Ben Affleck & Jennifer Garner’s Breakfast Buddy

Ben Affleck turned his camera onto the nearby paparazzi while out with wife Jennifer Garner and their 4-year-old daughter Seraphina at the Brentwood Country Mart on Friday (February 8). The trio enjoyed breakfast and left with some coffees to go.

The day before, the Argo star and Alias alum – also parents to 7-year-old daughter Violet and 11-month-old son Samuel – were photographed enjoying a morning date at their favorite Brentwood hotspot.

Are the Garflecks stalked by the paparazzi?

Our spinoff site HerScoop takes a critical look at today’s paparazzi and our favorite celebrity children.

“Stop taking pictures of us and our dad. Now,” video footage shows Violet demanding to the nearby photographers.

So what is the solution? Shut down popular websites like Celebrity Baby Scoop? Enforce laws regarding photographs of high-profile children? Or should the celebrity families simply move away from Hollywood?

Continue reading at HerScoop

Filed under: Ben Affleck,Jennifer Garner,Seraphina Affleck

Photo credit: FameFlynet/AKM-GSI


Post a Comment

  1. Dana

    Ben affleck needs to move he family out of Brentwood if he is so concerned about the paps. He wants to live in Hollywood and be a big producer but then gets pissed when his photos are in high demand. Can’t have it both ways.

  2. Dana

    And Ben is the one responsible for making his children upset about the photos… There are many ways to present the issue to them and Violet is now voicing her fathers anger. She is always smiling when shes with her mother but when she’s out with Ben they are both scowling.

    Move your family if its so important Ben. You court fame but then you demand it’s only on your own terms. Go ahead and lobby politicians to pass special legislation that just benefits celebrities… You will find that no one really has any interest in your “art” and that you fall off the map.

  3. Kate

    I think there should be laws concerning the kids at the very least. It’s one thing if a parent brings the kid for red carpet events but staking out schools and kids birthday parties is weird and wrong. Particularly when the famous parents aren’t with the kids. I’ve never really understood the argument that if someone is in a movie they have given up the right to go about the rest of their life in peace. I’m guilty of looking at the pictures but I certainly don’t think I have a right to see them.

    • Dana

      Here’s the thing though… The paparazzi are taking pictures on public property as they are legally allowed to do so in the United States. If Ben affleck gets his way, there will be laws passed putting restrictions on photography in public arenas. This will in turn allow more lawsuits, bureaucracy, and legal ramifications for all photographers… Not just paparazzi.

      The celebrities who are impacted by paparazzi are a tiny fraction of society and to have special laws passed just for them is ludicrous and akin to treating them like a special class of royalty with their own rules and regulations.

      If Ben affleck truly cared about his children’s privacy there are other ways to handle it… Such as moving out of Hollywood, where the highest concentrations of paparazzi are. The fact that he is unwilling to do that says a lot about his priorities.

      • Mags

        I actually think you have it flipped. Celebrities are a small fraction of society that we have applied a different set of laws to. If you were followed by someone taking your picture, it would legally be considered stalking. If someone decided your minor child was just the cutest thing and decided to start staking out their school, extracurricular activities you can bet you would have the ability to get a restraining order. You certainly would be able to prevent magazines and websites from using those unauthorized pictures of your child. Somehow it’s been decided in our country that if you are an entertainer you no longer have the right to that same amount of privacy.

        There are lots of ways they could restrict the paparazzi without infringing on other photographers. They could make laws against following someone, I mean how many photosets do you see where the celebrities are clearly being followed down the street? There is a difference between someone taking a single picture and being followed by a pack of men asking your minor child questions. They could crack down on the sale of unauthorized pictures of minors. I think it’s ridiculous that somehow we think the only solution to them being stalked by paparazzi is that they should have to move away from the place they work and live.

      • casey

        The list of A-listers who do reside outside of Hollywood is not small and it’s worth noting that it hasn’t had a negative impact on their career — Nicole Kidman, Rachel Weisz, Julia Roberts, Catherine Z-J, Kate Winslet, etc., etc., If you have the talent, big league directors and producers will find you.

  4. Anonymous

    Like most things I think there are two sides to this situation. on the one hand they have the right to their privacy, on the other hand it comes with the territory (and the do experience the benefits of it as well) especially when you pick to live where they do. I do however feel it is invasive and wrong to take pictures of the children when their parents are not present, or in the privacy of their home or school (which I believe is trespassing) , but the country mart fair game I guess.

    • Dana

      I get what you’re saying, but It already IS illegal to take photos without permission in private places like homes and inside schools. When have we ever seen photos inside the affleck’s house or in their children’s school?

      And if we pass a law banning taking photos of kids without parents there, then you could get sued for all kinds of things… for example a teacher could get sued for taking a class photo, or you could be sued for taking a photo of your kid with her friends.

      Celebrities need to take the consequences of courting fame and find better ways of dealing with it than passing special laws for themselves.

      • Grace

        You are making huge leaps in how restrictive laws would need to be. It’s not about a teacher taking a photo in a class or a parent taking pictures at a birthday party. These minor children are being followed by strangers to have their photos sold to magazines and websites. Make following the minors illegal or restrict the sale and/or purchase of photos and you’ve helped protect these kids, without impacting the everyday situations you describe.

      • Elektra

        Ms Dana, where did you get the idea that Ben was trying to get a law passed to ban paps from taking pics of his or any other celebs’ kids? I saw a tape where he stated he (plus his wife also ) don’t like the fact that their kids are photographed but he made no mention of getting laws preventing sucn activities. I must have missed that part. Show proof of your accusations or please stop making up stories. That being said, please explain how pap pics of kids result in movie roles and etc for celebs. I think roles are offered to celebs based on talent, success and scheduling and not due to exposure in tab, websites or gossip blogs.

  5. your mom

    Um, ok. Let’s discuss Ben’s outfit. WTF is that mess?

  6. Lizzie

    Jen’s sister is in these photos. I saw some on another site and they look so much alike!

  7. Gemi

    I read that in the UK taking pictures of children under 18 is illegal without permission from the parents. Not sure if that’s true or not.

    I think it’s fair game for celebrities to have to deal with the paparazzi, but not their children. However, why don’t they just move? It’s obviously a big problem in LA, move to Utah or New Mexico like many other celebrities do.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *