures, would we not have hit the "creepy" line had the photographer not gone in the store?

Or was it the quantity that pushed it over the edge? Sort of like when we got the series of pictures with Alex prepping for surfing and taking a run (which I will be ever grateful for as it gave us the only good look of his new back tattoo that we've seen). Once again, I don't remember if anyone thought that was too much. If it's quantity, that might be hard for anyone to judge. For instance, someone might have seen one of the pictures somewhere and posted not knowing that there were a dozen more.

Does it matter where the pictures are taken? If he's on location for H50, he knows he'll be seen by the public. I just don't see those as invading his privacy. If he's off doing his own thing - like grocery shopping - I'd be inclined to think we might be on the edge. But I gotta be honest, I find the personal pictures more interesting because they give a glimmer into what Alex is really about as a normal human being.

Then there's the situation I've been bitten by - that there's someone else in the picture that we shouldn't see although I didn't recognize them. How are you supposed to know there's a picture not to be posted if you don't know what the person in question looks like.

On the other hand, Alex is a professional and he knows he's going to be photographed. He had to be aware of the camera while he was grocery shopping and chose not to make a scene knowing that the photographer wasn't going to get anything that interesting that way. He is a class act. Whatever this site decides to do, I don't believe that it will not change anything regarding whether or when Alex is photographed.

First of all, thank you Allegritafor opening this interesting thread. I think this discussion will be very helpful.
Now, being myself the one who found the " inside-the-store" picture and posted it on this board, I feel like I have to be here to express my own opinion.
Of course, I'm really sorry for all you, friends, who were upset after looking at that particular picture. I'm sorry, I didn't want to offend anybody. I just am sooo "hungry" , when it comes to my Alex, I was so happy to see new pictures of him. And, I just wanted to share.
Personally, I thought myself that they were pretty " stalkerisch" pics, but that's it. I mean, I've seen worst ( not only about Alex ) and much more offending pics in my life, for example when paparazzi catch those famous artists in their bad moments, or when they are with their family and childrens ( and I do respect our Alex for trying to leave Saxon out of his public life ).
What I'm trying to say, is that it's just Alex shopping groceries in a public store ! I don't see the difference with pictures of him taken while he's jogging, or playing with his dog on the beach...and so on.
So, this is just my own modest opinion, and of course I will accept and respect the limits , if there will be, if the mods of this board will decide to take actions about privacy issue.
Again, my apologies to all the members.
As ever, remember I'm writing english, but I'm not, so please bear the errors.
Daniela

Thank you, allegrita.
I am a curious person and I'm constantly battling temptations. I'm of the look first, ask questions later kind. The kind that loves seeing Alex in pictures and later has a bad conscience because I realize that he would rather have been left alone.

The pictures won't go away if I don't look. They are done, they can't be undone. Paparazzi earn money with them, and they are intrusive, no question. Alex knows that and he deals with it in his own way. We never see him angry. Whenever he is photographed it's either a good natured greeting or he's just ignoring it. He has nothing to hide, and his appearances are delightfully boring. That's why, I guess, we don't ever see articles in tabloids with these photos. As I said at another place, if he were constantly partying, having different girls hanging on his arm, doing drugs, being drunk, punching someone, it would be interesting and stories would be made up to accompany the photo. But him eating breakfast, hanging with friends, buying kitchen towels... not so much.

I don't approve of pictures of his son, at least when he was younger and more vulnerable. Now that he's living with his dad there might be more photos from set where he's on. I think fans should be more aware that they shouldn't post these. As I said, once the photos are done and posted, they can't be taken back.

I would absolutely draw a line if they stalked his home, his car or his favorite hangouts. As it is, he's getting off relatively easy.

What I despise more than the photos themselves is what kind of speculation so-called fans make out of them. Bashing his girl's satorial choices, or running their tongue about his weight and health, his consume of tobacco or beer, and so on.
I admit I'm interested in him a lot, but that's his own thing. I can recognize things in the pictures, but I won't discuss them endlessly. I wouldn't want anyone to talk about my weight or my friends. The tattoos that he's shown us somewhere are fair game to know about and have an opinion about, but again I won't speculate on what their meaning is or if he should have tattoos.

If the world were different there wouldn't be such pictures. I am aware that we fans create a demand and the paparazzi fill that demand. I can't help wanting to know more about Alex, but sometimes I think there need to be laws or common courtesy to help curb those appetites. New Alex pics that are intruding his private life are coming up about twice a year, and that's not too much, in my opinion. Alex might see it differently.

Interesting idea, and while I am not into the pictures and tabloids thing much, I have an opinion and I will toss it out for whatever it's worth (I've been around here long enough to have established the fact that I always have an opinion, now whether it is worth anything is another matter...)

There is an entire strata of society that makes its living being intrusive (the photographers, the tabloids, the TMZ's and like) and when one enters specific professions, they become a part of their lives. Personally, I wouldn't trade places with them for anything! It's sensationalism and sometimes it is valuable to a celebrity (as someone once said, there is no 'good' publicity or 'bad' publicity, there is only 'publicity')

In Click, Moonlight touched on this and we all booed and hissed at Dean Foster and his ilk and sympathized with Tierney Taylor.

I follow an actor or actresses performances, and that is pretty much the limit of my interest. I care to the extent that I hope they have a nice life and that bad things don't happen to them, but pictures of them in the grocery store or jogging don't interest me. Even if it is Alex. No offense to Alex at all, but he deserves all the privacy he wants to have.

There are folks who can't get enough information about their favority celebrity, and that is their own personal choice. I guess I just have a different style.

Just my take.

Jenna

As the fair and ethical Mod/Board Owner that you are....thanks for asking!

The minute I saw the photos that were taken from a camera propped in or near a gym bag/purse I screamed "CLICK" and wished someone WOULDN'T be making a living off of Alex and Saxon. That is an invasion of privacy, for me that's the unpassable line.

Photos while in a public place without subterfuge.... I think are fare game. I know it is inevitable that as his star rises he will be followed.

Seeing him carrying a can of Copenhagen just tells me he's a human being with habits or running errands for some one with a chew habit. His life, his choices...he is an entertainer, not my role model.

The photos I never want to see? I don't want to watch him arguing, fighting or inebriated.... just because I wouldn't want to be photographed that way.

Inasmuch as my ethics/morals aren't the world's the only thing I fear is Paparazzi interference that threatens his safety because being a star they've relinquished their privacy.

Well.... I am a member of this site, so I guess I am allowed my say about the subject. I love seeing pictures of Alex. Whether or not they are inappropriate to look at depends on the situation. He knows he will be recognised. The days of Moonlight and anonymity are gone. He's more of a household name and his fanbase is growing. He had to understand this when he decided to be an actor. The one time he sounded upset was when he said that one night "we" were followed home. ( presuming he meant he and Amber) I hope that doesn't happen to him in Hawaii. Residents are more laid back there, and if he lives there long enough he'll become a fixture on the islands. I don't mind seeing public pics of him walking around, jogging or doing other mundane things. He must be aware this will happen. He seems to be good at ignoring it. It won't matter what this site decides. We will always have access to pics if we are interested enough. Who knows what Alex thinks about all of it, but it's the price of NOT being a jack of all trades in Sydney....which I imagine he realises and a price he seems to be willing to pay.

Very interesting topic. Being in the entertainment business I'm probably a little less sensitive to actors and privacy.

I'm just going to mention my own personal lines in sand and in no way am I judging anybody else

My personal feeling is that if you are out on the street it's fair game. I don't like pictures from inside a restaurant when people are eating. None of us look our best under those circumstances but pictures stepping outside or into a restaurant are fine with me. I don't like any pictures thru windows from the celebrities home used with long lenses.

Regarding celebrity kids...if they are on the red carpet to see a parent's movie or something I don't have a problem with them or if they are more decent shots while walking with Mom or Dad I think that's okay. If the photos are mean-spirited i.e. so and so's child had a tantrum in Toys R Us I think that is terrible because it takes the focus off the "famous" person and on to the innocent bystander

I do agree with r1015bill Alex is a class act and by not causing a scene i.e. some celebrities who break cameras things like that

Sometimes I see something on line and I don't post a link because I wonder if others will think a photo is a little invasive. Recently I saw some pics of Shannyn Sossomon taken a couple of months ago obviously pregnant. I didn't post the link primarily because a number of comments on the site were so nasty about her son's name and making fun about what she might name a second child. While the pictures themselves were fine that kind of stuff falls under the mean-spirited category. While I might not have chosen any fruits, colors, cities or words for my child's name people shouldn't put in writing things they wouldn't say to someone's face and that kind of stuff could really make a kid feel bad if they ever come across an old link.

I look at it this way....my name is technically....Song. It might be the French word Carol but it's really song and it was picked with that idea in mind

Anyway I guess I'm saying I'm okay with most pictures it's the spirit in which they are taken that bothers me at times.

I don't want to barge into the conversation, but I do want to stress that EVERYONE'S opinion is valued and welcome. Thanks, everyone, for sharing your views.

Alex does not get stalked by the paparazzi often. As francis and I joked before, he's too boring, meaning too real and too normal... for a Greek god and all.

But he is not only a celeb but a bit of a local hero in Hawaii. And everybody got a cell phone. I gotta believe he's being photo'd every time he leaves his house. The pics may not end up on the 'net, but they exist. I betcha there's a ton of em that exist. And I figure he knows that, God bless him. And thus will cover his ass when out and about. I think he's clever that way.

He, and his son, are also discussed on twitter, with or without pics. Sad but true.

So Alex stays off any public presence on social media. Wise.
He behaves when at the store. Awesome.
Will he be caught in something not perfect? Yep. Eventually.
And we can't stop it.

As long as it isn't embarrassing (consensual judgement) or incriminating or likely to hurt his family, I see no real reason not to post HERE if it's already on the web. Cuz truth is, we're well modded here. So if someone's comment goes too far, it'll be contained.

That's the only protection we can offer him. To control and moderate our reactions to what ends up "out there" for all to see. We're fans. We can love him in clothes we don't love, with women we don't know yet, with tobacco in whatever form, at whatever weight, here or there... we can love him anywhere. So he's as safe here, iffy pics notwithstanding, as he is anywhere on the Internet or social media.

IMO.

thanks, alle, for bringing this up....and to everyone who has expressed their views. You've provided something for all of us to think about.

I agree with much of what others have said regarding the price of fame - your anonymity disappears and you pretty much expect that wherever you are and whatever you're doing, somebody with a smart phone or camera is watching.

That said - I've been more than a willing participant in admiring the various photos of Alex that have graced this site. Many of those are either screen caps from shows or movies or stills from photo shoots, so what we're seeing is a character or a projection of an image, not necessarily the person himself. In other words, the public persona. No problem with these images at all.

Then there are the images of the person (not a character) in a public setting, knowing he's being photographed. This includes everything from a red carpet appearances ,running in the neighborhood, admiring someone else's motorcycle and yes, doing food shopping. Frankly, I was kind of impressed that Alex was in a food store, picking up the necessities of life and not having someone else do it for him. The fact that he was doing the shopping himself may indicate that he's comfortable enough in his surroundings and in his 'skin' that someone taking his picture with a cart full of everyday paper products wouldn't faze him.

There is a line, though. While Alex may have come to terms with the cost of being a celebrity, that cost shouldn't include his more private moments with friends and especially family. I share Lucy's concerns about capturing images of less-than-stellar moments (we all have those) or God forbid, those taken at the risk his safety or that of his family.

And every woman wants a man who doesn't mind doing the grocery shopping...although he didn't seem to have actual food in his cart. He's going to be doing a lot of cleaning cause he bought 2 big packages of paper towels.

Oh dear, this is kind of like the "what is pornography" question. There are a few absolutely nots, followed by endless judgment calls. Personally, I lean toward the allow folks their privacy school of thought, but I'm not judging the "just can't get enough" school of thought.

In the absolutely not category:
Children - NFW, it's a safety issue.
"vulnerable" shots (i.e. medical procedures, funerals, etc.).
If tresspassing occurred to take a celebrity photo (this includes a "sniper scope" type shots taken with extreme zoom) the photographer has crossed the line.
911 calls. Interfering with an emergency scene is dangerous and undignified. Playing back a recording of someone's discussion with the 911 operator is tasteless.

And then there's the endless world of judgment calls. Some celebrities "make an appearance" at the grocery store, while others are just going about their business, whatever they might be doing. I hope this helps.

nutmegger wrote:In the absolutely not category:
Children - NFW, it's a safety issue.
"vulnerable" shots (i.e. medical procedures, funerals, etc.).
If tresspassing occurred to take a celebrity photo (this includes a "sniper scope" type shots taken with extreme zoom) the photographer has crossed the line.
911 calls. Interfering with an emergency scene is dangerous and undignified. Playing back a recording of someone's discussion with the 911 operator is tasteless.

Couldn't have said it better myself, nutmegger.

Going at this discussion in reverse, I'm A-OK with photos of celebs being taken in situations where any member of the public might be at risk of having their mugshot snapped by passers-by. e.g. being a dick in public (ie nightclub fights, car bingles (minor damage!), using their status/cashed up ability to push others around) or conversely, being a hero in public (a la Gosling's fight breaker-uppering in NY, etc).

I'm afraid that in this digital world we now live in - invasive photos are part of life. An awful thing to say but its true. And its not just actors/celebrities who have to deal with this. Turn on the news every night and you will find someone being filmed or photographed from a smartphone etc doing the wrong thing. Turn to the sports section of the newspaper every day and you will find a famous sportstar caught out with his pants down or breaking the law. How many fights at kids school end up up on youtube?? etc etc. I'm sure these things aren't just limited to Australia.

I know here professional sports teams spend an enormous amount of time and money educating the players regarding digital technology, social media, and their behaviour etc to try and deal with this intrusive age of living. It can't be stopped so the only thing is to try and manage it appropriately.