Op Ed on Paparazzi

[Ashlee]

WHY OUR CHILDREN SHOULD BE OFF LIMITS TO THE PAPARAZZI
2/14/2014

Wes Ikeda
TV Producer, CEO, Wrestler

In the past few months I’ve posted a few tweets of my 10 year old daughter, McKenzie and my one year old son, CJ. After years of fiercely protecting my children, and trying to keep them out of the public eye, many were confused by my actions. However, I cleverly posted these tweets to devalue their photographs to publications that buy photos of celebrities’ children without the consent of their parents (paparazzi photos). I then posted a tweet calling for the boycott of these magazines and received a myriad of responses.They ranged from heartfelt solidarity to vitriolic rage. The overwhelming majority was very supportive, and for that we are thankful. There were a few common threads that ran through the hateful responses and I hope to address those here. First, however, I’d like to explain what led me to tweet in the first place.

In California, Senate Bill 606 is being considered, which makes it illegal to photograph a child because of their parent’s employment in a manner that “seriously alarms, annoys, torments or terrorizes” them. This bill has been worked on tirelessly by Jennifer Garner and Halle Berry, at their own expense. Implicit in the bill are some obvious first amendment issues. It does, at the end of the day, limit the rights of the “press” to “alarm, annoy, torment or terrorize” children in the pursuit of “news gathering”. I am starting to use a lot of quotes. This is my snarky way of hinting that I do not believe entertainment paparazzi are actually “press” any more than a peeping tom using a shoe-cam at a local mall is “press”. Nor do I think photographing children being held or walking with their famous parent can be considered “news gathering” by any definition. All that aside, I deeply value the freedom of the press and think it is an indispensable facet of a healthy democracy that should be protected fervently.

For California, this will land in court and play out. For me, there may not be much I can do, other than move to California. The law however mirrors the “war on drugs” in one key way: it only addresses the supply of the equation, and not the demand. We Americans have proven time and time again that if we want something, through hell or high water, we will get it. So as long as people pay good money to buy magazines featuring famous people’s children, there will be men popping out of bushes and lurking around playgrounds to get those pics. Those are just the facts. The consumer is the only one who can put an end to this. They are the only ones with real power.

Let me explain to you something about being a parent. Every corny cliche becomes instantly relevant and true when your children are born. It’s immediate. A love like you’ve never known. My heart aches when I look at my children. I’ve had a wonderful life filled with lots of highlights, the birth of my children has dwarfed them all.

Last year, within an hour of filling out our son's birth certificate, Natalie and I got an email from our publicist saying a popular tabloid was going to run an announcement with the baby’s sex, full name, time of birth and weight. That was a bummer. We hadn’t even yet shared that with our extended family. We thought, rightly or wrongly, that it would be best at that point to announce it ourselves on Twitter to deny the tabloid a chance at an exclusive. I don’t know that it mattered one way or another, but I do know that it was a sobering warning of things to come. Since the birth of our son a year ago, there has been a car or two parked off of our private drive in St. Louis, at our hotels when we travel, at my office in St. Louis, waiting at all times for us to show up or leave. We go to very great lengths to keep our children anonymous and have been, for the most part, successful. They have photographed my son at five of his eight doctor’s appointments, a bunch of times leaving a restaurant, and at the company gym with mom. In all of those instances we were able to keep him covered with a blanket.

A few weeks ago, I went to a friend’s house. He has a son about CJ’s age and he and I chat while the boys play. He lives in a nice, nondescript neighborhood in a St. Louis suburb. We were there for three hours, and I didn’t think I’d been followed. I didn’t *think* I’d been followed, but the very next morning my sister emailed me pictures of our son, clear as day, being carried and put into the car by me. This broke my heart in a way that’s not entirely reasonable. I had charged myself, as his dad, with protecting him. I believe, and I understand a lot of people differ on this point, that protecting him includes keeping his life private until the moment he decides otherwise. I think he is entitled to that. I think every minor is entitled to that. My Natalie and I, ever the approval junkies, made a decision to get into our business and become public figures, CJ (and Kenz and Blaine for that matter) has not. CJ hasn’t even decided if he prefers pureed carrots to peanut butter.

I took to Twitter urging consumers to stop buying magazines that print unsolicited photos of minors. Natalie and I realize the odds of this happening are exceedingly low. We are not naive. We have hope though. After all people that like looking at children in magazines must actually like children. We are betting on the chance that they like children enough to protect them from being constantly shadowed by strange men. We pray that one of the classier weeklies, like People, will enact a no-kids possibly, and that they will be rewarded by the consumer for doing so. And we hope that leads to others folioing suit. It would be miraculous if the situation changed and celebrities’ children got to be JUST children. And it would be even more miraculous if that change came from the will of the people and not legislation. I think this could be a good step in our ever evolving social consciousness. It could fold nicely into the same wave of change that wants to see gay people married, orcas freed, and pot smokers decriminalized. It would be a slightly better version of ourselves and our culture, and we are mildly optimistic.

Now against the advice of my handlers, I’m going to address some of those Twitter detractors:

“You knew what you were getting into when you signed up to be famous!”

First of all, god how I wish there had been a sign-up sheet! Would have saved me years of terrible work and bounced checks. Secondly, yes I do know what comes with the job, which is why I’m not asking you to boycott magazines with my photo in them. I’m only asking on behalf of my child who did not “sign up”.

“There are way more important things to boycott than your rich kids getting their picture taken.”

I couldn’t agree more. This is very low on the list indeed. But, it is, nevertheless, on the list. We aren’t asking you to ignore a man on fire for this cause, but after you help extinguish him, we wouldn’t object to you whispering in his ear that Us Weekly displays photos of children being stalked.

"Why don't you just post your own pics so it will devalue the paparazzi's?"

It’s not working. A photo from us won't satiate curiosity; it will simply introduce a new character into the soap opera.

"Stop acting like you're Brad and Angelina. No one cares about you or your kids.”

Another strong point. This is very true. We don't deal with anything close to what they deal with. If paps were cancer, they'd have small cell carcinoma and we'd have a suspicious looking mole that should probably come off just to be safe. Despite the different threat level, it's still best to seek treatment.

"You're a shitty wrestler and your company sucks.”

...that's subjective?