Abstract
The world was stunned in 1997 at the death of Princess Diana. Many blame the forever-controversial assault on the local paparazzi. Throughout the years the community of celebrity film and journalistic stars have all faced a menagerie of photographers and videographers hounding their every move. Some would say it is relentless search for the perfect picture no matter what gets in the way. Though hearsay, as we notice the headlines from time to time from celebrity scuffles with reporters to people of power and even royalty, the documenters recording the documenters capture the real essence of what victims of media pressure go through. The online dictionary defines paparazzi as a freelance photographer who follows famous people hoping to get a newsworthy story, especially something shocking or scandalous.”

Paparazzi: Should they have limitations?
Throughout the decades there have been legal bouts concerning the media and its so-called closeness or distancing with their subjects of interest. Whether it is a celebrity, politician, religious figure and or an everyday Joe that may have been in the wrong place at the wrong time, the public has rights that protect them from privacy intrusion. Do we really know these laws and can they be enforced. The right to privacy as in the 1st amendment clearly states we are all allotted a freedom of speech, press as long as we do not use either with seditious intent.
Cornell University describes the First amendment as one that protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference (http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment). Although we can argue that censorship is a key with what the paparazzi or tabloid can and cannot publish, the law does allow a freedom of expression. One can clearly argue a photo is a piece of art that can be expressed to the artist’s liking-