she was like ahhh ... ... ummm ....ahhhh help me out 
When rain, hair gel and the red carpet collide,somebody's gonna get hurt.
Hey the 'stache was to balance my unibrow, I wasn't allowed to pluck that young.
Call me a wild turkey, or grey goose but I draw the line at swallow.
Got one to share?
New year new law (in California)
A new California law went into effect yesterday that increases penalties against overly aggressive photographers — dubbed "stalkerazzi" — who forcefully thrust their cameras into famous faces or crash their car into a celebrity's vehicle. They'll now be liable for three times the damages they inflict, plus lose any payments their published photos might earn. Publishers can also be held liable. But it might effect other media like the newspapers than thought.
"This law now gives (celebrities) the ability to quash a photograph, and potentially a story (resulting from the photograph), with a frivolous lawsuit in an attempt to keep the public from being informed," "The Constitution demands a little bit higher standard before the government puts the kibosh on a newspaper's ability to publish that story."
The California Newspaper Publishers Assn., questioned the constitutionality of that law, but it has not been challenged in court, yet. Laws are presumed valid until challenged. The challenge will that the new legislation, which expands what constitutes invasion of privacy, is probably even more unconstitutional.
Photos: IHJ, WDW, ANJ
26 comments:
Seems like the celebs should not be allowed to use magazines to spread their own lies.
My bet the paps and mags will find a way around this one.
Thank God a few smart people had reeke fugured out. From the very beginning.
The law was not designed for that it was created to protect celebrities over aggressive paparazzi from putting celebrities in danger, with cars, ramming, chasing them etc.
Jen Aniston was a big force behind this legislation.
Seems like Jake has not been papped in a long time, so I don't expect to see any less of him than we are already getting. Hopefully this law will mean less of Reese too. I have always made it a point to never click on pictures or links to her unless Jake was involved or included.
I am beginning to think that Jake thought being a publicity hoar wasnt cool. hope so.
One of the many problems of Reeke is that, as I have been saying repeatedly over the past year or so, is that nobody goes to see publicity hounds at the movies. There was an article on the movie business in 2009 in the NYT earlier this week, and it said that people only seemed to be interested in seeing "stars" in the gossip pages, not in the movies. The movies that did really well this year did not have those kinds of stars in them. Reeke proved time and time again that they were operating under the impression that it was still the last century.
It's quite obvious Jake hasn't been trying to get any publicity since at least a good 2 months before the "break-up". Can we just let the Reeke publicity talk go now?
I think it is to soon Stubborn to let go. It stung too much. I think we are all in limbo waiting to see who Jake is gonna be next. Maybe he will be a more private person now and we will hear very little about him. But come late winter he will be everywhere. I hope he never does another PR bearding. It was so bad for him. Maybe I could just become a fan of his and enjoy his movies if he decides to be private and professional. That is after PoP.
Stubborn I think there has been a huge difference of opinion when it comes to brading among members. I think we all are pretty strong minded and arent going our change minds. I say at this point we I am no longer going to try and change minds or get people to admit it was wrong.
I think the sting of it will subside depending on what Jake does do next. I think if a public PR image is important to him I would like to see him stay single publicity. He def is not coming out and single is so much better than having to see him make a fool of himself again.
"I think if a public PR image is important to him I would like to see him stay single publicity. He def is not coming out and single is so much better than having to see him make a fool of himself again."
And if he wants a family ?
What having a family has to do with bearding and publicity whoring?
Can I just say I love that pic of Gavin Hood? ;)
Just asking, you have to be aware that Tom and some others will always consider Jake as Gay and nothing but, and it's Ok, a matter of a difference of opinion.
There are men who deal with and have relationships with same sex partners, but also have dealings with the opposite sex and do have children. Women do it more often than men, I guess. Whether it makes them gay or bi is in their eyes I say. To each, his own. Just found out of at least 2 guys, not together, (friends of a freind) who are very gay who each has 2 and 3 children by women. Not saying it's right and I'm not gonna judge. So if you are asking what if Jake wants to have a family with a woman and have children or a child, I say more power to him. I also know of a friend and his lover who recently adopted a child and they have now become the childs official parents. They are OUT to family and (most) people though.
How this fits with Jake, your guess is as good as mine, but it happens in so many different ways. Whatever he does "he" has to live with it, and I think he can.
Jake is gay, no question about it.
Gay men don't need to have sex with women in order to have kids.
"Just asking, you have to be aware that Tom and some others will always consider Jake as Gay and nothing but, and it's Ok, a matter of a difference of opinion."
Yes I know. But don't see him having a family with a man,maybe if he were decided to be out but given the past two years I think he never planed to built something serious with same sex.
It is beginning to look that way just asking. Ted was way off base. Jake never planned on coming out.
But don't see him having a family with a man,maybe if he were decided to be out but given the past two years I think he never planed to built something serious with same sex.
^^ I've always felt this way. No disrespect to the babytile crowd, but I have never thought of Jake settling down with a man as Ted writes. Sorry, Just don't see it. No need to get upset over his life.
I admit it. I have no interest in a straight Jake or a straight Austin. If I was convinced that neither were gay I would lose interest quickly. I am just not sure what it really would take for me to be convinced that they are str8. I sure have not seen anything yet. Certainly reeke was a joke and made me even more convinced that Jake is gay.
Can we just let the Reeke publicity talk go now?
How about letting go with the attacks on what other people talk about. That's about the only time you post Stubborn. Try starting a conversation instead.
so Tom, are you saying that regardless of Jake and his movies and acting, there is absolutely nothing that interest you about Jake or Austin but them being gay and out?
If this is so, thanks for being so truthful, however you do realize that you do have certain motives for following Jake and you have put expectations on him based on the writing of someone else. Sadly to say, it does not sound like, how should I say this, a real fan of Jake. This may change, but only if your hopes, wishes and expectations come true.
Sadly to say, it does not sound like, how should I say this, a real fan of Jake.
So what?
Yep that is the way it is for me. I didnt get into this for being a fan of Jakes acting or career. I got into it because I was convinced he was gay(still am) and yes because Ted convinced me he was coming out. Ted was wrong on that one all along.
I feel dissapppointed in Jake and Ted. For my reasons.
Ted wasn't wrong. Ted has to keep his story entertaining. While I am sure it's based on something real, I am sure as well he made up and exagerated things on purpose.
There is not one shread of real evidence that anything Ted has said was correect. None.
Ted said that Jake is gay, he said that Jake was bearding.
Jake is gay and he was bearding.
Ted was correct.
Post a Comment