Sharing pictures publicly that are YOUR OWN is really different than having other people take them from you and put them everywhere without your consent or knowledge, isn't it? I'm an enthusiastic amateur photographer; the pictures that I put online are for public consumption, and I'm glad to share them, but that doesn't mean I want someone going through my camera and putting ALL of the pictures online, even if the pictures are only of wildflowers and puppies. Don't I have that right?
I think anybody would say, uh, doy! Of course. So why is it different for someone who is famous?
Tim Teeman ends this steaming turd of an article by saying:
Still, for any celebrities planning to make an X-rated home movie, or to reveal all about their family lives, I recommend a brilliant poster that Manhattan Mini Storage created prior to New York State legalizing marriage equality. It read: "If you don't like gay marriage, don't get gay-married." And so it is for today's whining stars: "If you don't want your privacy invaded, don't invade your own privacy."
Just because they're famous or rich doesn't mean that they deserve to have all of their privacy taken away—it doesn't mean that the don't have the right to control what they put out there. Just as we ordinary folk do. They are not our bitches. They are not our property. Their lives are their own. People have been taking pictures of their naked bodies since at least the advent of the Polaroid. Ordinary people do it, celebrities do it, and we all, every last one of us, have the right to control what other people see of ourselves, be it taboo or vanilla or anything in between!