We realize, it's a bit of stretch from the original trending story we are about to share but it does bring up a valid question. Should Lindsey Lohan, or any highly criticized celebrity for that matter, move to Montana to avoid the limelight? First, the original story...

LINDSAY LOHAN is making her debut on stage in London at the end of this year, and she claims that she just might be MOVING there.

Mostly it's because she believes she has a good chance of being seen as a worthwhile celeb over there . . . and also because she thinks British people really don't care about gossip and celebrity fodder as much as we do. Another reason? To avoid the paparazzi.

In a recent BBC interview, Lohan says that British people have, quote, "such a different outlook [about celebrities] . . . It's more news and politics and music.  It feels good to turn on the TV and not have everything be all about gossip." 

And because of that, she also thinks she has a better chance of being seen as a legitimate actress there than she does in the U.S.

Lohan mentioned that while she is performing on stage, people can "focus on the fact that I'm [an] actress and an artist, and not just someone you take photos of."

Now, keep this in mind. The UK is, as a matter of fact, WELL-KNOWN for paparazzi hounding so the odds of her being left alone is quite unlikely.

So the question is...wouldn't she be better off in moving to Montana? We have more wide open spaces, less population, and more seclusion. Granted, the local town folk may not be all too hip to it, but the wide majority of the spotlight here would diminish more than anywhere..

Discuss!

Subscribe to this YouTube channel and never miss an update: