Alec Baldwin once yelled into my answering machine, too. It was at 4:00 in the morning and he was on a movie set in Canada, and I had been trying to reach him for an interview about his political activities. He was mad at me for having left him so many requests on his machine and apparently felt the best revenge was to awaken me from a good night’s sleep. “Pick up, pick up, pick up, pick up,” he kept repeating. It wasn’t until a few weeks later that he stood with me in front of Café Luxembourg for two hours, screaming into my tape recorder a disturbing defense of the thinking behind the Oklahoma City bombings.

“When they blow up buildings in Oklahoma City, that’s horrible. That’s wrong. You know what that is …” Mr. Baldwin raged. “But don’t you turn around from time to time and say, ‘You know something, don’t they have a point?’ In some way they perverted this concept, but isn’t government an albatross around everyone’s neck?” Well, nobody loves an albatross. Especially not Mr. Baldwin, who has had one draped around him since last Thursday night, when TMZ.composted the now-infamous voice mail message he left for his 11-year-old daughter, Ireland. He called her a “thoughtless little pig” and went on to warn her that he was “gonna straighten your ass out” when he next saw her, for not picking up the phone. I wonder how many asses Mr. Baldwin has had to straighten out on this matter.

It’s a blow to Mr. Baldwin, and a legitimate one — if you believe the phone messages that celebrities leave for their children deserve public disclosure. Obviously there’s no defense for what he said; even if you accept his explanation that he had been involved in a bitter divorce battle with his ex-wife that drove him to temper, that’s no excuse for calling your child a pig or threatening her with violence. The timbre of Mr. Baldwin’s voice as he berates his daughter has sent shivers through millions, even those — like myself — who also feel some embarrassment at listening and sharing in a private family matter, and wonder whether some context might have helped explain, if not forgive, his outburst.

This is, without any doubt, the worst time in history to be famous — and it’s hard not to imagine Mr. Baldwin’s anguish in hearing his private words played, out of context, for millions to hear. As of this moment, all of the mistakes celebrities make, public or private, can find their way onto Web sites devoted to their humiliation. The technology now exists for millions to hear and see the embarrassing moments of public figures. Web sites track the movement of movie stars around big cities and report, instantaneously, on their whereabouts and bad behavior — invading their privacy and feeding the needs of paparazzi and stalkers who live for unauthorized contact with movie stars and media heroes. For years, Mr. Baldwin has been a topic of obsession by Page Six, which has gleefully chronicled a multitude of unguarded moments.

These new technologies have provided a weapon to the enemies of a celebrity, and Mr. Baldwin seems to have many. We still don’t know who leaked the voicemail, but was it appropriate to allow the tape, which pertains directly to a custody battle between Mr. Baldwin and his ex-wife, Kim Basinger, to reach the hands of a Web site where the public could access it? Audiences can’t be expected to compartmentalize their disgust, and it will be hard to look at him from this point forward and not be reminded of his words. His enemies’ mission was accomplished: We all now consider Mr. Baldwin a thoughtless brute.

The defense of such disclosures is that celebrities are protected by wealth from the downside of embarrassing revelations. And it does seem unlikely that Mr. Baldwin’s career will substantially suffer from this episode. He remains a gifted actor with a successful network sitcom. The long-term price of his behavior will be minimal, even if the stigma stays. Mr. Baldwin has the money and the power to survive this small-scale scandal, and his quick apology on Friday will probably suffice for most. He may not become a better parent as a result of all this, but he’ll think twice before risking his career by yelling, again, into an answering machine or tape recorder.

The problem lies with those who lack the power to protect themselves against the ravages of a 21st-century media onslaught, with its instantaneous, far-reaching effects. Eventually, someone’s career will be ruined, needlessly and unfairly, by a reckless Web site. Who arbitrates the limits of Internet exposure, or the level of celebrity required to justify it? As it gets easier for Web sites and reporters to pick apart the private behavior of our public figures, what greater public good is being served by these floggings? Meanwhile, we could all probably benefit from ratcheting up our fear of exposure, too — even the best behaved among us. The Internet is out there, and it’s an equal-opportunity destroyer.