Both sides, in good faith

The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.

The case for

Supporters argue that the wedding was a private celebration funded by two exceptionally successful people, and that its scale reflected the genuine cultural importance of figures whose work has brought enjoyment to vast audiences. They may also see the event’s employment, hospitality spending and charitable potential as legitimate benefits for New York, while noting that high-profile guests require careful security for understandable safety reasons. From this perspective, public fascination and commercial activity are voluntary responses, not harms created by the couple.

The case against

Critics argue that an extravagant event involving extensive security and disruption should be scrutinised where public resources, streets or policing may have been affected, particularly in a city with pressing social needs. They may also question whether a highly promoted spectacle reinforces a culture of celebrity excess and turns a personal milestone into a commercial product. From this perspective, fame does not remove the responsibility to minimise public cost and inconvenience, or to be transparent about how these were managed.