Originally posted by blue-ice
No the burglar will not ransack your house if they know that u have stopped buying expensive items...its a hypothetical situation ...a far fetched one...but I think it goes well with the situation...because we are not talking about a one time event...we are talking about a habit...paparazzi will stop getting dirt if they know...no one is buying it...same goes for the burglar..they will stop ransacking houses...if people stop having expensive items...😆...the idea is we are holding the wrong party responsible...if anyone decides to do something illegal its their fault...no one else's...
I think you are comparing two completely different things. In the case of paparazzi, society is demanding something while paparazzi is supplying it. In the case of burglars, they are the ones demanding "free" (rather stolen) goods and they consequently steal it. (It is also a myth that only expensive goods get stolen)
Anyway to present another analogy between the two. Why is burglary a crime? Because societally we have deemed it a crime. We do not condone it and punish burglars who are caught. No one is paying burglars to rob their houses. No one is watching television, buying magazines to find burglars.
However, barring a few jurisdictions and special circumstances paparazzi or yellow journalism is not a crime. It is a legitimate profession. Society only knows to whine and complain about it. But when some juicy gossip is published, when some secret photos are taken, society laps it all up and spends money to buy the magazines and watch the shows that dish out all the dirt.
Blaming everything solely on paparazzi is like paying a burglar to break in your house and then whining about being robbed. If society one paying for the crime, encouraging and demanding (paparazzi in this case), how can society claim to be blameless? Do you mean to say that people who pay for wrong things to be done can never be blamed because they don't do anything wrong themselves?
