Jennifer Garner Says Daughters Are Not Public Figures

Clark Kent/Startraks

As a celebrity constantly in the public eye Jennifer Garner understands that the public have little sympathy for her list of complaints, especially when it comes to being photographed by the prying paparazzi. However, add her children into the mix and the mother of two refuses to succumb to the constant hounding. ”There are almost as many video cameras as there are film cameras and the situation has shifted so that a huge amount of their focus is put on the children of celebrities,” she states in an interview with the The Vancouver Sun.

“Because my husband and I are public figures, it is assumed that our daughters are public figures, and there’s nothing to protect them.”

With a mob of photographers stationed outside her home, Jennifer and her husband Ben Affleck have found their biggest obstacle to be one which occurs every morning: the preschool run. “When we go to preschool, there are so many paparazzi there that they are knocking kids on the heads with cameras and knocking them down,” she explains. Unfortunately, according to Jennifer, the frenzy isn’t satisfied with one picture, as they often call out to 3-year-old Violet Anne.

“There are huge numbers of them — and they’re aggressive. They talk to her. They yell at her. They try to get her attention. They try to get her to react. It is a shame, shame, shame.”

Despite her constant battle with tabloids, the 37-year-old admits her life as a wife, mother, and actress is pretty sweet. “I have an incredible family and love and support at home that helps me be able to do what I do, and my kids are healthy and happy,” she says. In fact, life is so great for Jennifer that her recent cut-back on her movie roles is a decision she never regrets. “As long as there’s still work out there for me,” she says, she has no qualms about motherhood becoming her first priority.

“That’s because in this industry, you can become such a careerist and so focused on what you’re going to do next. You can lose the sense of … who you really are. For me, having a child, definitely reset that clock.”

Jen and Ben are also parents to 4-month-old Seraphina Rose Elizabeth. Ghosts of Girlfriends Past is in theaters now.

Source: The Vancouver Sun

– Anya

Comments

Knocking kids down outside of the pre-school? You have got to be kidding me! How is it possible that something like that is legal? Jennifer has every right to be upset. Gotta tell you, if I was a mother of one of those other kids in the pre-school, I’d be raising heck!

- Tee on May 11th, 2009

omg my stomach just turned when she said that they get so close and yell out her babygirl’s name.i’m sure Violet is very scared.i would and i’m a grown woman.i think in time their will be a law or something that makes these people back off.maybe i need to become some kind of public figure to tackle this.this is really really getting out of hand.

- tan on May 11th, 2009

This is a tricky issue and I dont want to get slammed by the affleck fans -I am one myself – but while I completely understand her fear for her children and agree that the paps need to stay away from the kids…it does seem lately that they are contradicting themselves a bit. They ask for privacy with the kids but then come press time they talk about them constantly? Now as a mother, I know most of my conversations/stories center on kids as well but if they really want kids out of limelight, they should decline to answer questions on talk shows, etc. Plenty of other celebs promote movies without kids being involved? Just seems you cant have it both ways. After all, when stories they tell about the kids get printed, photos are usually wanted to go along with them? Anyway, that said, I can’t imagine having to deal with paps just to take my son to school. Thank goodness her children are used to it and well adjusted. I would be scared to death!

- brannon on May 11th, 2009

I understand where she is coming from, but @ the same time when she talks about them non-stop while promoting a film, then she is kind of fanning the flames. I’m not saying “Don’t talk about your kids” but actors like Christian Bale have managed to keep their family lives private without having to go to extremes. Maybe only mention them sometimes or something, like say on the View, where it’s essentially a show for women. But Jen talks about being a mom, her kids, being a mom to her kids, how being a mom has changed her, blah, blah, blah, but ONLY when promoting a film and then wonders why people want to see them. I think celebs need to find a balance somewhere.

- Mary-Helen on May 11th, 2009

I often wondered how many times we would see a pre-school picture of Violet, it seemed that there was a different one each day with just her clothes being different. I like to see pictures of the family but i did feel it was a bit much especially when Jennifer was heavily pregnant. I guess it’s something that you have to get used to being in the public eye but that doesn’t make it any easier. Also, I agree with what Brannon says every day that Jennifer was promoting her new movie there was a story about her kids, sometimes it better to keep it private but I suppose she’s just proud like any other mum!

- Bumbles on May 11th, 2009

So sad, yet all of us have a hand in that, as we are the ones who come to sites like this to view those very photos…those kids are both soo cute! Little Saraphina looks just like a miniature Ben!

- brook on May 11th, 2009

I don’t know why people are shocked that the paparazzi call the kids’ names – other celebrities have commented on the same thing more than once. And everybody should at least watch those paparazzi videos at least once just to get an idea of what really goes on when some of these pictures are taken. If they’re far away there usually isn’t an issue but when someone has to walk by the paparazzi they turn into like rabid animals, jostling around and shouting not only the kids’ names but there’s also a lot of profanity.

And honestly, I don’t understand why they don’t just find another preschool for Violet if it bothers them that much. I mean, yeah, nobody should HAVE to do that but if the reality of the situation is that it’s just too much, find a school that’s a bit more private.

- Ryo on May 11th, 2009

It sounds like maybe it’s time to make some changes…

- Stella Bella on May 11th, 2009

Wow… that’s just not cool.

Oh and hey, there’s a photo of Seraphina on perezhilton.com Last night it was on the front page so it might have gotten to the 2nd page by now.

She is such a cutie!

- Mandy on May 11th, 2009

>Wow… that’s just not cool.

>Oh and hey, there’s a photo of Seraphina on perezhilton.com Last night it was on the front page so it might have gotten to the 2nd page by now.

>She is such a cutie!

I hope we all realize the problem here — out of one side of the mouth, feeling like it’s “not cool” of the paparazzi to do this . . . but out of the other side of the mouth, being thrilled to see a picture a little baby, a picture that was obviously taken by these same paparazzi. We are fueling the fire as consumers of these entire blogs devoted to celebrity babies.

- carrie on May 11th, 2009

IMO – there is a vast difference between a mother gushing about her children and being a mom, and having strangers with cameras calling out to that child and trying to get her attention. Jen is not inviting paparazzi to call out her child’s name and try to get the attention of an innocent 3 year old by talking about being a mom. Having these cameras outside a preschool is taking it entirely too far. Celebrities might have to take the bad with the good, but their children should not.

- Heather on May 11th, 2009

Wow, I can’t imagine having to deal with that as a mother or even as a child. It is a shame

- txgal on May 11th, 2009

I remember Reese Witherspoon telling a similar story about a photographer knocking her friend’s kid out of the way trying to get a picture of Reese’s kids. I don’t know much about the legal system in California (I’m in Canada), but surely there must be some kind of action Jennifer and Ben, or the preschool, could take… the paparazzi have put celebrities in potentially dangerous situations before, and now they’re doing it to their kids??

- alice jane on May 11th, 2009

I agree with Heather. Also, you have to take into consideration that the PAPS were showing up at Violet’s school long before Jen went on a press tour supporting her most recent movie. This has been going on for a while, despite the fact that both Jen and Ben have cut down on the number of films they have been working on. The behavior of the guys in many circumstances is just deplorable. I have been at the airport on a few occassions where the paps have been waiting to snap footage of stars (most recently at LAX back in FEB where I saw both Gwen Stefani and Jessica Alba) and the stuff that these guys scream at these children is unreal. One photographer screamed at Kingston, “Hey Kingy, LOOK, LOOK, LOOOK. I’ll give you some candy if your mom lets me take your pic. Tell her not to be so mean and let you have some candy!” The guy had two huge lollipops in his hand, like the kind you see on Willy Wonka. It was unreal. Kingston kept looking at Gwen for reassurance like, “MOM, what is going on here?” Thankfully, I didn’t have my own kids with me to witness that madness. I couldn’t imagine having to deal with people yelling and taunting my child everyday for pics.

- lizzielui on May 11th, 2009

Wow what a hard life they must have. Which is another proof how great she and Ben are as parents. They’re keeping it all together.

- Myam on May 11th, 2009

Comes with the territory unfortunatley. They just bought a $15 million dollar home (I believe). I think they have some extra change around for more security. I don’t have much sympathy. They have the resources to deal with the “downfalls” of their lifestyle. JMHO.

- Amanda on May 11th, 2009

I can see both sides to this but I think, no matter what, it’s unacceptable for paparazzi to be camping outside a pre school! As a headteacher and a mom, I would be non too pleased if that was going on at my school or my daughter’s preschools.
Gracie

- Grace on May 11th, 2009

I can believe that there are no laws in place to stop this kind of intrusive, dangerous behavior by paparazzi. It’s disgusting. I’ve seen plenty of pics of celeb kids that were taken without this kind of behavior. When it get to a point that innocent people, especially children, are being hurt in the quest for a single photo, that’s where a line needs to be drawn. I know that as celebrities there is not much they can do about it. But those kids are not “celebrities” and should not be considered “public figures”. There are privacy laws out there to stop this kind of stalking behavior towards non public figures, and they should be observed in regards to these children who have never done anything to put them in the public spotlight. It’s not their choice that their parents are famous. The press needs to leave them alone!

- Shannon on May 11th, 2009

I understand Jennifer Garner’s point of view but it seems like she has three choices: you either deal with the paps; move to another area or step out of the spotlight. I wonder if these celebrities realize how fortunate they are. I was just watching a show yestereday about people losing their homes to foreclosures and hospitals turning away patients. Like someone else said, she and Ben just moved into a multi-million dollar home. My sympathy is limited.

I remember Demi Moore moved to Idaho for like five years. Michael Douglas and CZJ live most of the year in Bermuda, Johnny Depp lives in the French countryside. Celebrities do not have to live in LA or NY. I would bet that San Franciso has less paparazzi than LA. I hate hearing celebrities complain about the paps but they do not complain when they deposit those million dollar checks into their bank account. With so many people out of work, Jennifer’s life is not that bad. What’s bad is when your child is sick but you do not have health insurance.

- Di on May 11th, 2009

She sure doesn’t mind her kids getting the royal treatment from people and all the COOL stuff they get cause they are celebrities, but she is mad the paps want pics. Yeah..they sound aggressive, but she has other options in life.

- Amanda on May 11th, 2009

I would like to see some laws in place to protect the children. Knocking down kids is unacceptable! However, I realize that as a person interested in celebrities, I help drive this behavior.

Plenty of stars manage to shield their children from the public, at least while they are very small. I do think the Afflecks should perhaps refrain from talking about their children, it just generates more interest in them. As a parent I know it’s only natural to want to share stories, but maybe they need to weigh all aspects? I dunno, it’s a tough subject where I see both sides.

I don’t like the idea of the paps getting right up in the children’s faces, but beyond that, I don’t have too much sympathy. It’s the price of fame.

- gargoylegurl on May 11th, 2009

It’s a terrible behaviour, the paps need to keep a safe and respectful distance, absolutely no question. That said, I’ve heard so many rumors about Jennifer tipping photographers off and the way she’s more famous for being the perfect mother+wife rather than an actress etc… She seems two-faced to me. I’m sure her fans are going to jump at me in 3,2,1 , but I just think it’s naive to believe that actors don’t carefully craft their image and exploit their children only in “obvious” ways (magazine shoots etc.). I think we all would be shocked to learn how much of it is strategy, including pap pictures. I don’t have anything against her (her daughter really is the cutest thing), but I’m suspicious of how she’s always portraying herself as so very down to earth and normal. Also, I think this site is the perfect example of how well it sells, she can do no wrong in most people’s eyes. Anyone know what I mean?

Hope I could explain myself.

- kai on May 11th, 2009

While people say there is little sympathy for the actors because it comes with the territory-I disagree. It seems in the last couple years, the increase of these tabloid magazines and gossip websites have increased tremendously. Ten years ago, it wasn’t this bad. We got a naked picture of Demi pregnant on Vanity Fair, but I can’t remember seeing paparazzi pictures of her children until recently (the last 4 or so years)

It’s sad that an actor can’t just be an actor anymore. When we’re watching a movie, we are so aware of the actor and their life, it takes away from their role. I enjoy a Daniel Day Lewis movie more than a Brad Pitt movie for many reasons-but one of them is I don’t know anything about Daniel Day Lewis. Any Brad Pitt movie, I see it as Brad Pitt, acting.

What’s sad is the children did not sign up for this, they have no control over what parents or what decade they are born into. Just because someone is an actor does not give paparazzi rights to stalk them and take pictures of their children. And why should a parent/actor change their schedule because of these photographers? If Jen Garner wants to stop at Starbucks with her children and there are pictures posted, half the comments will claim she wants the paparazzi to take pictures of her children. She’s just trying to do regular things! I feel so badly for these families that the paparazzi continue to stalk!

- Pamela on May 11th, 2009

Celebs want to have their cake and eat it too! How they love the attention, press, and cameras when it comes to movie premieres and red carpet events. But other than that, they want to be left alone? Jen and Ben have millions. If they really want a “normal” life for their kids, how about leaving the limelight for awhile? No one would be interested in them if they just disappeared for awhile. Otherwise, they should just shut up!

- Kimberly on May 11th, 2009

I don’t think the comments about how much Jen and Ben make, or how much their home cost are fair. Jennifer has very recently stated that her life isn’t bad, and she isn’t necessarily the “average” mom because of the type of lifestyle she has. These are not people bringing their children to events or having family photos on the fronts of magazines and then complaining about exposure. They are complaining about their children being harrased on a daily basis doing everyday things. We see pics of them all the time, dressed down, like normal people, not seeking attention, but there they are being photographed. And saying “it comes with the territory” just isn’t acceptable to me. It doesn’t have to come with the territory. Some of the comments on here suggests that they don’t deserve common decency and respect just because of their income….sounds like the same attitude the paps have in my opinion.

- Marcie on May 11th, 2009

Well said Kimberly. They want their kiddos treated like royalty and want all the free gifting, but they don’t want the paps snapping pics? They feel their kids are much more deserving than yours and mine believe you me and want them to have priviledged lives. They have many options and chose to stay in the spotlight. And no I am not bitter. I am glad to not be an actor or have the hassle that goes along with it. It makes me LOL that people actually feel bad for celebes. I feel sorry for the other parents at the preschool having this imposed on them.Those are the people I feel sorry for.

- Amanda on May 11th, 2009

The fact is if they both wish to continue with their chosen careers then they will get paparazzi attention. I don’t think its right that the the kids have cameras shoved in their faces but unfortunately its a consequence of being a celebrity and having a family.

- Bb on May 11th, 2009

I know it must be difficult for her to deal with the paparazzi attention and their tactics really are disgusting, BUT I also find her to be extremely hypocritical. She states that the children aren’t public figures, yet she’s talked about them in every single interview I’ve read/seen for her latest movie. She asks blogs to not publish photos of the children, yet it seems to be fine for them to publish endless stories about her pregnancy and “cute” little stories about Violet’s daily life. By giving these stories she’s feeding into the public’s interest in her children and I don’t think she can then turn around and complain about the sustained interest in them.

Like a few of the above posters have said, she’s got several choices. She can either accept the fact that this is what happens if you’re a famous actress, married to a very famous actor, living in LA. If she’s not happy with everything that comes with that, she could either make a sacrifice and move somewhere quieter while the children are so young, or she could have a zero tolerance attitude to any kind of press in relation to the children. You can’t have it both ways by talking about your children when promoting a movie and then getting upset when the public become more interested in them.

What I find quite interesting is the total recent lack of paparazzi photos of the Jolie-Pitt clan. I think I’ve maybe seen one photo of each of the kids (except the babies) over the past few months, and I think there’s been one paparazzi photo of the twins since they were born. I don’t think you could argue that the interest isn’t there, so what are they doing differently? Perhaps the Garner-Afflecks need to have a word with them.

- Elizabeth on May 11th, 2009

While I think the situation with the paparazzi is unfortunate, I have little sympathy for Jennifer Garner.

If she can’t change the paparazzi behavior, why not change her own. First hire someone to protect them the school run. Try to compromise and ask them to stay back as not to scare Violet. Remember when Brad Pitt did that. They listened to him. Try to have a good attitude about the whole thing. Try to go about the day as if they are not there.

If it really bothers the Afflecks, then move. Move schools or to another town.

Finally does anyone know why there is such an interest in the Afflecks? I know they are are both pretty big stars, but why are we seeing school photos every single day. Are magazines still regularly buying them? Obviously CBB/People isn’t. There are tons of celeb kids who go to school in LA, why do they seem like one of the few who are photographed every single day?

- Colleen on May 11th, 2009

I think what people are trying to point out is that no matter how famous you are or how much money you have, you have to make decisions on how you want your life to be. Part of being a celebrity these days (and it may have been different 4 years ago but things have changed since then) means that you are going to be dealing with paparazzi. There are more of them around now. And they gather at hot spots. There are just places that you know paparazzi will be. The LA area is notorious for it. I know Ben and Jen just moved, but it took them years to do it. The paparazzi have known where Violet’s school was for at least a year. If the problem is really that bad, and they are not doing anything to provoke it, they have the choice between relocating or not. I understand they may not want to and it may not be fair that they HAVE to, but “it’s not fair” doesn’t change that it may be necessary.

Brad and Angelina went to France, and now they’ve stayed out of the country. Even when they come into the country they can go to NOLA without being bothered too much. Johnny Depp’s kids live in France. There are tons of other celebrities who moved away from LA and have still managed to keep their careers on track.

Other celebs manage to avoid having their kids’ pictures taken by doing one basic thing: staying out of LA or NYC.

- Ryo on May 11th, 2009

I know that is part of the negative side to being a celebrity, but wow what she said really brought things into perspective for me. We see these pictures, and don’t really think of how they are taken. I have a daughter the same age as Violet, and she would be quite frightened to have a bunch of strangers yelling things out as her. They really should give the young kids some space.

- carrie on May 11th, 2009

With fame come inconvenience and loss of privacy. In the beginning they all want the fame and to be followed. When bringing up how much they make or how much their home cost its merely pointing out they have the freedom to move, hire more security etc. They have more inconvenience than most and they also have more options than the average person.

- Amanda on May 11th, 2009

Johnny Depp didn’t like all the celebrity attention either…
so he packed the family up and moved to the french countryside.
How often do we see pics of his family? almost never… I think the last one i saw was over a year ago, and they were visiting disneyland.

If Jennifer really doesn’t like the paparazzi, then she needs to make some hard decisions about how to live her life differently.

Also, there ARE laws against paparazzi… they cannot shoot on private land… only on public property. If new laws are passed to protect celebrities against being photographed on public property, then those laws would also need to apply to regular people, meaning that no one would have the right to take a picture of someone.

It gets messy and tricky when you try to make special laws that apply only to a tiny portion of society. It would be like having a royal class with jurisdictions just for them.

celebs need to realize what they are getting into when they decide to step into the public arena.
Yes, it is distasteful for paparazzi to taunt the kids and follow the family to school… but at the same time, this kind of press fuels celebrities careers and keeps them relevant.

- fuzibuni on May 11th, 2009

I have lived in LA and have witnessed the paparazzi behavior with children. It is inexcusable the way they hunt down the celebrities who are just living their lives.

Celebrity-babies.com has become one of the only sites that I will actually go to now because of the stand that they made with not publishing photos of paparazzi photos of Jennifer Garner and her children. Yes, I do believe that the photos come with the territory of being a celebrity but I think it crosses the line when there are minors involved. Daily photos of her being a mom picking her kid up at school are not times that I see not justified as photo opportunities. I watched a video of her picking up her girl from school and it was horrible to see that a mother and the little girl needs to live that just because her mom and dad star in movies. They are horrible, there are no long lenses. It just changed my outlook, I thought that a lot of the photos were taken with long lenses…no!!!! Come on they are not visiting Robersten Blvd.

I don’t think it is far to say that celebrities need to move out of LA or NYC (which is where I live now and I find people have a much greater respect for celebrities) just to live a life.

I hope that one day we will see a law in place that would prevent the unlawful publication of a minors photo in print and the web. Celebrities children never asked for the attention and when I see a celebrity like Jennifer Garner shinning away from the “celebrity areas” just living her life it just makes me glad that I do not have to deal with the daily interrogation just to live a regular life.

- Sarah on May 11th, 2009

sarah, you do realize that if the laws you are asking for were passed, that this website would not exist? also, if there were laws against taking photos on public property, then you could get personally sued for taking a tourist picture that happens to have a kid walking by in it if you posted it on your facebook account? Just think about what you are advocating. Passing more laws regarding public photography is not as simple as you think.

- fuzibuni on May 11th, 2009

I must say as a mother to one of the children who attend her school I know how bad it is every day with the paps. Usually I wait until the celebs leave before I take my daughter home. It’s just insane.
But the school is awesome and one of the best in the country. And telling them to find a new school is not the answer because the paps would just follow them there! It’s every families right to have the right to walk their child into school without being worried. The paps need to back off!

- Kate on May 11th, 2009

And if it bothers you that much you have the right to switch schools for your child. I can imagine it must be a pain, but it is isn’t going to change anytime soon…

- lisa on May 11th, 2009

I must be missing something, so somebody help me out here, please. When did Jennifer or Ben demand that their girls be treated like royalty. That’s what a lot of you are implying and I just don’t follow.

- Tee on May 11th, 2009

Colleen, I’m with you. Why is there so much interest in Jenn and Ben? Christian Bale is a bigger star than them and I can’t remember the last time I saw a picture of his daughter who is just as cute, maybe more so, than Violet. They stay in LA too but you just never see the interest in them like with Jenn and Ben. I do think that Jenn and Ben make a big mistake pimping out stories about their kids every time they want to sell a movie then turning around and whining about privacy concerns. Julia Roberts is bigger than both of them, but has made real changes in her life to protect her family’s privacy. You know why she did that? It’s called common sense. The only thing more hypocritical than Jenn whining about fame are the posters on here whining about the kids being followed and photographed. Why are you on this site if you don’t like kid photos? If CBB relied solely on what the stars showed us willingly, this site would be out of business by the end of the week.

- Gigi on May 11th, 2009

When parents can afford upwards of $20,000-30,000 a year to send their children to a private santa monica nursery school, it’s difficult for me to muster up a lot of sympathy that they are inconvenienced by paparazzi when they go to pick their kids up at the end of the day.

if, as Kate states, ‘it is every families [sic] right to walk their child into school without being worried’ then they should try to do something about all the kids in my downtown LA neighborhood who walk to school every day scared of the gangs and violence.

- fuzibuni on May 11th, 2009

This is a hard topic, as virtually everyone here has made great points I agree with. On the one hand, the imposition the paparazzi are putting on not only the Afflecks, but the parents and children attending Violet’s school are inexcusable. Knocking down kids to get to them is repulsive, and while this family has at least two fans that used to visit this site regularly whom I would consider rabid enough to eat up these daily shots, I don’t know anyone else who cares enough about them to see the two-minute walk from the back door to the car. Someone posted a link to a fan site of Jen’s not long ago, and in the candids section there were new photos of them every other day. That kind of attention is ridiculous, uncalled for, and over the top. Those cameras shoot from over a mile away; there is NO excuse for them to get that close and harass the celebrities and their families the way they do, except to get sick pleasure out of taunting them.

On the other hand, as others have said, it’s a little hard to feel sorry for Jen and Ben to have such negative attitudes about this aspect of their life when they are the ones responsible for creating it in the first place. In a perfect world, no one would have anything about their jobs that is annoying/inconvenient. In a perfect world, fathers in debt wouldn’t be murdering themselves and their families like three cases in my area recently out of financial desperation. We don’t live in a perfect world, yet this family has it pretty damn good all things considered. And if they really wanted the privacy, it wouldn’t be hard to find it. They could move to the Bay area. Boston. A suburb of Manhattan. A quieter suburb of LA. The possibilities are endless, and the actors who really do care about privacy don’t sit around in LA whining about it-they put their money where their mouth is and pack up and move a la Ben’s buddy Matt Damon. He moved to Miami and how many photos do we see of him? Jen and Ben know full well how the paparazzi pictures fuel their careers, and if they really wanted to do something about it, they would. In a time when so many are truly struggling, it’s hard to feel too sorry for them.

- Lauren on May 11th, 2009

Lauren – get out of my head! You have articulated all my thoughts better than I could have.

- Lis on May 11th, 2009

You guys are the ones that want the photos so why are you feeling sorry for Jenn that they are taken? You can’t have it both ways. You all want to see the pics of them with holes in their underwear, picking their nose, their kids, when they fall…I mean really. Why complain when the paps are taking the pics for YOU. And I have no sympathy for this family. They have the financial freedom to make choices that would make them less accesible and then you would be saying you never get to see any pics. And so the cycle goes…

- patty on May 11th, 2009

And yes I know we like the cute and normal pics too, but I was just making a point!

- patty on May 11th, 2009

Fuzibuni said -
Yes, it is distasteful for paparazzi to taunt the kids and follow the family to school… but at the same time, this kind of press fuels celebrities careers and keeps them relevant.

This is so true and I hope that on some level she realizes this. I wouldn’t know or care about the lives and by extension the careers of Affleck or Garner with out the media attention brought on by their children.

Thanks to those who brought up the legal issues regarding photography laws.

- Colleen on May 11th, 2009

I definitely see that angle, Fuzibuni, but me posting a randoms shot of some person that happened to walk into my camera shot is not me making money off someone else’s child.

Am I wrong but over in Europe do they not have to blur out the minor’s faces in print? I just think that in today’s age of 24/7 media there needs to be new laws passed to adjust to the changing times of media.

- Sarah on May 11th, 2009

Hu. And here I thought I was in the minority. There’s something to be said about oversaturation, I guess.

- kai on May 11th, 2009

Lauren, You say they could move to the Bay area. Boston. Well they did move to Boston and there are pap pictures every day of them, you just dont see them on CBB. When they lived there for three months last year, you didnt see any, but this time the paps (well, one agency anyway) has followed them there. So there is no getting away from the paps for them, because there pictures, whether you think Christian Bale or Julia Roberts are bigger than them or not, their pictures sell better. Matt Damon has never sold pictures so paps have always left him alone, he has admitted as much.

- Linda on May 11th, 2009

Lisa- I am not going to take my child out of a school we adore and is one of the best in the country. Like I said I find ways to avoid the paps by staying away until they go.
Oh and I saw someone post that the school is $20,000-30,000 a year, which is false, yes it is expensive but not near that much and every good school in this area is expensive.
Also, I know that Jennifer has done a ton of work to help children in need get a good education including preschool.

- Kate on May 11th, 2009

Good conversation going on here. I think part of what fuels the interest is that Ben and Jennifer look so sweet and nice- the paps know that if these two lash out, they will ruin the image that makes them money. Same with actors like Reese Witherspoon… Christian Bale may have a cute daughter, but he also looks like the kind of guy who might punch you in the nose for taking a picture of her, and I think the same goes for Danny Moder (although I will say that Julia Roberts has obviously made serious adjustments in order to protect her privacy). To sum it up, basically the paps are bullies and actors who have built their reputations on being so sweet and sunny and nice are going to have a harder time with them.

- Stella Bella on May 11th, 2009

Huh? Matt Damon has never sold pics to the paps? And Jenn and Ben did?! Is that what you are saying?! I doubt that! I don’t really get the fasination with these two anyways. Why are people so interested in Jenn and Ben?! Her movies have never done that well and he hasn’t worked in forever. What gives?!

- kari on May 11th, 2009

And Kate I get what you are saying, but that must be a pain in the rear to put up with.

- kari on May 11th, 2009

I totally get why she is upset and they should be respectful but come on!! she knows what she is doing when she dresses her children in all the free stuff she is getting. I mean that bjorn she sported in all week is getting great press!! so don’t take the gifted items and the press and the public will stop asking to see you

- bonnie on May 11th, 2009

“Lauren, You say they could move to the Bay area. Boston. Well they did move to Boston and there are pap pictures every day of them, you just dont see them on CBB.”

I saw those photos, and you can’t possibly compare them to what happens while they’re in LA. In LA, they are swarmed and cornered every time they pick Violet up from school. The photos in Boston were all taken from a safe distance, to the point that Jen and Ben didn’t seem to know they were being followed. In other words, the paparazzi situation in Boston was nowhere near comparable to what it is in LA, and if they chose to move there, I can virtually guarantee photos of them would become slim to none over time.

If Ben and Jen really are such in-demand actors, they will be able to find and travel for work wherever they choose to live. It’s whether they want to be in-demand celebrities that I think, at least in part, is driven by their decision to stay in LA. There are multiple actors-Matt Damon, Michelle Pfeiffer, Renee Zellweger, Rachel McAdams-who make the decision to live outside of LA because it’s more important for them to keep their private lives private than fight with the paps. That is the true test of who wants to be an actor and who wants to be a celebrity.

- Lauren on May 11th, 2009

So, let me get this straight…according to some of you, celebrities make a lot of money so if their children are being terrorized and harassed they should just suck it up? Or go live up in the mountains? How much money would it take for you to be okay with YOUR children being harassed?

- GiannaG on May 11th, 2009

Kari I beg to disagree. Maybe not her movies, but Alias was a HUGE hit. Ben has a movie in theaters RIGHT NOW (State of Play), has Extract coming out later this year, and is filming another in Boston, which is why the family is there right now…

- April on May 11th, 2009

April…Yeah…we can agree to disagree. Look at the $$$ that comes in and how busy they are. Not. I only speak from facts. Get it straight. Look at the $$$

- kari on May 11th, 2009

I feel sorry for them. I work in Manhattan, and the other day I went past a small store in Soho and there were loads of paparazzi outside. I didn’t realize at first what they were because there were more video cameras than still. I don’t know who was in the store, but I felt so sorry for whoever it was.

It’s ridiculous that an actor can’t bring his or her child to school without being chased by photographers.

- Pencils on May 11th, 2009

I do think kids should be off limits but lets face it. We all come here so we are guilty of wanting to see celebrity children. We add fuel to the fire. So if your on this site and your saying you feel bad well then you should start by stop reading tabloids and visiting blogs esp. one dedicated to babies!!

If they want they can easily move to a more quiet place. If they’re not workin why live in L.A.? Look at Jamie Lynn she moved back to Louisiana with Maddie and we rarely see them. Other celebs like Matthew Fox moved to a place where their kids could grow up not surrounded by cameras. It can be done!! So the solution is to live where you want but accept what you get. We live in a time where this is what comes with being a celebrity.

That being said, Seraphina is so cute. I think she looks like Ben!

- JMO on May 11th, 2009

I think as a person who lives their lives out in the public, having cameras all over you comes with the territory!!!

- jamie on May 11th, 2009

I’m not debating on this, but I want to know how we know that they get all of that free stuff? Do we assume it, or is it known fact? Just curious?

- Erika on May 11th, 2009

Some of these comments sounds like PURE jealousy. Tisk, tisk, tisk…… It’s such a shame. I bet some of you couldn’t wait to see what CBB whould put up, so that you can complain. That’s right, go ahead and rip those Afflecks apart……..

- lala2 on May 11th, 2009

My point was they have moved to BOSTON and they are STILL followed by paps, who have followed them there. So I think moving somewhere else wouldnt matter. And They dont want their children to stay at home 24/7 and live like hermits and I dont blame them. Why cant their children have a normal life? Her point was that she’s a celebrity but her children are not, so they should be left alone (thanks CBB for doing that) But I do blame everyone who claims not to care about them for continually looking up pictures of them and commenting on their posts. Pictures of THEM sell well to blogs who get lots of comments about them.

- Linda on May 11th, 2009

We are jealous? Come on…are you serious? Does it always boil down to that as deflecting the real issue here. If you are a celebrity you are going to have the paps snap pics. If you are famous and have more money than most you have options as far as not being so accessable. Come on. Its not rocket science. And we are all entitled to our opinion. You dont need to act righteous and put down on that.

Sorry for the typos. I have 5 kids and dont pay close enoygh attention if they are there…get over it

- Cynthia on May 11th, 2009

Linda, your point about the paparazzi following them to Boston is fine, but I think it’s also true that over time (as someone has pointed out) the interest is more likely to die out. Unless a dedicated pap agency is specifically set up in Boston to follow them (unlikely, seeing as how the Boston celebrity population is fairly small so it’s not going to be a good financial move for the agency) there just won’t be the photographers around. Following them on a 3 or even 6 month assignment is one thing, but relocating to another city just to follow one family is something I can’t see paparazzi doing.

- actualsize on May 11th, 2009

A lot of people have said that Jennifer and Ben are actors, so the lack of privacy comes with the territory, which is true. But regardless of what their careers are, or if they talk about their kids a lot when they do interviews, the paparazzi should try to use the tiniest bit of common sense, or show the tiniest bit or compassion and morality. It doesn’t matter how famous Ben and Jen are, it’s just insane that anyone would think it is justified to get up in their toddler’s face, shrieking her name and yelling comments at her, or knocking other little kids around. These photographers could use long-lensed cameras, but so few of them do, and choose to terrify a little kid instead. I know Brad Pitt has appealed to the paparazzi to use long-lenses. I remember seeing a video of he and Angelina taking Shiloh and Zahara to a store, and it was just mind-blowing, the way the photographers acted around those kids.

- alice jane on May 11th, 2009

Also, I’m sorry if this is a stupid question, but I totally missed the whole CBB and People not posting pics of the Garner Affleck family anymore. Obviously I noticed there were a lot of pictures of Violet here but never put two and two together, lol! Was there ever any announcement from CBB that I missed? I’m really curious now. It’s an interesting step. Does People not print photos of Violet and Seraphina in their magazine anymore, or just on their website? Was it because the Afflecks contacted them and requested that the pics not be posted, or just a response to the comments about disliking paps that they’ve made in interviews? If it’s the latter, is the same policy applying to other celebs who speak negatively about the paps?

I know CBB has always has a good, responsible attitude to choosing the pics they publish (not using the pics of the Jolie-Pitts taken over their yard fence is one example that springs to mind) but this latest step opens up a bunch of questions. Really interesting!

—–

There wasn’t an announcement, per se, but we answered in the comments and through the tips box and word seems to have gotten around to readers. Earlier this year, PEOPLE.com was asked by Ben and Jennifer’s reps to take a break from posting paparazzi photos of the kids, so both CBB and the main PEOPLE.com site have not posted any since the request was made and will continue on that path. Unsure about the magazine itself. If a celebrity takes the time to make a request, we do try to honor it. For example, the same goes for Julia Roberts and her children as she asked the same of us last fall.

– CBB Staff

- actualsize on May 11th, 2009

they really should stop harrassing the kids..poor things

- cas on May 11th, 2009

Do people really think that if Jennifer and Ben didn’t talk about their kids every so often that the paparazzi would leave them alone? Absolutely not! That’s ridiculous.

I’m also baffled why an actor “deserves” to be hounded by paparazzi. When Jennifer went to college to study to become an actor, I don’t believe she was signing up to be stalked and hounded day and night. Where is that in the contract?

Further, Jennifer and Ben just can’t move to Idaho or wherever. They’ve given interviews where they’ve stated that they have considered moving a lot of places, but they stay in LA/NY because that’s where they actually need to be to work. If they could move, they would. Let’s be honest, neither of them is Johnny Depp. And it’s shocking that some people think they should give up their careers. How about some angry paps take a step back and use a telephoto lens instead.

Finally, I’m appalled that the school can’t get a restraining order of some sort to keep the paparazzi a certain distance from their doors. The paparazzi are certainly harassing and dangerous to all the children who attend.

- Lily on May 11th, 2009

Thank you, GiannaG. You said exactly what I was thinking. Furthermore, Jennifer and Ben are not complaining that the paps are taking their photos, they are stating that they need to back off from Violet and Sera. I didn’t get the impression that they were complaining at all.

Kate- I’m really glad you took the time to post a comment or two. It’s interesting to get the perspective of someone else who is directly involved and affected by the madness that is apparently the norm. I’m sorry that you and your child have to deal with that and I appreciate that you don’t blame Jennifer and Ben. They have the right to enroll their child in pre-school!

- Tee on May 11th, 2009

I honestly believe that the Afflecks do not need to live in LA for work. I just read a quote from Catherine Zeta Jones and she says that she comes to LA to take meetings and to work and once she is done she is on the first flight out. We all know that most movies are filmed in Canada anyway.

The paps are not going to change their behavior so if Ben and Jen want peace then they can move to Alaska, Utah or where ever they can find peace. I have no doubt that if they moved, there would still be photographed but the hoards of paps that wait for there every move would not be there- maybe a couple but not dozens. It is all about priorities. Unless you are shooting a sitcome that tapes in LA, there is literally no reason why any celebrity needs to live in LA full time.

- Di on May 11th, 2009

Thanks CBB for answering my question!

- actualsize on May 11th, 2009

My opinion: Jen can’t have it both ways. A year or so ago, when she was promoting The Kingdom or some other movie, Jen was seen with Violet at the Farmers Market EVERY SINGLE DAY. Who shops at the farmers market every day? She did that to court the paps, to show what a good, down-to-earth mother she supposedly is (and it worked). Now, the MVM loves her!

However, once you invite them in, it’s very hard to get them to leave.

- NLT on May 12th, 2009

hi CBB,

did you guys make the same agreement with the Jolie-Pitts as well? because there were pictures of the kids on justjared just a mth ago or so.

—
No, we don’t. We chose not to purchase any of the recent Jolie-Pitt photos because either the quality was not great (grainy etc), there wasn’t a shot in which all looked good, or a child was upset or hiding their face behind a blanket.

- CBB Staff

– CBB Staff

- suzy on May 12th, 2009

I think it’s awful that this is what celebs have to deal with. 30 years ago, this wouldn’t have happened. But now, everyone thinks they have the right to every aspect of a famouse person’s life – From their wedding, to their children’s births to the children’s lives themselves. It’s pretty sick and disgusting to think about isn’t it? I know celebs make a lot of money – More than most of us will see in our live times, but does that mean it’s ok to stalk their children? To yell at them, and knock down their friends? To take pictures of every waking moment of them? No, it’s not right and it shouldn’t be. I’ve stopped buying magazines as a result of this. It was distrubing to me personally when I realised I knew their children’s names, and yet none of the films/tv shows these people were in. So I stopped supporting the magazines dicretly. But it’s still going to be a problem, now with the internet and everything.

- Jane on May 12th, 2009

Lily- I agree! I don’t care how famous a person is. It is NEVER, I repeat, NEVER okay for someone to knock over and scare inoccent children just to get photos.

- CelebBabyLover on May 12th, 2009

First off, where did Jennifer say in the article that the paparazzi frenzy looming large and out of control at her baby daughter was something that she could not handle. Did I misread the article. On the contrary, she expressed her displeasure but never once said it was beyond her control to deal with. She is afterall a professional entertainer and her baby seems to be very well adjusted (that does not however give them the right to pursue her children with suck reckless disregard to others).

What puzzles me is how do people justify blaming the victim when they are the ones being victimized? Sure, hire security to take you child to school (you have the money). They are not the presidents children, why on earth would they need body guards to attend preschool when they are just like you and me (except with with money) private citizens? Just because you live in a certain area of the nation and make a living in the performing arts, that in itself makes it impossible for your children to go to school of your choice? Dear God, what happened to our FREEDOM? I got the impression from Jennifer that it is not her favorite part of the job but realizes that it is just an necessary evil that they have to deal with. Let’s not make this into more that it actually is simply out of envy and resentment for the Garner-Afflecks and their remarkble appeal.

CBB is such a classy website and still as popular as any “child celebrity” blog in existence by honoring request when asked by the subjects to comply with reasonable conditions. HATS OFF TO CBB. YOU ROCK!

- Rosy J on May 12th, 2009

I wish to apolozige for the many typos and/or errors made in my above post but trust that my point was well made and taken into consideration. Thanks.

- Rosy J on May 12th, 2009

Well,I disagree that if they moved to Boston interest would die down in taking their picture. For one thing, they have free-lance photographers that live there, and they are not about to stop taking their picture every day with web sites publishing them every day (see Just Jared). Also, has interest died down even though there were 1,000 photos of V. going to school? No, they just keep publishing them.

- Linda on May 12th, 2009

If mags, websites etc just restriced their pictures to public events etc (albeit there would go tons of photo ops) all this wouldn’t happen.

It won’t stop until companies stop buying the pics, and that goes for the trashy rags as well as those that are more respectful (like this site).

I’d be happy if things change since the invasion of privacy is unreal.

- Betsy on May 12th, 2009

This really makes me laugh because the bottom line is, Ben and Jen are celebrities and while it’s horrible and disgraceful that Violet and Seraphina are exposed to the paps, they do have to understand they are not the only ones and that it just is one of the downsides to being a celebrity. If it REALLY bothers them THAT much, then do the same as Christian Bale or move to a different area like Nashville (Nicole Kidman style!). There are worst things in life than that, such as children in Africa starving and children who don’t have a home or parents or even one fourteenth of luxuries that the Affleck children are fortunate enough to have.

- babyboopie on May 12th, 2009

You probably won’t air my comment, but I feel that it’s necessary to make the attempt. How can you – in good faith – acknowledge tis article by Jennifer Garner like you’r on her side, when you’re the very ones who purchase these photos and thus contribute to their increasing bounty?

It would be one thing to put up photos of celebrity children who are brought to events, but it’s quite another to put up photos of Violet Affleck as she goes to nursery school. I don’t know how Jennifer Garner does it. As a mother of small children, I would be terrified.

I would urge you to stop putting up new pictures of the children as they go about their daily lives. Instead, you could use the photos already on file or use red carpet photos when celebrities choose to take their children to events. Children should be off-limits, without question. They did not choose this lifestyle.

——

We haven’t posted paparazzi photos of Violet or Seraphina since early January, when we were asked not to by their reps. In regards to the story, we simply present to you what celebrity parents share with the media. We try not to include opinions in our writing – that’s for you guys to do in the comment section.

-CBB Staff

- Elizabeth on May 12th, 2009

I see where both sides are comng from here. And, while I 100% agree that the paps are ridiculous and need to back off, I also think that Ben and Jennifer need to stop generating interest in their kids. I the kids are truly not public figures, then they should stop sharing stories about them. I’m sure they can get through an interview without mentioning the tantrum Violet through at the restaurant or how they arrived at the name “seraphina.” These are things we don’t really need to know but they tell us anyways. It just serves to fan the flames. If they don’t want their kids to be public figures, they shouldn’t have turned them into public figures by sharing details of their private life. Other celebrities hve managed to do it and still keep their careers intact. I realize it’s hard not to talk about your kids, but i think it takes a definite commitment to keep your kids out of the spotlight.

- Sarah K. on May 12th, 2009

I think they are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. If they go on a talk show, say, Ellen and she says, how the kids? What are they into? etc…..if Ben or Jen said, well they’re good but we wish not to really discuss them. People will find them rude as if what are they too good to talk about their lovely daughters? So it’s a no win situation.

- JMO on May 12th, 2009

JMO – LOL! Didn’t that happen with A Jolie when she was promoting a movie? Something about the interviewers having to only ask about the movie and not her kids. She got a bad rap bout that one (not necessarily on here just in the general internet world). If I remember correctly.

Interesting discussion going on here. I always find it interesting when celebs make any kind of negative comment about an aspect of being famous and peoples reaction is “well, change your life then”. Oh, and I just read a post with Keith Urban about how they don’t like the media attention in regards to their daughter. Yet, he lives in Nashville. And it still is an issue with him. Go figure.

Re: Christian Bale – I have to agree with the poster that said he looks like he’d punch your lights out if you tried to take a pic of his kid. And I think he would. He’s not exactly known for his even temper.

- kris on May 12th, 2009

It is sad to me that CBB/People had to be asked not to publish the photos of Violet going to/coming from school. As I recall, there were a lot of those photos posted on this blog (almost daily). I never saw the reason behind it, but am glad their wishes are being granted. I just wish the people behind this blog would have realized their transgressions before Jen and Ben had to make a statement about it.

Hooray for Jen and Ben for standing up for your daughters. It is a sad scary world out there.

- memommamo on May 12th, 2009

I think Heidi Klum and Seal’s kids are photographed as much any celeb kids yet I have never heard anyone criticize them . Seal hates the paparazzi he has cursed them and almost hit one with a car. To my knowledge Ben and Jen have never sold pics of Violet unlike Nicole Richie, Sheryl Crow , JLO,Angelina JoliE ,Matthew Mconehey(sp), Tori and Julia Roberts(twins) so why they hate toward Jennifer Garner?

- kim on May 12th, 2009

Kim, I don’t think anyone is targeting Jen in particular here. But, people can and will find it odd that someone who shares so many private details about her children with the public then turns around and says that her children are not public figures. As much as I love hearing stories about the family, they need to stop disclosing such personal stories about the kids if they really want them out of the spotlight. Saying that intimate stories are ok, but pictures aren’t isn’t going to satisfy the media. They need to take a hard line and not sit on the fence as to how close the public can get to them.

- Sarah K. on May 12th, 2009

I like Jennifer Garner and I think Ben Affleck is awesome, but they can’t have it both ways. There is a 2 solutions in this situation. 1 – don’t talk about your personal life. Celebrities have every right, and many do, to refuse to talk about certain topics during interviews. To sate the thirst of the public, release a statement and let it be. No need to talk about it unless you want to, and the less people know sometimes helps the situation. 2 – move out of Los Angeles. I know it isn’t fair, however life isn’t fair and the paps aren’t going anywhere. If you don’t want the hassle, you can move. To say that you *have* to live in Los Angeles is, in my opinion, a load of bull. It’s not uncommon for business executives (my old boss for example) to live in one area and fly into another city for work. There are so many actors who have great careers and they fly into Los Angeles. Johnny Depp, Nicole Kidman, Renee Zellweger, Colin Farrell, Liam Neeson, Julia Roberts, Michael Douglas & Catherine Zeta-Jones…ok, some do have houses in Los Angeles but they don’t live there full time. It can be done. I know it’s nice to live close to work, but you have to consider your quality of life. My husband and I live within 12 blocks of both our jobs (we can see my husband’s office…not just the building…from our patio), however we live downtown where it’s busy, noisy and cramped. We are not happy with the living conditions so when our lease is up, we are moving to the burbs. Same can be done for Jen and Ben if they don’t like the living conditions of Los Angeles.

I don’t want to come across as inconsiderate to their problems, or that they should just deal since it comes with their profession. It sucks for them, it really does. I totally understand wanting to live somewhere but it’s hard to live there, but they have every opportunity to better their situation. This might not make much sense, since I’m exhausted and spent an hour in a line to go voting today but I thought I would give my 2 cents.

- Devon on May 12th, 2009

If the paparazzi can’t take photos on private property, would it not be possible for Jen and Ben to work out something with the preschool so they could go in & out a different door? I’m just thinking of my own situation with taking my daughter to preschool (and imagining what that would be like if I were followed by paparazzi, ha ha ha!!!). In my case, I would just park at the far end of the parking lot an go in and out the back door, simple! Someone would definitely need a telephoto lens to be off the school property and still get a good photo. Going in might be harder because the back door is always locked from the outside, but I’m sure if I had millions I could work something out with the school…or send my assistant or security person in through the front to unlock it ;o) And for what it’s worth, my daughter’s school is in a pretty urban setting, not on a huge piece of property, and this plan would still work… of course it all depends on the school’s set up.

Ok, so I sort of poke fun there… but seriously, presumably the preschool is private property so there must be something they could pursue there… or if children really are getting scared or – even worse – hurt, they could they not file some sort of formal complaint against the paparazzi with police or the city? Or get a restraining order? Or just ask nicely for them to shoot their photos from afar, a la Brad Pitt? Or say they can take photos on Tuesday mornings and they’ll pose and smile, as long as they leave them alone the rest of the days? It just seems like there must be some possible solution for them if they really look for one, because there really don’t seem to be daily photos of any other celebrities’ children when they go to/from school…

- KF on May 13th, 2009

Kris- That did indeed happen to Angie. It was when she was promoting “A Mighty Heart”, and it was actually the movie studio that sent out the forms saying the interviewers were not to ask Angie personal questions. Of course, everyone ignored that and jumped on Angie for something that she didn’t even do!

KF- Actually, the three oldest Jolie-Pitt kids were photographed going to and from school practically every day when they were in Prague in 2007 (Shi was just barely a year old at the time, and the twins weren’t even blips on the radar yet!), and there were also numerous shots of Maddox going to and from school in NYC later that same year (Pax and Zahara apparently either didn’t attend preschool in NYC, or were lucky enough not to have the paps discover where their school was). I do see your point, though.

Kim- I agree (although it’s a pretty safe bet that it was Angelina AND Brad who sold the first photos of Shi, Pax, and the twins. It just bugs me when people always blame/accuse Angie of every decision the Jolie-Pitt family makes. Not that that’s what you were trying to do, by any means! ).

Rosy J- I think you said it best of all! To add my own thoughts, I really don’t think the Garner-Afflecks should have to move or switch preschools. First of all, if they switched preschools, the paps would probably just follow them to the new one. Also, why should they disrupt Violet’s routinue by pulling her out of a preschool she probably loves? At that age, adjusting to a new school is often a difficult process.

On the same note, Ben and Jen very likely don’t want to take Violet away from her friends, favorite places, and other things to move somewhere else (Sera, obviously, is too little to be all that affected by a move).

I also have to chuckle at the fact that people are constantly saying that the Jolie-Pitts need to stop moving around so much and stay in one place for awhile (nevermind the fact that, with the exception of trips lasting a week or two during Awards season and other times, the J-Ps have stayed in one place for several months at a time throughout the past year. First France, then Germany, now Long Island)…..but now people are saying that the Garner-Afflecks should consider moving!

- CelebBabyLover on May 13th, 2009

It is great Jennifer is speaking out. Almost no one understands what goes on behind the scenes of these photos they love to look at of famous people doing normal things. If the picture was taken, a camera was there and if a camera was there there was someone operating it and there were probably a bunch of others doing the same thing. The celebrity got to walk around with a pack of people following them. It is ridiculous. We are trying to reform this behavior so it is safer for everyone.

- Paparazzi Reform on May 13th, 2009