George Clooney is once again taking aim at the paparazzi. In a statement to Showbiz Tonight, he tells us:
"We're suing two magazines AND a photographer. I don't know about the law in the United States but in Italy it's illegal for photographers to climb over my wall and to take long lens pictures of a 13-year-old girl in her bedroom. I draw the line of privacy at that."
Clooney was at his home in Italy with his girlfriend when a photographer allegedly took photos of a 13-year-old girl house guest who was topless at the time.
This is not the first time that Clooney has taken the paparazzi to task. He publicly admonished them and their methods after the death of Princess Diana and in the last several years has spoken at length about the paparazzi’s sometimes dangerous methods.
For much more on this developing story tune in to Showbiz Tonight on HLN, 11pm ET/PT- Don’t miss it!
Good for you George! Use all your star power and money and go after those photogs. Had it been my 13 yr old, they'd be lucky to live.
Anne Shears has it right" CLOSE THE CURTAINS" !!!!!
Also call the cops!!!
The 13 year old was a house guest, not his girlfriend. Clooney has plenty of girls without chasing jailbait.
Personally, if I were a relative/legal guardian the terrorazzi better PRAY the authorities arrest that spawn of Satan before I FIND "it". That's right, "it" because it is NOT a decent human being and doesn't deserve to breathe the same air as me. Go get 'em George as someone else said and if you need help I'm available.
Pookie: what difference does it make WHAT she was doing?? She was in A BEDROOM...as a GUEST. I agree with the blogger who states it's the PEOPLE that keep the paparrazzi in business. Quit buying and reading the garbage...and they will no longer be in business! Bravo, George, for taking a stance.
Close your curtains and invest in some good blinds. Lord knows you can afford them. What was she doing topless? Was she changing or prancing around in the nude. In any event, despite being an English major, the article was written in a wonky manner and it took me a bit to make sure I wasn't reading about Clooney's child bride.
It's simple, no matter where you are, taking pictures of a minor like this is child pornography. I don't understand the confusion about this 13 year old maybe being George's girlfriend. I think the article is clear enough. Go get 'em George!
Get a grip,people!!!! The article is clear. Don't read something into it that is NOT there. Geez, the man is a straight arrow. He would never endanger a child.
You might want to try reading the article again, a little slower this time,
no where does it state his girlfriend is 13
George Clooney is among a dishearteningly small group of actors who truly "get" the concept of the "myth of celebrity". He understands that he works in an industry that, while it pays extremely well, is populated by normal people who happen to possess great talent. Those people want to be able to go to work, enjoy what they do for a living, come home, raise their kids, and in general lead a happy life. The truly sad aspect of their industry is the media monstrosity that can't seem to get its collective head around the same idea. The paparazzi invade all aspects of privacy with absolutely no regard for the individual, they feed their product to magazines, websites and television shows which see no problem with this, who in turn inundate a public into losing touch with what really matters. How long has it been since we have been able to name, say, even five true "heroes" who weren't a product of the myth of celebrity? Sad.
I agree with many posters...the 13-year old girl was a guest of Clooney, not his girlfriend. Grow up.
But there is a serious question here...Yeah, it’s funny, we think, when Paris Hilton’s tape gets out, or Eric Dane and his wife are exposed on the net, but we are taking away their rights to privacy. That very insatiable appetite for knowing what the famous are doing is driving the papparazzi. But I feel sorry for them, as well. Those of us not rich and famous do stupid things all the time, like video ourselves nude or whatever, but since noone wants to see them, we escape the embarassment. We won’t be hounded into letting a drunk drive us like Princess Diana, just to try and escape for an hour or two.
So the comments on here, while I’m sure are funny to the posters and other 16-year old mentalities, are neglecting a serious question — when is the public complicit in stealing rights from the famous?
Victoria's absolutely right. We're always trying to find a way to blame the victim - so that WE will feel safer! Let's just bury our heads in the sand, knowing smugly that because WE "close the curtains" nothing similar will happen to us. WE don't dress the way that girl dressed who was raped down the street, so it won't happen to us. WE married a "good guy", so the abuse won't happen to us. What a crock of crap. Clooney has every right to sue and I'm glad he's doing so.
Here in American doing that is called being a 'peeping Tom" and it's 'Agin the law" here as well.
Come on folks and READ the article...it says the 13 year old girl was a HOUSE GUEST, not his girl friend.
Most of the paparazzi, and especially these, ought to be fed to the sharks. (This was also a case of agressive trespassing, by the way.)
Do they have any vicious sharks in the Mediterranean Sea? – which for you dimwits out there, surrounds Italy in three sides!
The "houseguest" who was mentioned could have been a relative of Clooney or his girlfriend; or the child of one of their friends; or the child of other people in that house who aren't even mentioned – simply because there was no reason to mention them. Like many respondants have mentioned, Please read the entire article and THINK before commenting on it.
He was home with his girlfriend and they had a 13 year old guest. The picture was taken of the guest.
He should sue. That was wrong.
Re Read the article all, it says his girlfriend and a 13 year old house guest!
"a 13-year-old girl house guest "
Learn to read people
The article says he was with his girlfriend and that the picture taken was of a 13 year-old house guest, not one and the same. Take the time to actually read the article if you are going to comment on it, people!
Come on people, his lady friend's child is 13! Do you guys really need to be spoon fed or have you lost the ability to reason for yourselves. Darwin's theories are being proven right here.
Yes, the pap should be arrested for child porn, I'd have the pap rat up against the wall with his unit in a vice grip. If kids can't post images of themselves online, than the pig who took the picture can't either, the pap needs to go to jail. I can't believe some of you, if your neighbor climbed a fence or climbed the oak tree in the backyard or drilled a hole in the fence to take pictures of you there would be legal consequences. Blame the victim mentality is the reason we have slid so far back in our ability to sympathize with our fellow man.
Close the curtains.
If you read farther down in the article it says the 13 year old was a houseguest of Cloony and his girlfriend.
How about we have this headline "CNN Readers' Comprehension Below That of Cats."
This article says nothing about a 13 year old girlfriend. I'm not even going to comment on how simple and clear this is.
Although badly written...it is still plain to anyone who can read that the 13 year old is a house guest of Clooney and his girlfriend...probably a neice or relative.
So folks, slow down and read this poorly written report and get it straight.
Please learn to read and comprehend before you waste everyone's time on these blogs. The article reads, "a photographer allegedly took photos of a 13-year-old girl house guest". Where did you freaks get "13-year-old girlfriend?
Grow up people, you know what it means. shame on the photographer who took the picture and shame on the people who published it. Being 13 is hard enough without this type of picture haunting you. The poor girl will never get away from this picture.
Thanks George for defending her honor and not letting them get away with it.
Hello??? People, the article says "houseguest", not "girlfriend". Why on earth are all of you jumping to the conclusion that Clooney's some kind of pervert instead of focusing on the blatant invasion of privacy. The kid could have just been changing her clothes or lounging...in her BEDROOM?? If we can't have privacy there, where can we expect to have it?
Guys, take another look at the article. It says, "Clooney was at his home in Italy with his girlfriend when a photographer allegedly took photos of a 13-year-old girl HOUSE GUEST who was topless at the time." [emphasis mine] It doesn't say his girlfriend is 13, it says that there were at least three people in the home at the time; Clooney, his girlfriend, and the 13-year-old guest. She could be a relative. There could have been more guests that aren't mentioned. Anyway, that is what the article says, not that his girlfriend is 13.
Come on people - the article didn't say or even suggest that the 13-year-old was his girlfriend - just that photographers took pictures of a young girl while Clooney was with his girlfriend. And yes, those who took the images should be incrimminated.
Sid, You are stupid.
Pictures were taken of "A" 13-year-old girl, as referring to another person in the household, not "THE" 13-year-old, as if referring back to the girlfriend. Goodness, the article is NOT misleading. Let's just read gooder!!!
Wow...what is wrong with you readers? The article CLEARLY says, "a photographer allegedly took photos of a 13-year-old girl house guest who was topless"
How hard is that??
The article is misleading. Is the girlfriend 13?? It said with his girlfriend, no mention of a daughter. I don't think his g.f is 13, but you never know.
God I hope he meant his girlfriends 13 year old topless in a bedroom at his home. If not he has bigger problems then photographers
I am just wondering for the photographers...if he took a picture of a 13 year old can that photographer be arrested for being a peeping tom or even possibly classified as a child pornographer...after all, its a picture of a 13 year old topless.
Regardless of the questions surrounding the girl's age, one thing is clear: they ought to publicly stone the paparazzi in the public square. These evil people are a cancer upon this Earth.
Oh my God... Clooney's girlfriend is only 13 years old? Uh, could he be referring to his girlfriend's daughter, or his own daughter, or niece, help me out here...
We don't know that diana would have been alive she got in the car with a drunk driver. What a role model for her children and countless other's.
It is wrong to climb over anybody's wall to take pictures of anybody in any country. People have the right to privacy, even celebrities. Their friends and family members certainly did not sign up for this.
Why everyone blaming the paparazzi, when the people and public should be blamed. Why do you think these magazines fight for these pictures? Isn’t because a lot of us buy these magazines? Even all major TV networks have back-to-back shows everyday talking about where George Clooney was the other night? Stop watching those shows or don’t buy the magazine, then you won’t see paparazzi. It’s all about supply and demand!!
I think it should be illegal for the paparazzi to even be in existence. I cannot imagine being stalked by 20 or 30 maniacs with cameras everytime I wanted to go anywhere. I think it is wrong, and dangerous and I don't see why they don't fall under the umbrella as stalkers.
Princess Diane would be alive today if she wasn't trying to get away from them. I think it is an invasion of privacy ... as for their right.......
Their rights should end where MY rights begin.
Maybe the article should have said he was with his girlfriend and her daughter?
He meant 30 right? I don't think his girl friend is 13.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Our daily cheat-sheet for breaking celebrity news, Hollywood buzz and your pop-culture obsessions.
Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.
Join 7,769 other followers