Gossip Magazines Support Kristen Bell’s No-Kids Photo Movement

There is something weirdly intriguing and annoying addicting about celebrity gossip. Flipping through tabloids, I’ll see photos of Anne Hathaway on her way to the gym, or Amanda Seyfried toting a couple Trader Joe’s grocery bags. Maybe it’s a bizarre form of comfort knowing that famous people exercise without makeup and shop at the same places I do. Our interest in the lives of celebrities is understandable, right? What about our interest in their children’s lives?

When Kim Kardashian announced she was pregnant, when Gwyneth Paltrow named her baby Apple, when Britney Spears shaved her head in her struggle for child custody, the paparazzi was always there. Yup, celebrities have babies too, and there is a high demand for royal baby print.

It’s one thing to follow the lives of your favorite musician or actor, but it’s another to clamor for their children’s. They’re adorable and have more fashion sense than anyone you know, but it’s fundamentally messed up to treat children like they are celebrities. Because no, they didn’t ask for the fame and the attention. And yeah, it’s probably really damaging to have a kid’s photo being taken every time his or her parent is out in LA to grab lunch.  Imagine yourself at six: would you really be okay with cameras all up in your business?

In 2013, Halle Berry and Jennifer Garner testified on behalf of Senate Bill 606, which established the definition of the harassment of a celebrity’s child and made it possible for paparazzi to face charges if a violation of privacy occurs. In January, actress and mom, Kristen Bell (along with her husband, Dax Shepard) started the movement and social media campaign against paparazzi who exploit and stalk children for the sake of their own monetary gain. Kristen Bell urged others to boycott the “pedorazzi”; other celebrities such as Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Aniston, and Amy Adams have also signed up to support this initiative and will no longer associate with media outlets that buy photos or video from paparazzo who harass celebrity families.

Halle Berry, Jennifer Garner, Kevin de Leon

Kristen, who voiced her opinion to Entertainment Tonight co-host Nancy O’Dell stated, “Picture what it would be like walking down the street with your child, whether it’s trick or treating or just to school, and have 10 aggressive men taking their picture with a lens in your face, yelling, pushing other children outside of a school.” 

E! Entertainment, Just Jared, and People Magazine ultimately agreed with Kristen and announced it would no longer feature photos of children without their parent’s consent. President Suzanne Kolb stated, “Here at E!, we share the concerns of all parents to protect children and are committed to heightening our efforts to ensure that we never support or encourage the targeting of children.” 

Look, I know we all love little Blue Ivy and the gorgeous Shiloh Jolie-Pitt. It’s natural to ogle the rich and famous and their offspring because they tend to be the cutest little people in the world. But if you support the well being and privacy of these children, then you won’t buy any more tabloids that don’t respect their personal space. It’s really courageous that Kristen and Dax started this initiative and it’s extremely cool that entertainment sources like E! fully support it. Let’s let kids be kids.


 Images via. Featured image via

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=801766461 Annalisa Marie

    I completely agree with this initiative. When you choose to pursue a career in the limelight, some loss of privacy and anonymity is the drawback in an otherwise awesome lifestyle. However, there is a marked difference between publicity and journalism, and outright harassment. Furthermore, these celebs’ children did not have any say in their parents’ choice of career. Would you have wanted to be hounded by creepy weirdos all day and night when you were a little kid? Would it have been OK for that to happen to you, because your mom or dad had a job that strangers found interesting? Of course not. It is up to everyone to make sure that children in our society can feel safe and enjoy their childhoods. Plainly and simply, don’t support (buy) gossip rags where the “journalists” are hounding kids or spying on them outside their schools and at the playground. If you wouldn’t want some wackadoo with a camera stalking your kid or grandkid, don’t give your money to someone who supports this same mistreatment of someone else’s kids. It’s just gross.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000034403491 Aoife Munro

    This is a fantastic idea, there is something almost sinister about the way some people worship these famous kids. They should be allowed to enjoy their youth, without having to endure the horrible paparazzi pestering them at every turn – that surely can’t be healthy for kids so young.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=654909472 Melissa Gaggiano

    In total agreement here. The kids should be left alone. In fact the celebrity parents should be left alone. I am a photographer, but I cannot stand the paparazzi hacks. If I want to see my favourite actors I’ll put on a DVD or go to the cinema. If I want to know their thoughts and feelings I will buy a magazine that includes a legitimate interview of them.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001711082169 Julianna Grigg

    I’m sorry but are we forgetting the children who are actually, what was the term ‘damaged’? Yes, I am fully aware of the paparazzi and how aggressive and forceful they can be. And I agree that they are often out of line. I even agree with this bill and the fact that permission should be given before a children’s picture be posted or printed. However I cannot agree with the idea that these celebrities’ children are actually being scarred for life by the ‘pedorazzi’. That’s ridiculous and frankly very insulting to true victims of pedophilia I’m sure. These children are pampered in almost every way, and many of them will become famous just because of who their parents are. What a terrible life! Not. There are children everywhere starving that would probably trade lives with these kids instantly. No, not probably..definitely. I’m embarrassed for this site because of this article. Shame on you guys, seriously. And btw, I couldn’t care less about famous peoples children or what they do with their personal lives. Please don’t assume we’re all the same and write an article about real life issues. Thanks.

    • Alan

      Julianna summed it up in one! We’re moving on from the MTV era, lets keep it that way!

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001551673277 Kay N Brandon Barké

      The word “pedo” has no permanent correlation to pedophilia. “Pedo” means child. So in this article it’s referring to the photographers that focus on celebrities children.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000390411852 Heather Proctor

      I’m not sure why you brought up pedophilia. Pedo just means that it pertains to children.
      Also, this article falls under pop culture and it is a real life issue. Please see the statement about what HelloGiggles is.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=503645082 Jean-Francois Dubé


      Pedo is the latin word for Child and is place in front of everything related to children…

      So this article never mention «pedophilia» in anyways. «“pedorazzi»in the sense of paparazzis taking pictures of children. Pedology is children study, not pedophilia study.

      You would allow people to rush and harass your kid, because your kid is «having a good life» ??? Maybe you should relax and think about it.

      «Pedo- or Paedo-[1] is a prefix with these meanings:
      Primarily, “relating to children”, from the Greek word pais (παῖς), meaning child or slave,[2] which derived from the Proto-Indo European base word *peu-, meaning “small,” “young” or “few,”.[1] It is spelled “pedo-” in USA spelling and “paedo-” in British spelling.»

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=503695968 Stacey MacNeil

      This is like saying kids raised by nannys because their own parents are too busy making millions shouldn’t complain because they have money. It’s completely unfair to assume what someone goes through and how they emotionally handle things. There is always someone in a worse situation which shouldnt minimize what anyone goes through. We all face our own issues and demons and face many difficulties. Just because someone has food and isn’t raped it doesn’t mean they aren’t faced with possible traumatic events that their parents feel the need to protect them from. So unless you go through it I say you really can’t have an input on what it’s like and it’s ignorant to think otherwise.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004184430823 Peter Horsman

      The label “Pedorazzi” is only in relation to the photography of children, Pedo/Paedo coming from the Greek word “pais” meaning child. It has nothing to do with paedophilia, other than they both involve children. I’m not sure why it’s insulting to victims of paedophilia that the term pedorazzi be used for describing the intrusive photography of celebrity children.

      Just because children in starving nations might happily trade places with celebrity children doesn’t make it any less relevant in our society to report on this subject. The world is a big place and these are real life issues to the people who have to deal with them. It’s also a way of informing the public that they can make a difference. It’s about the children after all, not the celebrity. They are real people and as children are just as able to be psychologically scarred by this behaviour as other children in other circumstances. It doesn’t matter if they live in a big house, get a limo to school, the capacity for emotional damage is the same if these things are left unchecked. I’m not sure why you have such a problem with this story being reported. The internet is a big enough place for all stories to be told, what’s the harm in informing people of this? I don’t see the writer assuming we’re all the same, it’s just one story out of hundreds/thousands. I might find the next article doesn’t appeal to me but I won’t go off on a tirade about it, I’ll presume there are people out there who are interested. It’s good that you don’t care about celebrity children but there is an industry for it, where plenty of other people do and they feed that machine and changes need to be made. Personally I have enough time to devote some of it to this and some of it to other causes.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1541558232 Dave Sheehan

      I agree with Julianna, and when people hear “pedo” they think of pedophiles, no matter the ancient history of the word or the Latin root; actors using the term “pedorazzi” aren’t smart enough to know the Latin and they are attempting to liken the “trauma” of being born a famous millionaire to the trauma of being raped as a little kid… how many other words are regularly used in modern society with the prefix of “pedo”?
      If these whiny celebrities didn’t want their kids to get special attention, they wouldn’t give their kids names like Blanket, Blue Ivy, or Shiloh.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000276776839 Amy Winters

      Children aren’t capable of measuring the pros of being a celebrity child against the cons… It’s not really anything to do with how privileged a child is, the point of having multiple adults pushing around flashing a camera in your face would be intimidating to any person who doesn’t understand the concept of paparazzi… Even more so for a child – the physical situation alone is totally inappropriate, it must be terrifying for little kids in some instances.

      That said we shouldn’t be presuming that ALL ‘pedorazzis’ are invasive or disrespectful – I’m sure when the photo is taken the right way, the parents are more inclined to consent.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=546546382 Claire Hanrahan

      There was never a comparison of these children with victims of pedophilia. But any form of disrespect of privacy and space is rude and wrong.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002740777710 Sarah Foster

    Ummm totally dissagree. My daughter is the cutest little person in the world. Those kids don’t have shit on her, famous or not. Pshhhhh. What a rude statement! Just because someone isn’t famous doesn’t mean their children don’t rank up their with famous ding-bats cute offspring.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000522501519 Rocio Quintanilla Urbina

      The only one being rude is you… now where in this article did say that only celebrity children are cute… I’m sure your daughter is adorable, so is mine, and every child for that matter.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000522501519 Rocio Quintanilla Urbina

      Oops sorry typo^^^^ ***I meant “NO WHERE”

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1086120155 Amanda Martorelli

      Did you even read the article or you that self absorbed that you relate everything back to yourself?

      I’m going to assume the latter.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002740777710 Sarah Foster

        “Look, I know we all love little Blue Ivy and the gorgeous Shiloh Jolie-Pitt. It’s natural to ogle the rich and famous and their offspring because they tend to be the cutest little people in the world” –from this very article. So yeah who didn’t read this article? Apparently you. Also, I was being completely sarcastic. I could give a s**t about celebrities or their spawn. Or wether or not they are cuter than my own. Give me a f**king break!!! Lol

        • Millie

          notice how the author didn’t exclude anyone’s children from “the cutest little people in the world” category? also It’s just so darn easy to read sarcasm in text with no indicators isn’t it. now some of this article I find kind of annoying, mostly because I’m not remotely interested in looking at photos of people being harassed by papara(t)zzi. I find it a dumb part of our culture.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002740777710 Sarah Foster

        Also, I accidentally wondered onto this article & this, Hellogiggles?!? Did not realize I was reading a tween magazine article. I will now be going back to reading about things of relevance that are happening in the real world. 😉 LMAO

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000522501519 Rocio Quintanilla Urbina

    Completely agree! When people say “well their actors or singers, they signed up to be followed” that’s ridiculous…. choosing to become an actor or singer is a job title and people will love the movies and songs, but that should be it. There’s no need to make it go further than that. Especially, when children are involved.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=763043170 Katerina Pat

    Pedo is a Greek word (not Latin) and it means child. Pedorazzi probably means paparazzi of children. I don’t like paparazzi’s so I completely agree with the article, being famous doesn’t give to anyone the right to intrude like this in your private line.

    • jo

      Pedi,its more accurate.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=40512848 Tracy McCown LaFon

    While I agree with these (actor) parent’s desire for privacy for their children and think these people that make their money stalking any celebs or their children are creepy and disgusting, I once again sigh when I think of this issue in the Senate. In the huge population of our nation, celebrities’ children are a extreme microcosm, less than an fraction of a fraction of our population. To take up time and money to have committee meetings, bill draftings, law-discussing and then passing a bill for this takes time and resources from the REAL problems our government should be tackling. Protect the celebrities children? The children that are surrounded by by wealth, nannies, bodyguards and mansion gates? I would much rather our government be working to protect children whose only hot meal a day is their free school lunch, children who are under-insured or not insured (yes, despite Obamacare) and suffering from life-threatening diseases, the children who are abused, sexually exploited, or even just have to suffer because their parents can’t find jobs or earn enough to make a decent life for them. THOSE are the children I want Congress working for, let the celebs hire a little extra security and deal with the rest of the fallout of their successful lifestyle. Yes, popularity and notoriety bring unwanted attention and complications but only for a tiny few and, just like I disagreed with the time and money wasted on congressional hearings on steroids in baseball (another tiny population representation) I feel our country has bigger things to worry about about and I want my taxes (which pay these members of congress’ salary) to go to real-life, citizen-joe’s problems.

    • Bex

      So because they are famous they don’t deserve to have rights to protect their children? If normal people had this problem, they would also try to get something passed to stop people from taking photo’s of their kids. You also forget that famous people pay taxes (way more than you do btw) just like normal people and a lot of them donate to a lot of charities and causes as it is. When people write this kind of crap, it’s pretty annoying because you’re treating rich famous people like they have no rights or like they can just buy anything to solve their problems. Money doesn’t solve majority of the problems in their lives.

    • Priss

      But everyone should advocate for their child and what they believe is the best for them. I know it may seem a little ridiculous, but these parents are really just trying to protect their children, just like many other, non-famous parents.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1680393244 Maddy Anne Buckshaw

    Is there a petition for a law to be passed or something similar?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1367872846 Andrew Bricker

    While I understand, maybe you should try getting a traditional job that doesnt entice all of the nut jobs of the world to form psychotic attachments to you. I bet ya the local waitress making chump change down at the local eatery doesnt have this issue.

    You didnt mind the attention (and surely the money) prior to kids.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1086120155 Amanda Martorelli

      So because they’re famous it should be expected that their children be stalked, harassed and intimidated by the media? They’re fucking children, all the same.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004794001691 Chantel Wickham

    I can rightfully say that if it was one of our kids that was facing anything whether it be bullying at school, inappropriate physical contact by anyone towards them, being stalked, or physically or emotionally abused ANYONE of us would take on what we needed to do to ensure that our kids feel safe, secure, & loved. They have not taken physical action against the paparazzi. They have thought this out & demand that something be put into place through the courts. Granted, some celebs have taken physical action, but when faced with a compiling number of events caused by paparazzi, No one can say they would have handled it so perfectly. I say good for them in wanting to protect their children.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004794001691 Chantel Wickham

    If it was one of our kids that was facing anything whether it be bullying at school, inappropriate physical contact by anyone towards them, being stalked, or physically or emotionally abused ANYONE of us would take on what we needed to do to ensure that our kids feel safe, secure, & loved. They have not taken physical action against the paparazzi. They have thought this out & demand that something be put into place through the courts. Granted, some celebs have taken physical action, but when faced with a compiling number of events caused by paparazzi, No one can say they would have handled it so perfectly. I say good for them in wanting to protect their children.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1637415338 Margaret Carson

    I hope you are able to find other organizations, magazines, newspapers to foloow your request. It is only right, to be able to go out with your child/children and not be attacked by the media I will never read. Good Luck and stay strong!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100007934049512 Lara Ash

    my neighbor’s step-mother makes $63 an hour on the internet . She has been out of work for nine months but last month her payment was $13439 just working on the internet for a few hours. you could try here ======>>>>>>>www.job39.com

  • Captain Optimist

    Perhaps if the Hollywood “elite” had not worked so hard to portray themselves as untouchable demigods, we wouldn’t have such a fascination with them. Our movie/TV stars have worked for decades to establish themselves as people to be worshiped, and they have succeeded. Now, they turn around and complain that the people who they want fawning over them are doing so. I’m sorry for their children, that they were born into a lifestyle they can’t avoid, but celebrities created the demand by demanding to be treated better than anyone else, demanding to be royalty – and the kicker is, most of our Hollywood elite only got in front of a camera in the first place because they happen to be really attractive. The talent pool among America’s royalty is actually pretty shallow.

    Look at the actors and actresses in the UK in comparison – they are idolized a bit, but they are idolized because they are genuinely good people for the most part, and they are talented. They are humble. They acknowledge how lucky they are to be able to make a living doing what they are doing, something they are passionate about. Actors and actresses in the UK do not universally fit America’s model of “beauty,” but they are overwhelmingly talented. They don’t demand to be treated like royalty, because they understand that what they do is no more important than any other job their fellow citizens are doing. As such, they are not harassed endlessly, and their children are – by and large – left alone.

    TL;DR – American celebrities did this to themselves.

  • Rachel

    I definitely agree with this article! Quick comment though: I believe Shiloh likes to be called John and prefers male pronouns. (I didn’t the article, as I don’t read many magazines or celebrity interviews, but many people say it was in an interview with Angelina or Brad when asked about him).

  • Brittany Queen

    Move out of LA/NYC and raise your children OR don’t have them OR deal. That’s pretty much it. DO NOT ASK FOR MORE SPECIAL TREATMENT. I would never ever wish for fame….it sounds so lonely. And terrible.

  • JessicaRose Hutchins

    I definitely agree with the article, and the opinions voiced; however, I’m sure these celebrities get some sort of monetary compensation when they allow their photos and photos of their children to be printed. If they don’t, then I completely understand the reason to be up in arms, but if you are receiving compensation (as most celebrities do when they allow camera crews to photograph their families for magazines and other publications), then you should denounce all compensation, and maybe the argument will actually be a legitimate one. But while celebrities are still allowing paparazzi to document every second of their lives, and receiving payment for the publication of these photos and articles, then really, they are the only ones to blame when it comes to the harassment of their children.

    • Chiara Manni

      I think this article is just referring to those celebrities who don’t want to whore their children out for money (Will Smith I’m looking at you) and hate to have them photographed every time they leave the house for a playdate.

  • Christine Ng

    *John Jolie-Pitt

Need more Giggles?
Like us on Facebook!

Want more Giggles?
Sign up for our newsletter!