> I think the reasoning goes something like this: A person whose work makes him/her famous has influence on a lot of peoples lives. Otherwise, they wouldn't be famous. For instance, Hemingway has influence on a lot of people because people can relate to what he says, or because it makes them think. N'sync has influence for the same reason that music as such has influence - it affects our emotions. Accepting that famous people have influence on many lives, the question is: "Do you want a swearing drunk pedofile socialist colourblind buddhist crossdresser to influence your life?" Many parents don't think so. So people want to know these things. And the tabloids know this.

I think I have a causality problem with this. Sure, these people have an influence with their personal lives, but if nobody reports what those personal lives entail, then how would we know what those lives are and be influenced by them? Somewhere along the way, somebody decided that we had to know how celebrities lived, and then it became a need to know because we already knew and it influenced us. I'm chasing my tail in circles here, but I think that's because your causality is circular.

In any case, I still strongly believe that people's personal lives should be off limits, unless you know them personally and they choose to share.

> jul"No offense meant towards swearing drunk pedofile socialist colourblind buddhist crossdressers. Or parents"ian

Don "I think I need to say more on this, but the words aren't coming right now" Monkey