ning image of a news event as it is happening and capture it on film. If he or she is doing the job correctly, a reader can get a very good idea of what happened without even reading the accompanying article. There is no luxury of editing in photojournalism, the moment is either captured forever, or it isn't. If a fantastic shot is missed, it is gone forever.A good freelance photojournalist shoots what he or she knows. A good photojournalist also knows what will sell. Some photographs really aren't worth taking from a newsworthiness standpoint, but if a publication is willing to pay enough for them, than they will be taken. Sadly money does rule the world, and until paparazzi photographers can feed their families without having to take these sorts of pictures, they will continue to be taken.It is obvious that one of two things is happening. Either the paparazzi does not threaten privacy and First Amendment rights, or they do in such a way that the public does not care. The reason for this goes back to the rich publications that ultimately drive paparazzi photographers to take these pictures. These publications are supported by advertisers who evidently don't mind being associated with a publication which uses paparazzi photographs, and readers who obviously are wiling to pay to see paparazzi photos. In this way both the corporate and private sectors show their approval for paparazzi work.Photographs lacking malicious intent or not published with gross negligence are not conceivably in violation of the First Amendment if they were taken in what would be considered a public area. Violations of privacy are hard to argue also if the photograph was taken in a public area.Ultimately we do need to protect the rights of the paparazzi as well as their subjects. We need to keep what is public and done in public, public and keep what is done in a private place private, but in those situations. We can not allow our sources of informati...
