'Saddened' UK royals consider legal action over topless pictures of Catherine

[SkinInsite]

(CNN) -- A French magazine has stoked controversy by publishing pictures of Catherine, the Duchess of Cambridge, topless while on vacation with Prince William, prompting the threat of legal action from palace officials over what they blasted as a "grotesque" invasion of privacy.
The pictures were taken while the couple was staying at a private chateau in Provence, in southern France, according to Closer magazine.

A St. James's Palace spokesman said the pair were "hugely saddened to learn that a French publication and a photographer have invaded their privacy in such a grotesque and totally unjustifiable manner.

"The incident is reminiscent of the worst excesses of the press and paparazzi during the life of Diana, Princess of Wales, and all the more upsetting to The Duke and Duchess for being so.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/14/world/europe/uk-royals-photo-controversy/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

Link to NSFW photos (http://gawker.com/5943253/these-topless-photos-of-kate-middleton-put-us-at-two-for-three-on-royal-nudie-pic-scandals?utm_source=gizmodo.com&utm_medium=recirculation&utm_campaign=recirculation)

[twa]

Here's a idea, if you don't want topless pics out there ,keep your clothes on.

[renaissance]

Do people not feel like total creepers looking at photos like these?

If it's one that she knew was being taken then I can understand.

[twa]

Do people not feel like total creepers looking at photos like these?

.

I'm pretty sure that is the major appeal of them.....not like it is hard to find plenty of better quality pics(no insult intended towards the Royal peaks)

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Here's a idea, if you don't want topless pics out there ,keep your clothes on.

So NOBODY in the public eye deserves any privacy?

Taking the pics in the first place is bad enough. To then publish them for sensationalism is beyond, to quote the Duke and Dutchess, a 'grotesque and unjustifiable invasion of privacy.'

Hail.

[Duckus]

Do people not feel like total creepers looking at photos like these?

If it's one that she knew was being taken then I can understand.

So ****ing creepy. I have no idea why people want to see these so bad.

[SkinInsite]

Nobody will bat an eye if this was someone like Lindsay Lohan instead of the future Queen.

[Buford]

its 2012 and people still get all fired up over this. Been to enough beaches in other countries that it doesn't even phase me anymore...unless the woman has an amazing body or a body that nobody wants to look at on the beach. Even then, its their right. Lets just make all beaches and pools topless and save the paper and bandwidth from these stories.

[Corcaigh]

A St. James's Palace spokesman said the pair were ...

Wait, what pair is he talking about? :silly:

[AsburySkinsFan]

Here's a idea, if you don't want topless pics out there ,keep your clothes on.

Classic "blame the victim". Love it. twa you are nothing if not consistent.

I once worked with a guy who blamed an 80 year old lady because a couple of kids stole her bike. :doh:

[Destino]

Stalkers with telescopes for cameras shouldn't be considered acceptable simply because they are working for the press. It's a shame they can't do more than simply sue the paper. Those photos are now on the web and no one can ever remove them.

[Corcaigh]

Get your souvenir of this important occasion. The 'Kate Middleton Topless' Commemorative Plate.

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/772222/thumbs/o-WITHWORDSKATEDUCHESSCOMMEMORATIVEPLATE-570.jpg?6

The world was enthralled on 14 September 2012, when a French magazine published topless photos of the Duchess of Cambridge.

And now, this historic moment has been captured forever - on Huffington Post UK Comedy's special commemorative plate.


Limited edition - only available in France
Can only be viewed through a long lens
Buy two, get a commemorative 'Prince Harry Naked In Las Vegas' plate FREE


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/09/14/kate-middleton-topless-spoof-news_n_1883153.html

[Special K]

How are there not laws against "peeping Tom"-like paparazzi?

I feel really badly for Kate, she is a classy woman who has brought an air of freshness to the monarchy. I'm sure she's mortified :(

[skinsfan07]

wtf did the person take those pics with? A potatoe?

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

its 2012 and people still get all fired up over this. Been to enough beaches in other countries that it doesn't even phase me anymore...unless the woman has an amazing body or a body that nobody wants to look at on the beach. Even then, its their right. Lets just make all beaches and pools topless and save the paper and bandwidth from these stories.

You can't see the inherent difference between someones choice to go topless on a public beach if the law allowed; as opposed to someone taking a vacation break in a private, secluded chateaux and having their privacy invaded by some low life with a lense?

Seriously?

Hail.

[ixcuincle]

A year after the Scarlett Johannsen pics leaked

What a hilarious coincidence

---------- Post added September-14th-2012 at 10:39 AM ----------

Bah it's all blurry

CAn't see clearly

Boo

[twa]

So NOBODY in the public eye deserves any privacy?



Not when in the public eye obviously.....maybe she should wear a burka :pfft:

If the photographer is trespassing I fully support stringing him up,but if she was visible from a place he had a right to be they share the responsibility.

I agree with Buford

[ixcuincle]

its 2012 and people still get all fired up over this. Been to enough beaches in other countries that it doesn't even phase me anymore...unless the woman has an amazing body or a body that nobody wants to look at on the beach. Even then, its their right. Lets just make all beaches and pools topless and save the paper and bandwidth from these stories.

This reminds me of the European topless beach in EuroTrip. :|

[Buford]

You can't see the inherent difference between someones choice to go topless on a public beach if the law allowed; as opposed to someone taking a vacation break in a private, secluded chateaux and having their privacy invaded by some low life with a lense?

Seriously?

Hail.

I totally see it in this situation. I think its scumback TMZ tabloid BS. My point is that if nobody cared about stuff like this, then hiding in the bushes to get it wouldn't get the $$ from the tabloid is does now. People are entitled to their privacy and this was f'd up.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

I totally see it in this situation. I think its scumback TMZ tabloid BS. My point is that if nobody cared about stuff like this, then hiding in the bushes to get it wouldn't get the $$ from the tabloid is does now. People are entitled to their privacy and this was f'd up.

Ahh. Thanks for the clarification. Sorry for jumping.

Hail.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Not when in the public eye obviously.....maybe she should wear a burka :pfft:

If the photographer is trespassing I fully support stringing him up,but if she was visible from a place he had a right to be they share the responsibility.

I agree with Buford

Easy to say when you're not the one in the photos.

[Buford]

Ahh. Thanks for the clarification. Sorry for jumping.

Hail.

Cripes. My reply was filled with typos. Sorry.

[twa]

You can't see the inherent difference between someones choice to go topless on a public beach if the law allowed; as opposed to someone taking a vacation break in a private, secluded chateaux and having their privacy invaded by some low life with a lense?

Seriously?

Hail.

The difference being since they are rich and famous they are entitled to more privacy since they can afford it?

I would be fine with forbidding publishing pics w/o consent, but that is not the way it works.

[killerbee99]

Meh, he was putting some lotion on her "butt" and "breasts" , BFD, you know you take a chance when you do stuff in this day and age, especially being royalty. Oh, well, now that everyone has seen the goods, maybe it will blow over, as long as they don't sue. Then it stays in court for months dragging the whole thing into public view for another couple of months.

[twa]

Easy to say when you're not the one in the photos.

Nudity is not a issue to me

besides it might take the heat off Harry .

[Destino]

I totally see it in this situation. I think its scumback TMZ tabloid BS. My point is that if nobody cared about stuff like this, then hiding in the bushes to get it wouldn't get the $$ from the tabloid is does now. People are entitled to their privacy and this was f'd up.
There is a flaw in your argument. People, mostly men, will never stop caring about boobs.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Pretty despicable by the media. I hope they do sue.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Nudity is not a issue to me

besides it might take the heat off Harry .

It isn't even about the nudity for me, it is about these people being stalked relentlessly. For crying out loud if they weren't members of the press they'd have long ago been thrown in jail for stalking, but the press badge apparently gives them immunity.
shameful, and I will not defend them in the slightest.

[killerbee99]

There is a flaw in your argument. People, mostly men, will never stop caring about boobs.

Good put them on women for a reason, and it was not to feed kids....just saying :jk:

[Corcaigh]

The correct way to diffuse any interest in candid photos is for her to do a PlayBoy shoot. She can donate the money to charity if she wants.

[Forehead]

Do people not feel like total creepers looking at photos like these?

If it's one that she knew was being taken then I can understand.

I think the "fame" thing overrides it for the most part. Kate Middleton is pretty but there are plenty of women out there better looking. I looked at the pictures...they're a little blurry and from a distance, but she seems put together well enough. No better or worse than what I saw in high school and college, just normal. It's the fame of the subject that gets people worked up.

[AsburySkinsFan]

The correct way to diffuse any interest in candid photos is for her to do a PlayBoy shoot. She can donate the money to charity if she wants.

Chances of that happening..........none

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

The correct way to diffuse any interest in candid photos is for her to do a PlayBoy shoot. She can donate the money to charity if she wants.

Yeah. Chances of the future Queen of the Commonwealth doing that are about as prosperous as me waking up next to Charlize Theron.

Neither's happening anytime ever.

Hail.

[Corcaigh]

Yeah. Chances of the future Queen of the Commonwealth doing that are about as prosperous as me waking up next to Charlize Theron.

Neither's happening anytime ever.

Hail.

Does Horse & Hound do a 'page 3' feature?

[Destructis]

Nice boobies.

Hey I am a guy, if they are out there, I am going to look.

[Taylor703]

So NOBODY in the public eye deserves any privacy?

Taking the pics in the first place is bad enough. To then publish them for sensationalism is beyond, to quote the Duke and Dutchess, a 'grotesque and unjustifiable invasion of privacy.'

Hail.

Since you're so mortified by this I'm going to assume you didn't look at the pictures......

[RGmonster3]

Extremely low class to stalk someone to get a picture like that. That being said, I looked at the picture.

[redskindan07]

Pretty woman, decent pictures but nothing to go crazy over

[Henry]

Didn't look. Not gonna look.

The whole thing is creepy. Maybe technically legal but still creepy.

Some people have no shame.

[Corcaigh]

Paparazzi are scum, but she deserves privacy no more and no less than the worst drug-addled Hollywood starlet.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Since you're so mortified by this I'm going to assume you didn't look at the pictures......

It's headlining every news channel in the UK.

It's kinda' hard to avoid them.

Hail.

[Dallsux]

Do people not feel like total creepers looking at photos like these?


They took Jeff Foxworthy seriously when he said, "I'd like a beer & I'd like to see somethin' neked."

Yeah, I never got the appeal of pics like these. They tend to be not-so flattering & often it is against the individuals will or without their knowledge. Not cool at all.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Paparazzi are scum, but she deserves privacy no more and no less than the worst drug-addled Hollywood starlet.

Well, they do what they do because they get paid a ton. The good ones do, anyway. I'm sure whoever took these is getting quite a hefty paycheck that probably soothes whatever issues (if they had issues) with taking them in the first place.

Unfortunately there's a demand for this.

[Dallsux]

Pretty woman, decent pictures but nothing to go crazy over



It's not about how she looks, it's about who she is.

[Corcaigh]

Well, they do what they do because they get paid a ton. The good ones do, anyway. I'm sure whoever took these is getting quite a hefty paycheck that probably soothes whatever issues (if they had issues) with taking them in the first place.

Unfortunately there's a demand for this.

Sure. Just like people who make their killing on TV, radio and in print appealing to lesser values.

[Dallsux]

Well, they do what they do because they get paid a ton. The good ones do, anyway. I'm sure whoever took these is getting quite a hefty paycheck that probably soothes whatever issues (if they had issues) with taking them in the first place.

Unfortunately there's a demand for this.

This is a good raw example of money trumping morals & how that "love of money is the root of all evil" comes into effect. All the photographer is thinking about is HIS paycheck, not how this will effect her & the entire country as a whole. "Who cares who this hurts? As long as I get a paycheck for it!"
That's probably what the paparazzi who were responsible for Lady Di's death were thinking too. Classless.

[Corcaigh]

It's not about how she looks, it's about who she is.

Then, why do you care about her anymore than say, Warren Buffet's wife? :)

[Park City Skins]

Yeesh. Can't stand the paparazi,(though I understand that there is a "demand" for what they provide and that says a lot too). Legalized stalking as far as I am concerned.

[Predicto]

Here's a idea, if you don't want topless pics out there ,keep your clothes on.

Say, if we get a powerful enough telephoto lens, maybe we can get a shot from this airplane through a window of the palace of her sitting on the john too! :doh:

[Skinz4Life12]

Say, if we get a powerful enough telephoto lens, maybe we can get a shot from this airplane through a window of the palace of her sitting on the john too! :doh:

lol, good response Predicto

[renaissance]

Say, if we get a powerful enough telephoto lens, maybe we can get a shot from this airplane through a window of the palace of her sitting on the john too! :doh:

inb4 nude shot of twa's wife or daughter surfaces on ES.....

[twa]

Say, if we get a powerful enough telephoto lens, maybe we can get a shot from this airplane through a window of the palace of her sitting on the john too! :doh:

vs sitting outside by a pool that even google earth might pick up?

worrying over breasts is so provincial

---------- Post added September-14th-2012 at 12:29 PM ----------


inb4 nude shot of twa's wife or daughter surfaces on ES.....

I hope they are of better quality :silly:

I'd offer them the same advice

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

vs sitting outside by a pool that even google earth might pick up?

worrying over breasts is so provincial

So in a hypothetical where you live with a closed in, private yard, and are enjoying your privacy by walking around said yard in your birthday suit; I presume you wouldn't complain if I took a picture and posted your junk all over ES then?

Hail.

[twa]

If you look hard enough you could probably find some, I'm not shy

[Henry]

So in a hypothetical where you live with a closed in, private yard, and are enjoying your privacy by walking around said yard in your birthday suit; I presume you wouldn't complain if I took a picture and posted your junk all over ES then?

Hail.

Reminds me of this thread.

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?89846-Court-overturns-conviction-for-man-masturbating-in-his-window

[Predicto]

So in a hypothetical where you live with a closed in, private yard, and are enjoying your privacy by walking around said yard in your birthday suit; I presume you wouldn't complain if I took a picture and posted your junk all over ES then?

Hail.


If you look hard enough you could probably find some, I'm not shy

So... you are saying that we are going to have to look really hard in order to discern your junk?

Hmm, I guess it is an brave and admirable thing for persons with micropenis problems to be so open about their issues....

[JMS]

Do people not feel like total creepers looking at photos like these?

If it's one that she knew was being taken then I can understand.

Please, If you don't want cockroaches, don't leave food out.

---------- Post added September-14th-2012 at 02:23 PM ----------


So in a hypothetical where you live with a closed in, private yard, and are enjoying your privacy by walking around said yard in your birthday suit; I presume you wouldn't complain if I took a picture and posted your junk all over ES then?

Hail.

I would complain, I don't want to see TWA's junk.

---------- Post added September-14th-2012 at 02:33 PM ----------


Say, if we get a powerful enough telephoto lens, maybe we can get a shot from this airplane through a window of the palace of her sitting on the john too! :doh:

There would definitely be a market for such photographs, which is why most bathrooms don't have windows... Come on this is human nature 101... I mean come on that's why most people shut the door and do their business in private... If you left the door open, or positioned the toidie in front of a window, would you really have the same expectation of privacy? I don't think so.

It's pretty hard to equate sitting in the bathroom in your own home, designed for privacy; and walking around in public, viewable from a public street, naked. Just saying...

I would argue when she decided to go out naked, she didn't care who saw her as most people who bath topless aren't concerned by modesty obviously. Why is anybody then concerned somebody took a picture of her? Invasion of privacy? Hello you have no privacy if you are walking around where you can be seen from a public street, even on private property!. It's like the difference between hanging out in your house naked, and putting the trash cans out to the curb naked. Totally different expectations of privacy in my experience... Least that's what the policeman explained to me.

[Predicto]

It's pretty hard to equate sitting in the bathroom in your own home, and walking around in public, viewable from a public street, naked. Just saying...

I would argue when she decided to go out naked, she didn't care who saw her as most people who bath topless aren't concerned by modesty obviously.
Why is anybody then concerned somebody took a picture of her? Invasion of privacy? Hello you have no privacy if you are walking around where you can be seen from a public street. It's like the difference between hanging out in your house naked, and putting the trash cans out to the curb naked. Totally different expectations of privacy in my experience... Least that's what the policeman told me.

I guess you missed the part where they were on a large, private estate and the photo was taken with a telephoto lens :whoknows:

[JMS]

I guess you missed the part where they were on a large, private estate and the photo was taken with a telephoto lens :whoknows:

Evidently her estate was not large enough. That equates to viewable from a public street does it not? Which equates to not private. Come on it's not like these pictures were snapped from a half of a mile away.

If she want's privacy, stay inside, or do what I do, only go out naked while visiting larger estates, not visible from public streets. For my own purposes I will add you must be on the estate legally too, but I'm sure that doesn't apply for Cate.

[twa]

Least that's what the policeman explained to me.

Et tu ? :ols:

cockroaches ROTFLMAO

[UK SKINS FAN '74]

Rightly or wrongly, its comes with the territory.

Engage brain and keep em covered up next time.

[Bang]

boobies! Tee hee!


the world is still in second grade.

~Bang

[Predicto]

Evidently her estate was not large enough. That equates to viewable from a public street does it not? Which equates to not private. Come on it's not like these pictures were snapped from a half of a mile away.



What makes you say that? Do you know how they were taken? I don't. Do you know how big the estate was? I don't.

[UK SKINS FAN '74]

Evidently her estate was not large enough.

Evidently her estate is not the only thing that isn't large enough...:ols:

[Predicto]

Evidently her estate is not the only thing that isn't large enough...:ols:

LOL. I think she looks awesome, and she's going to age really well.

[UK SKINS FAN '74]

LOL. I think she looks awesome, and she's going to age really well.

She does look great. Just couldn't resist the cheap joke..:D

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Rightly or wrongly, its comes with the territory.

Engage brain and keep em covered up next time.

I disagree. How is she supposed to ever get undressed if some a-hole with a telescopic lens is watching her from 500 feet away.

[UK SKINS FAN '74]

I disagree. How is she supposed to ever get undressed if some a-hole with a telescopic lens is watching her from 500 feet away.

Nah, she is heading towards being one on the most high profile women on the planet. She has to consider that risk.

I'm not saying its right. I'm just saying its life has she has to get used to.

[Special K]

Anyone defending this type of behavior on the part of the paparazzi is sick.

Based on many of the reponses in this thread, I guess Princess Diana should have known when she became princess dying in a high speed car chase with paparazzi in a Parisian tunnel "comes with the territory."

Give me a break. These paparazzi are scum. People buying these photos and magazines are scum. And people who think a hefty paycheck supercedes morality and common decency are scum.

This is ridiculous.

What's next, using a freaking orbiting satellite to Google Earth a naked celebrity? "They should have known better..." When you are on a private estate, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Unreal for people to think this is acceptable.

[China]

What's next, using a freaking orbiting satellite to Google Earth a naked celebrity?

Shhhh...you'll give them ideas. Next thing you know TMZ will be launching a satellite.

[Dallsux]

Then, why do you care about her anymore than say, Warren Buffet's wife? :)

The point was the poster I quoted saying the pics were alright, but nothing to get excited over.

As I said, it's not about how she looks, but about who she is. The fact that it's a member of the royal family in the buff, not Warren Buffet's wife.

[twa]

Shhhh...you'll give them ideas. Next thing you know TMZ will be launching a satellite.

Eh, drones are cheap and more control

[Dallsux]

Anyone defending this type of behavior on the part of the paparazzi is sick.

Give me a break. These paparazzi are scum. People buying these photos and magazines are scum. And people who think a hefty paycheck supercedes morality and common decency are scum.

This is ridiculous.





That's what the biggest issue is. People would stop taking these pictures & quit invading the privacy of others if they weren't going to get paid for it because people want to see them & buy the exploitative magazines that publish this garbage.

It's almost like the death of Princess Diana was in vein. It's disgusting.

[Corcaigh]

As I said, it's not about how she looks, but about who she is. The fact that it's a member of the royal family in the buff, not Warren Buffet's wife.

The British Royal Family are a fairly dreadful bunch. They routinely get drunk in public, dress as Nazis, solicit bribes, make deeply offensive racially remarks, do drugs, have affairs, make obscene phone calls, etc. :ols:

[UK SKINS FAN '74]

Anyone defending this type of behavior on the part of the paparazzi is sick.

Based on many of the reponses in this thread, I guess Princess Diana should have known when she became princess dying in a high speed car chase with paparazzi in a Parisian tunnel "comes with the territory."

I used the phrase "comes with the territory" but don't defend the paparazzi by any means.

But high profile people should apply common sense every once in a while. What could be more straight forward than that?

[Dallsux]

The British Royal Family are a fairly dreadful bunch. They routinely get drunk in public, dress as Nazis, solicit bribes, make deeply offensive racially remarks, do drugs, have affairs, make obscene phone calls, etc. :ols:


You mean, like everyone else in the world, they're actually human? Who knew? :whoknows:

I think it's fair to say that pretty much the majority of humanity is a dreadful bunch.

That doesn't give people the right to take pictures from a mile away of them unbeknownst to them. Regardless of how you or anyone else feels about them.

[Corcaigh]

You mean, like everyone else in the world, they're actually human? Who knew? :whoknows:

I think it's fair to say that pretty much the majority of humanity is a dreadful bunch.

That doesn't give people the right to take pictures from a mile away of them unbeknownst to them. Regardless of how you or anyone else feels about them.

I agree that the British Royal Family doesn't deserve special treatment. They are like the Kardashians, except less tanned, and the good looks come from outside the family.

[UK SKINS FAN '74]

Seems like they are going to sue. Just confirmed. Will be interesting to see what happens.

Will do wonders for the English / French relations..:ols:

[Special K]

Seems like they are going to sue. Just confirmed. Will be interesting to see what happens.
Yep, they filed suit in France. As they should. I'd sue the hell out of that magazine and put it out of business if it were me, just to send a message. Regardless of the outcome, I'm very glad they are standing up and fighting this.

[Stadium-Armory]

Not until depraved consumers stops voting for this behavior with their dollars, will it ever stop.

That sun tan lotion on the butt cheek shot is awesome.

[Corcaigh]

Not until depraved consumers stops voting for this behavior with their dollars, will it ever stop.

That sun tan lotion on the butt cheek shot is awesome.

Well played.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Glad to read the Duke and Duchess are suing this rag.

I hope they take them for all they can and make them think twice about invading somebody else's private life next time out.

Hail.

[JMS]

Anyone defending this type of behavior on the part of the paparazzi is sick.

physically I'm feeling quite well thank you.



Based on many of the reponses in this thread, I guess Princess Diana should have known when she became princess dying in a high speed car chase with paparazzi in a Parisian tunnel "comes with the territory."


Well certainly getting in a car with a driver who has been drinking and trying to flee from paparazzi driving a few multiples of the speed limit, seems like behavior lending itself to fatal accidents. Was it the Paparazzi's fault? If that driver had not indulged the spoken or unspoken desire to loose the paparazzi Princess Dianna is alive today.



Give me a break. These paparazzi are scum. People buying these photos and magazines are scum. And people who think a hefty paycheck supercedes morality and common decency are scum.


I think you just described like 90% of the population of Great Britain, Canada, and the United States. And hell no they aren't sicko's. If a lady wears a nice dress and somebody notices are they sicko's? If she wears no dress in public is the person who notices a sicko? If you walk around in public dressed or not, the press can snap pictures. If you are undressed I'm there is going to be more interest in the photo's. It's common sense, no need for name calling.





This is ridiculous.

What's next, using a freaking orbiting satellite to Google Earth a naked celebrity? "They should have known better..." When you are on a private estate, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Unreal for people to think this is acceptable.

What is ridiculous is somebody who who has unrealistic privacy expectations even when fully clothed, given they are walking around naked.

[AsburySkinsFan]

If that driver had not indulged the spoken or unspoken desire to loose the paparazzi Princess Dianna is alive today.
You can't say that without over indulging in rampant speculation, none of us knows what happened in that tunnel.

[JMS]

I hope they take them for all they can and make them think twice about invading somebody else's private life next time out.

Hail.

Yes that is reasonable. Attempting to teach the Paparazzi lessons in respecting someone's private life when they are in public.. Dude you do know this is exactly what the Paparazzi does. This is the niche in society they fill. If what they did was against the law their entire industry would be against the law, and I get you think it should be... only it's not.

[greenspandan]

who gives a crap? it's just a boob. instead of legal action and righteous indignation, i'd rather see society freaking get over it's own shame at the human anatomy already.

also this isn't about their "private life". it's about boobs. it wouldn't be a story if the invasion were photos of them eating a private dinner or having a private chat.

[JMS]

You can't say that without over indulging in rampant speculation, none of us knows what happened in that tunnel.

We know Princess Diana's driver was drinking shortly before he got behind the wheel.
We know the car Princess Diana was riding in was speeding, multiples of the speed limit shortly before the accident.
We know the Paparazzi were following them.

I think it's fair to conclude if the Paparazzi weren't there the speeding and accident don't occur. Only the Paparazzi have every right to be there. The speeding wasn't their fault, rather the actions of the person driving Diana.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Yes that is reasonable. Attempting to teach the Paparazzi lessons in respecting someone's private life when they are in public.. Dude you do know this is exactly what the Paparazzi does. This is the niche in society they fill. If what they did was against the law their entire industry would be against the law, and I get you think it should be... only it's not.

Yes, stalking people with huge telephoto lenses that would give Hubble an inferiority complex to satisfy the voyueristic fetishes of a low brow niche market is "reasonable".

---------- Post added September-17th-2012 at 11:23 AM ----------


We know Princess Diana's driver was drinking shortly before he got behind the wheel.
We know the car Princess Diana was riding in was speeding, multiples of the speed limit shortly before the accident.
We know the Paparazzi were following them.

I think it's fair to conclude if the Paparazzi weren't there the speeding and accident don't occur. Only the Paparazzi have every right to be there. The speeding wasn't their fault, rather the actions of the person driving Diana.

I hope you or your family members never stalked, by people who have a "legal right" to chase them through every moment of their lives.

[JMS]

Yep, they filed suit in France. As they should. I'd sue the hell out of that magazine and put it out of business if it were me, just to send a message. Regardless of the outcome, I'm very glad they are standing up and fighting this.

If it were you in the shot, I'd sue too.. who wants to see that... Coarse if they were putting photo's of you, or me on the cover of their magazine; they'd probable be out of business so we wouldn't have to sue.. Well you, maybe not me, I have been told I have a spark.

Coarse I wouldn't win either, but I'd sue too.

[renaissance]

Are twa and JMS the same person?

[JMS]

Yes, stalking people with huge telephoto lenses that would give Hubble an inferiority complex to satisfy the voyeuristic fetishes of a low brow niche market is "reasonable".

More than reasonable, it's legal. Why? because if you allow a bare breasted royal the legal benefit of the doubt when she walks around naked IN PUBLIC, who's to say which fully clothed person can't claim the same right! The cops who beat up Rodney King. Congressmen acting boorish at a public gathering.
Your neighbor when he decides to vandalize your property.

The US , Great Britain, and I'm guessing France; have made a decision that it is in the public interest to allow the press to take photographs of folks in public. That interest doesn't change because this lady decided to take her shirt off. Sorry. Was it a violation of her privacy.. No, it wasn't. She lost any right to her privacy when she went outside naked in view of a public street.



I hope you or your family members never stalked, by people who have a "legal right" to chase them through every moment of their lives.

I hope if they were, my family member would be wise enough to surround themselves by folks who were mature and didn't make the situation worse by a sophomoric need to try to exert control over something in which society has decided they should have no control. The driver was worst case showing off, while tipsy. Best case he was showing extremely poor judgment. Unfortunately Princess Diana paid the price. If he had drove the speed limit, and put up with the paparazzi; the accident wouldn't have occurred.

[AsburySkinsFan]

This isn't the press...these are stalkers for hire. If you can't see the difference then hat fault lies in your yard.

[JMS]

Are twa and JMS the same person?

Certainly not, I've been told I look much better naked than TWA. I'm not bragging or anything, I'm just saying; if we were the same person that wouldn't be possible. So I'm mentioning it.

---------- Post added September-17th-2012 at 11:48 AM ----------


This isn't the press...these are stalkers for hire. If you can't see the difference then hat fault lies in your yard.

:doh: The National Enquirer was nominated for the prestigious Pulitzer Prize in 2010 given to the most outstanding investigative reporting story in the nation that year? The fact the first amendment to the constitution doesn't and shouldn't protect just folks who everybody agrees is doing serious journalism. It should protect all journalists including the paparazzi. If we filter it by who somebody thinks is respectable, how soon is it before the Washington Post is called disreputable for printing stories about a break in at the Democratic National Party's office and trying to tie it to a sitting President. That happened. There is no black and white line between legitimate press and paparazzi; nor should their be.

Hell we even consider blogger's press today for legal purposes. Good for us.

[twa]

Certainly not, I've been told I look much better naked than TWA. .

Balderdash ....or Poppycock.

no accounting for tastes

[AsburySkinsFan]

:doh: The National Enquirer was nominated for the prestigious Pulitzer Prize in 2010 given to the most outstanding investigative reporting story in the nation that year?
I bet the story they received the award for didn't have anything to do with a riyal's breast. Let's also not make the mistake in thinking that because ONE story recieved an award then that must legitimize all the rest of the smut they've published.


The fact the first amendment to the constitution doesn't and shouldn't protect just folks who everybody agrees is doing serious journalism. It should protect all journalists including the paparazzi. If we filter it by who somebody thinks is respectable, how soon is it before the Washington Post is called disreputable for printing stories about a break in at the Democratic National Party's office and trying to tie it to a sitting President. That happened. There is no black and white line between legitimate press and paparazzi; nor should their be.

Hell we even consider blogger's press today for legal purposes. Good for us.
You call the paparazzi "press" if you choose but stalking a young couple in the hopes of catching on film a nipple slip should not be confused with legitimate journalism. What's more is that if these smut dealers didn't have a "press" protection then they'd be treated like any other stalker and rightly so, you want to pretend that the fact that they sell the results of their stalking to be published in print makes them legitimate. But, if your daughter was stalked by an ex-boyfriend who took pictures of her in her window and sold them on the internet I doubt ou'd call that journalism. I know I wouldn't.

[Special K]

Well certainly getting in a car with a driver who has been drinking and trying to flee from paparazzi driving a few multiples of the speed limit, seems like behavior lending itself to fatal accidents. Was it the Paparazzi's fault? If that driver had not indulged the spoken or unspoken desire to loose the paparazzi Princess Dianna is alive today.

I think you just described like 90% of the population of Great Britain, Canada, and the United States. And hell no they aren't sicko's. If a lady wears a nice dress and somebody notices are they sicko's? If she wears no dress in public is the person who notices a sicko? If you walk around in public dressed or not, the press can snap pictures. If you are undressed I'm there is going to be more interest in the photo's. It's common sense, no need for name calling.

What is ridiculous is somebody who who has unrealistic privacy expectations even when fully clothed, given they are walking around naked.
Typical JMS post: factually incorrect with profuse arrogance interjected. :ols:

1. There is a difference between taking a picture of someone clothed and someone naked. If you cannot discern a difference, that lies with your comprehension issues, not mine.

2. She was not in public. She was on a private estate. You keep saying she was in public. She was NOT IN PUBLIC, nor on a nude beach, nor at a public "adult" pool.

3. You cannot say for certain what caused Princess Diana's crash. There were many factors including alcohol consumption, reckless behavior by the driver AND the paparazzi, unfortunately no seatbelt being worn by the princess, and high speeds. To place the blame squarely on the driver and not admit there was a paparazzi factor involved in the crash shows your closed-mindedness.

4. Looking at naked pictures of someone who was not posing for naked pictures makes you a sicko/pervert/creep. Absolutely. It is no different than a creeper staring through your window as you get dressed. It's an invasion of privacy and you're a sicko if you think that is acceptable. This is why there are "peeping Tom" laws.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

6:00 AM EST is the time the court rules in Paris tomorrow on the injunction in the civil case. They will also decide whether a criminal case is applicable.

Good luck to the Duke and Duchess. Give these creeps Hell!

Hail.

[AsburySkinsFan]

It's an invasion of privacy and you're a sicko if you think that is acceptable. This is why there are "peeping Tom" laws.
Impossible to agree more. If I used my camera to take pictures of me neighbors to post on the internet I would deserve what I'd receive. But, for some reason people think it is legitimate if someone sells those same pictures. IMO that's twisted in the head.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Injunction to pull the pics won. Now for criminal action hopefully.

Fantastic news for the decent minded of us out there. Oh yeah, on that, just look at the BBC jorno's view of where the pics were taken from and tell me again that's not a gross invasion of privacy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19631591

Hail.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Injunction to pull the pics won. Now for criminal action hopefully.

Fantastic news for the decent minded of us out there. Oh yeah, on that, just look at the BBC jorno's view of where the pics were taken from and tell me again that's not a gross invasion of privacy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19631591

Hail.

Yay!!!!! Decency wins!!!!

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g3/ocujer/_62942087_chateau_dautet_624.gif
Here's a nice image that shows just how far away the stalker-for-hire was when he invaded the young couple's privacy. 1/2 a mile away...yeah that's legitimate journalism! bah!!

[JMS]

Balderdash ....or Poppycock.

no accounting for tastes

I'm the taller fellow..

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-h3Ob6VkGuRU/TiaoQ-8l7zI/AAAAAAAAC6Q/LxXPgvHcEIQ/s1600/45131%252Cxcitefun-body-builder-01.jpg

---------- Post added September-18th-2012 at 11:21 AM ----------


Typical JMS post: factually incorrect with profuse arrogance interjected. :ols:

I'm you huckleberry..



1. There is a difference between taking a picture of someone clothed and someone naked. If you cannot discern a difference, that lies with your comprehension issues, not mine.


:doh: I think you are confusing reality based, with arrogance. In the world of "Special K", where you get to invent differences based on personal beliefs and values, perhaps you have a point. In the world where everybody else lives not really so much. The law doesn't make the distinction which you assert.
I can take a picture of you naked or not, if you choose to walk around viewable from a public place. I can also publish those pictures. In the US, perhaps with a few pixilations, but I can publish them none the less.... In Britain and France, no pixilations are necessary.



2. She was not in public. She was on a private estate. You keep saying she was in public. She was NOT IN PUBLIC, nor on a nude beach, nor at a public "adult" pool.


She was certainly in public. She was on a private estate viewable from the street NAKED... that's in public. If you did that in this country you could be arrested... Believe me I know. Doesn't matter if you are on private property, if you are visible from a public place you are in public. So stop saying she was not in public... Doesn't matter if I'm in my own house naked if I'm standing in front of a window, or naked standing in front of the open door... Or in my back yard visible to the public street.




3. You cannot say for certain what caused Princess Diana's crash. There were many factors including alcohol consumption, reckless behavior by the driver AND the paparazzi, unfortunately no seatbelt being worn by the princess, and high speeds. To place the blame squarely on the driver and not admit there was a paparazzi factor involved in the crash shows your closed-mindedness.


The guy was drinking hard spirits at the bar of the hotel they left from for hours prior to getting behind the wheel.
He then choose to drive at excessive speeds according to several witnesses who saw the car prior to the crash.
We also have the physical evidence at the crash which says the car was going much faster than the speed limit.
Finally all this is detailed in a police report which has been reviewed by local authorities, Scotland Yard, and Quai des Orfèvres.

So we do know enough to be certain. as certain as is possible, Certain enough to put the guy in jail had he lived.




4. Looking at naked pictures of someone who was not posing for naked pictures makes you a sicko/pervert/creep.


According to you. I have heard of nobody talking about prosecuting the photographer, or anybody who purchased the magazine.
This is purely a civil matter which is a lost cause. This kind of thing happens all the time... A celebrity on a beach, A private wedding outside is photographed from a plane/helicopter. The law doesn't care what kind of lens you use, it cares where your feet are and whether you have the right to stand there or not.

Period. We can argue if that's the way it should be, we can not argue whether that's the way it is.

I'm happy to argue in favor of the legality here. Having this ladies tata's posted globally is small price to pay for empowering the press to cover more important stories. Least that's what our constitution says, and our laws concur with. Hell man with a Presidential election where a handfull ( 100 people) are said to have contributed 90% of all the funds raised by both candidates, if the press didn't have the rights to take pictures and use them when folks were in public places; the public wouldn't know anything. We wouldn't know the Koch brothers had funded tens of millions of dollars, including citizens untied case in front of the supreme court. We wouldn't know Mitt Romney view on 47% of American people as lazy and entitlement seeking.



Absolutely. It is no different than a creeper staring through your window as you get dressed. It's an invasion of privacy and you're a sicko if you think that is acceptable. This is why there are "peeping Tom" laws.

Only there is a big difference in the eyes of the Law... Once again you kind of run into troubles when you make your grand proclamations; because you ignore the law.. I would go so far as you don't even care about the law, because your moral code.. yada yada yada.... but for the rest of us who do live in a world ruled by laws.. you couldn't be more wrong.

Me taking a picture of you while standing in a public place and selling it is not considered a crime. Me taking a picture of you in your home while peering through your window, standing on your property; is certainly a crime.. Both clothed or not.

I guess the big difference is, moral codes are great when they direct your personal conduct... They are idiotic, self serving, and boorish when you try to impose them on others where they directly contradict the law.

[JMS]

Injunction to pull the pics won. Now for criminal action hopefully.

Fantastic news for the decent minded of us out there. Oh yeah, on that, just look at the BBC jorno's view of where the pics were taken from and tell me again that's not a gross invasion of privacy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19631591

Hail.

Pro's

Closer magazine's publishers must hand over the original photographs within 24 hours or face a daily fine of 10,000 euros (£8,000).

- Small fine, and handing over the "originals" is meaningless as identical copies probable already have been made.
The magistrates ruled that every photograph published in France by Mondadori in future would carry a fine, also of 10,000 euros per breach.

meaningless because the paper likely makes millions off these photo's so paying 10k is not persuasive.


Con's

There was no injunction for "pulling the pictures" which were published last Friday.
The injunction does not cover publications outside France.
The ruling refers only to those pictures that have already been published - Closer's editor has previously hinted that she has other, more intimate, pictures.


So this was a kind of mushy injunction...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19631591.

[AsburySkinsFan]

The ruling refers only to those pictures that have already been published - Closer's editor has previously hinted that she has other, more intimate, pictures.

What do you think the royals will do if the magazine publishes those other photos in France? My guess is that we'll see round 2 with the same result only with larger damages, and we haven't even gotten to whether or not criminal charges are going to be filed. :fingersx:

[JMS]

What do you think the royals will do if the magazine publishes those other photos in France? My guess is that we'll see round 2 with the same result only with larger damages, and we haven't even gotten to whether or not criminal charges are going to be filed. :fingersx:

The fines are a joke. 10k? The magazine probable paid the photographer more than 100k for the pictures! If the rag thinks the public are interested in a round 2; a 10k fine won't even be a consideration.

(1) The ruling didn't give the Royals any damages for publishing the photo's last Friday.
(2) The ruling only gives damages on what happens next. ( turning over originals, don't republish the same pictures in France )
(3) The Magazine is still able to abide by the ruling and distribute these pictures with minor limit's without incurring any penalties.

They've already sold the photo's abroad and this "ruling" doesn't even address it. The photo's are appearing in an Irish paper yesterday. As I've said before this kind of thing frankly happens all the time. This ruling is meaningless. That magazine who bought the pictures will make tens of millions from them and this ruling won't even slow that down.

[AsburySkinsFan]

They've already sold the photo's abroad and this "ruling" doesn't even address it. The photo's are appearing in an Irish paper yesterday. As I've said before this kind of thing frankly happens all the time. This ruling is meaningless. That magazine who bought the pictures will make tens of millions from them and this ruling won't even slow that down.

And yet, it has been deemed an illegal invasion of privacy. :pfft:

[JMS]

And yet, it has been deemed an illegal invasion of privacy. :pfft:

Just not one the French court will stop by addressing in a meaningful way.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Just not one the French court will stop by addressing in a meaningful way.

And yet.....

[JMS]

And yet.....

And yet what? Is there any doubt in your mind that the court could have taken all the original photo's, and any copies, recalled the magazines published last Friday, and denied the magazine the right to sell any of the pictures internationally?

The courts didn't do any of that. All they did was say, that's terrible; next case.

[AsburySkinsFan]

And yet what? Is there any doubt in your mind that the court could have taken all the original photo's, and any copies, recalled the magazines published last Friday, and denied the magazine the right to sell any of the pictures internationally?

The courts didn't do any of that. All they did was say, that's terrible; next case.

You said it was a freedom of the press issue, you said it was journalism, you said it wasn't illegal....well you went 0 for 3.
Support it all you want, it is an illegal invasion of privacy whether you want to admit it or not.
But keep on keepin' on

[DjTj]

The courts didn't do any of that. All they did was say, that's terrible; next case.I'm am pretty sure this is just a preliminary ruling issuing an injunction against future publication. The issue of damages for the past publication, and any possible criminal charges, are still pending.

[JMS]

You said it was a freedom of the press issue, you said it was journalism, you said it wasn't illegal....well you went 0 for 3.
Support it all you want, it is an illegal invasion of privacy whether you want to admit it or not.
But keep on keepin' on

I'm 3 for 3. The paper was not fined, they still have the rights to the photo's and are profiting from them, and there is no doubt in anybodies mind that paparazzi fall under the legal category of journalists. But as long as we are making feel good proclamations which are financially and legally meaningless... You have a good point.. well done you.

[Predicto]

because if you allow a bare breasted royal the legal benefit of the doubt when she walks around naked IN PUBLIC,

http://i.imgur.com/An0mu.jpg (http://imgur.com/An0mu)

[JMS]

I'm am pretty sure this is just a preliminary ruling issuing an injunction against future publication. The issue of damages for the past publication, and any possible criminal charges, are still pending.

But they didn't issue an injunction against future publication. They issued a 10k fine ( meaningless fine) in the event the magazine publishes one of the same 12 photo's published last Friday, inside France. Which is so nuanced it's irreverent...

[DjTj]

But they didn't issue an injunction against future publication. They issued a 10k fine ( meaningless fine) in the event the magazine publishes one of the same 12 photo's published last Friday, inside France. Which is so nuanced it's irreverent...So you think that if they publish different nude photos, there won't be another lawsuit and another injunction?

The royals likely only asked for an injunction against additional publication of the already-published photos because they could get a quick ruling on those (since all of the evidence is out in public). If they want action against other photos, that will have to come in slower-moving future proceedings.

The magazine deserves due process, so the wheels of justice turn slowly...

[JMS]

http://i.imgur.com/An0mu.jpg (http://imgur.com/An0mu)

I'm pretty sure Predicto if the reporter took the picture from the bushes just off the patico of the private residence he would have been in jail and the photograph's ceased.
I'm also pretty confidence this case is only special because of the title of the lady in question not the circumstances of what occurred. This same thing happened to Goldie Hawn a few years back, and probable a dozen others. This is not exactly a rare or isolated event.

[frostyj]

Public view is the issue here, well who the photo's are of mainly. Also there is no expectation of privacy sitting pool side no matter if you are on private property or not. He didn't climb a fence or anything crazy like that, just used a long lens from the road. In the US that is legal, not sure about France. Is it kinda creepy yea. Anyone can stand on a street and take pics of your house and you in your yard and there is not a legal thing you can do about it.

[Predicto]

I'm pretty sure Predicto if the reporter took the picture from the bushes just off the patico of the private residence he would have been in jail and the photograph's ceased.


What does that have to do with anything? Look at the photo in post 100, and tell me again how she was running around naked in public.



I'm also pretty confidence this case is only special because of the title of the lady in question not the circumstances of what occurred. This same thing happened to Goldie Hawn a few years back, and probable a dozen others. This is not exactly a rare or isolated event.

Didn't say it was rare. Didn't say it was isolated. I did say that it was wrong.

[JMS]

So you think that if they publish different nude photos, there won't be another lawsuit and another injunction?

I don't know, but since this lawsuit and "injunction", didn't result in a fine or penelty against the publication who really cares; certainly not the magazine who probable made millions from this event as well as is now the most famous paparazzi rag in Europe and maybe globally.



The royals likely only asked for an injunction against additional publication of the already-published photos because they could get a quick ruling on those (since all of the evidence is out in public).


The royals didn't get an injunction against additional publication though did they. They didn't get jack.



If they want action against other photos, that will have to come in slower-moving future proceedings.


The original photo's are already being published outside of France. The other photo's can still be published inside of France without fear of any financial penelty from this case.

I just don't see why anybody calls this a victory for the Royals...





The magazine deserves due process, so the wheels of justice turn slowly...

If the magazine's photographer had broken the law, he would be in front of a criminal court and all these photo's would be confiscated under penalty of a prison term. The fact that it's not even in criminal court is a testament to the fact no law was broken.

The fact no penalties were assessed to the magazine for publishing the photographs is also a victory for the magazine.

We'll see if any future civil penalties accrue.. I doubt any substantive penalties will.

[MartinC]

But they didn't issue an injunction against future publication. They issued a 10k fine ( meaningless fine) in the event the magazine publishes one of the same 12 photo's published last Friday, inside France. Which is so nuanced it's irreverent...

No the court ordered a DAILY fine of $10K unless the Magazine hands over the original photos and issued an injunction banning further publishing of the photos within France.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

I keep reading, but I'm still not sure your even sure of the point your trying make here JMS.

The French court has ruled to just about all it can under it's jurisdiction. It's prevented the French magazine from reusing the picture on it's website or print. It's prevented them from any further International sales to any market that had not previously published the pictures prior to the ruling. And it's ordered all files of the pictures to be handed over to the Duke and Duchess within 24 hours or face a daily fine of a little over $ 13 K a day. It's also looking into the possibility of criminal proceedings.

How do you figure that's not a condemning punishment?

Hail.

[JMS]

What does that have to do with anything? Look at the photo in post 100, and tell me again how she was running around naked in public.

Just that no law was broken that's all. If there had been a law broken they wouldn't be in civil court trying to stop the publication..
You can't tell anything from the photo referenced. Depth perception from a photograph is entirely dependent upon lenses and exposure times. I've heard the distance described as half a mile or 100 meters ( 0.06 miles) in various publications. I really don't think the distance matters. As I said they got Goldie Hawn from an airplane. The photographer was in a public place, and anything he photographed outside even with a telephoto lens is also considered public..




Didn't say it was rare. Didn't say it was isolated. I did say that it was wrong.

I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying it's not uncommon, not isolated, and not illegal. Also there is not much the royals can do about it in court. Also there are good reason's why this sort of thing is tolerated in society; because the alternatives are much worse.

Oh I think I also said the laws which protect journalists also apply to paparazzi at least in the US.. and I think that's a good thing. In general I prefer more information, more freedom, and more rights for journalists. I am also in favor of a broad definition of Journalist, rather than a narrow one. Today it was Kate Middleton, but yesterday it was Bill Clinton being a sexual predator spanning decades in public office; or Gary Hartman defaming the Miami Harold. If Kate want's privacy, keep them covered up when visible from a public street.

[DjTj]

I don't know, but since this lawsuit and "injunction", didn't result in a fine or penelty against the publication who really cares; certainly not the magazine who probable made millions from this event as well as is now the most famous paparazzi rag in Europe and maybe globally.You have to understand that this is only the very first ruling in an ongoing case. There will be more penalties in the future, especially if they publish additional photos.


The royals didn't get an injunction against additional publication though did they. They didn't get jack.Yes they did. The magazine cannot publish those photos anymore, and must turn over the originals to the court. They will be fined 10k euros if they publish the photos again, and will be fined 10k euros for each day they refuse to turn over the photos.


The original photo's are already being published outside of France. The other photo's can still be published inside of France without fear of any financial penelty from this case.But there will be future cases, and it is likely that the outcome will be harsher in the future, since the publisher now knows definitively that their actions are unlawful.


I just don't see why anybody calls this a victory for the Royals...Of course it's a victory. They went to court on Monday, and on Tuesday they got what they asked for: The magazine has been ordered to turn over the photos that they knew about, and to impose a penalty on any further publication of those photos.

Maybe they should have asked for more, but it's usually hard to get complete relief in one day, especially when you're talking about rumored additional photos that nobody has seen.


If the magazine's photographer had broken the law, he would be in front of a criminal court and all these photo's would be confiscated under penalty of a prison term. The fact that it's not even in criminal court is a testament to the fact no law was broken.I think it's a testament to the fact that criminal investigations take time.


The fact no penalties were assessed to the magazine for publishing the photographs is also a victory for the magazine.

We'll see if any future civil penalties accrue.. I doubt any substantive penalties will.I am willing to take the other side of that bet. The royals got the original photos returned to them in one day. Imagine what their lawyers will do in one week, or one month...

[AsburySkinsFan]

I'm pretty sure Predicto if the reporter
:ols: :rotflmao: :ols:
You said reporter......:ols:

[DjTj]

I found a more thorough article about the ruling:
The French magazine Closer, which published topless photos of the Duchess of Cambridge, must hand over the original pictures and pay a 10,000-euro ($13,000) fine each time the images are published again, a French court ruled.

The duchess, Kate, and her husband Prince William had an expectation of privacy because the photos were taken during their vacation and they were “surrounded by gardens and several hundred meters from a public road,” Judge Jean-Michel Hayat said in the ruling today in Nanterre, France.

The magazine, owned by the Berlusconi family’s Arnoldo Mondadori Editore Spa (MN), was sued after it printed a series of photos of the royal couple sunbathing on a private French estate. The tabloid was ordered to pay Kate 2,000 euros in expenses and an additional 10,000 euros each day it fails to turn over the original images.
The couple, whose wedding on April 29, 2011, was viewed by 2 billion people on television, could continue the lawsuit in France and seek damages. They may also file additional lawsuits in Italy and Ireland, where other publications used the photos.
The royal family has also asked for a criminal case to be started against the unidentified photographer.http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-18/u-k-royal-family-wins-french-ruling-on-kate-sunbathing-photos.html

So it appears that the court has already ordered the magazine to pay 2k euro to cover the royal family's legal expenses, they can still continue to seek money damages, they can pursue legal action in other countries where the photos were published, and a criminal case may still be started.

[JMS]

The French court has ruled to just about all it can under it's jurisdiction.

I guess I have two thoughts which I've discussed about this. (1) That is absolutely not true if this was truly a crime. (2) I don't think it's true even in a civil case; but I'd be happy to read up on it if you have a source for that statement.



It's prevented the French magazine from reusing the picture on it's website or print.


10k fine is all. not very persuasive fine.



It's prevented them from any further International sales to any market that had not previously published the pictures prior to the ruling.


That directly contradicts what the BBC said.. do you have a source?



The injunction does not cover publications outside France.
...
However, the ruling refers only to those pictures that have already been published - Closer's editor has previously hinted that she has other, more intimate, pictures.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19631591




And it's ordered all files of the pictures to be handed over to the Duke and Duchess within 24 hours or face a daily fine of a little over $ 13 K a day.


Again that's not what the BBC says. The BBC says they only have to hand over the originals of the 12 pictures published on Friday. Their are millions of copies still available on the news stand. Nothing about "all files" that I've read... source?



It's also looking into the possibility of criminal proceedings.


If there was a criminal case to be made it would have been made first. The facts in the case are not really in dispute. Source also on a pending criminal case.



How do you figure that's not a condemning punishment?


No fine for the magazine.
No Fine against sales outside of France.
No serious fine against publishing inside of France.
Seems like a total face saver verdict, one with no serious ramification for a magazine which just made millions due to this action.




Hail.

Hail... look forward to reading your source because it's very different from the BBC article I've read.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

http://news.sky.com/story/986543/topless-photos-royal-couple-granted-injunction

There's more than one major news agency in the UK. My bad JMS. I should of posted articles from them all for you to critique.

Hail.

[JMS]

So it appears that the court has already ordered the magazine to pay 2k euro to cover the royal family's legal expenses, they can still continue to seek money damages, they can pursue legal action in other countries where the photos were published, and a criminal case may still be started.


2k, well that is serious. The photographer was likely paid more than 100k, the magazine probable made 10's of millions... Still that is new information.

[Predicto]

Just that no law was broken that's all.



I didn't say that any American Law was broken (I don't know other countries' laws). I said it was a disgusting invasion of privacy.

But what I really took objection to in this whole thread was your mischaracterization that she was "walking around naked in public." Saying that is nonsense, and is blaming the victim, and once again, you absolutely positively will not let it go. It's like pulling teeth to get you ever to back down on anything, even slightly.

[MartinC]

No fine for the magazine.

$13K a day.

I'm not a royalist and have no axe to grind here but this will not go well for the magazine. For the Prince this is a real hot button - rightly or wrongly he believes that the paparzzi hounding his mother was a factor in her death. He will not allow this to happen to his wife and he has the influence, money and lawyers to make sure this magazine and photographer get made an example of. That might stink of money and position buying judgement but there you go. This is FAR from over - whats happened so far legally is just the start.

One example a newspaper in Ireland published the pictures - its editor has been suspended by the owners of the paper and they are considering closing the paper down. What happens in the Courts is only part of the picture here.

[DjTj]

I didn't say that any American Law was broken (I don't know other countries' laws). I said it was a disgusting invasion of privacy.

But what I really took objection to in this whole thread was your mischaracterization that she was "walking around naked in public." Saying that is nonsense, and is blaming the victim, and once again, you absolutely positively will not let it go. It's like pulling teeth to get you ever to back down on anything, even slightly.Since this may actually be relevant information for you, it seems that California does actually have pretty strict anti-paparazzi laws, and what happened in France would likely be unlawful in California.


(b) A person is liable for constructive invasion of privacy when
the defendant attempts to capture, in a manner that is offensive to a
reasonable person, any type of visual image, sound recording, or
other physical impression of the plaintiff engaging in a personal or
familial activity under circumstances in which the plaintiff had a
reasonable expectation of privacy, through the use of a visual or
auditory enhancing device, regardless of whether there is a physical
trespass, if this image, sound recording, or other physical
impression could not have been achieved without a trespass unless the
visual or auditory enhancing device was used.http://law.onecle.com/california/civil/1708.8.html

Jennifer Anniston was involved in a few of these cases, including one that was settled for $550,000 when she was photographed sunbathing topless: http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-207_162-1100537.html

And there are even criminal laws, headed to a court near you: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/09/photographer-justin-bieber-pursuit-challenges-anti-paparrazi-law.html

[JMS]

But what I really took objection to in this whole thread was your mischaracterization that she was "walking around naked in public." Saying that is nonsense, and is blaming the victim, and once again, you absolutely positively will not let it go. It's like pulling teeth to get you ever to back down on anything, even slightly.

I back down when I'm wrong.. but let me get this straight....


You agree no American laws were broken
You agree you don't know if any French Laws were broken.
You agree there likely weren't any French Criminal laws which were broken.
You agree this is not an isolated event.
You agree this is not even an uncommon event.


Finally


You agree taking pictures of a naked lady who is in her private residence without her consent is against the law in the United States, and probable France ( we can assume )..


But what you really find objectionable is me saying that this lady viewable from a public street (anywhere from .5 - .006 miles) was herself in public because she was visible from a public place.

We also might agree a 2k fine from the french court is an incredible lite fine given the monetary amounts in question here? But you are horror struck that I would dare to make lite of this event and place the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of Kate Middleton.... which really is exactly what the French court just did.

[techboy]

It's like pulling teeth to get you ever to back down on anything, even slightly.

I'm going to have to object to this unfair characterization of JMS.

It's actually possible to pull teeth. :silly:

[DjTj]

We also might agree a 2k fine from the french court is an incredible lite fine given the monetary amounts in question here? But you are horror struck that I would dare to make lite of this event and place the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of Kate Middleton.... which really is exactly what the French court just did.The 2k euro is not a fine. It is only a reimbursement for legal expenses. Any fine or damages will be determined later. It likely won't be a gigantic amount (as an American jury might award), but it will be something.

European legal systems are generally softer on punishments than American (or even British) courts, but that doesn't mean that they are blaming the victims.

This doesn't sound like a court blaming the victim:
"These snapshots which showed the intimacy of a couple, partially naked on the terrace of a private home, surrounded by a park several hundred metres from a public road, and being able to legitimately assume that they are protected from passers-by, are by nature particularly intrusive," the French civil court decreed.

"(They) were thus subjected to this brutal display the moment the cover appeared."http://news.sky.com/story/986543/topless-photos-royal-couple-granted-injunction

[JMS]

$13K a day.

That's not a fine for publishing the photos... That's a fine if they don't turn over the originals for the 12 pictures published last Friday right away.... Which is silly given there are like 100,000 copies of those photo's at the news stand.



He will not allow this to happen to his wife and he has the influence, money and lawyers to make sure this magazine and photographer get made an example of. That might stink of money and position buying judgement but there you go. This is FAR from over - whats happened so far legally is just the start.


You make good and insightful points and I don't want to take them lightly because they are quite thoughtful. However if I might play devil's advocate..
I don't think he has much money nor influence in France. The Queen has a lot of money, if she backs him up then that's another matter, but the prince alone has an allowance; and I don't think it covers carrying on multi-million dollar lawsuits with little chance of success. He invested 2k in this so far right?

As for the newspaper in Ireland, that's good information, and new to me. I'll be interested in seeing how this plays out. Anyway thanks for the incite.

---------- Post added September-18th-2012 at 03:31 PM ----------


European legal systems are generally softer on punishments than American (or even British) courts, but that doesn't mean that they are blaming the victims.


Victim suggests a criminal law has been broken. Are their victims in civil cases? more like plaintiffs right? I also disagree with your characterizations of European courts... Microsoft got a several billion dollar judgement against them for being a predatory monopoly and we didn't even fine them here for being found guilty of the same offense.

I would argue cases like this are treated lighter, because the French who have less of a problem with nudity see it as a lessor offense than we do generally.



This doesn't sound like a court blaming the victim: http://news.sky.com/story/986543/topless-photos-royal-couple-granted-injunction

I don't think I used the term "blaming the victim" I think I used the phrase "holding Kate Middleton responsible for her actions". I don't think the difference is nuanced.

[MartinC]

You make good and insightful points and I don't want to take them lightly because they are quite thoughtful. However if I might play devil's advocate..
I don't think he has much money nor influence in France. The Queen has a lot of money, if she backs him up then that's another matter, but the prince alone has an allowance; and I don't think it covers carrying on multi-million dollar lawsuits with little chance of success. He invested 2k in this so far right?

As for the newspaper in Ireland, that's good information, and new to me. I'll be interested in seeing how this plays out. Anyway thanks for the incite.

The Prince will get whatever money is needed to fund this from the Queen and his Dad (who is very very wealthy) the legal fees that will have been spent by the Prince so far will be a lot more than $2K. The kind of lawyers he will be using charge you $2K to drink a cup of your coffee. On the influence side people in the Palace will be talking to people in the Foreign Office who will have a quiet word with people in the French Government who will ....well you get the idea. A lot of what will be happening around this will not be played out in the Courts or public - the newspaper in Ireland is just one example you just know the owners have had a call from someone with 'words of advice'.

[JMS]

The Prince will get whatever money is needed to fund this from the Queen and his Dad (who is very very wealthy) the legal fees that will have been spent by the Prince so far will be a lot more than $2K. The kind of lawyers he will be using charge you $2K to drink a cup of your coffee. On the influence side people in the Palace will be talking to people in the Foreign Office who will have a quiet word with people in the French Government who will ....well you get the idea. A lot of what will be happening around this will not be played out in the Courts or public - the newspaper in Ireland is just one example you just know the owners have had a call from someone with 'words of advice'.

Strong points... what did you think when you heard the Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi owned the rag which broke the story? I'll bet there was a phone call there...

In truth I don't know if the Prince Charles has a lot of money either. I think the Queen is one of the wealthiest women in the world, and I think all funds flow from her. Charles will be wealthy when he is ordained. Else I think the Queen has everybody on an allowance... And I really don't know if she will support the princes play here. I'll deffer to you on that though because you seem to be more in tune with how the Prince and other Royals are taking this...

I can't remember the last time the Queen sued someone. But your point here is reasonable. The Prince is drawing a line, and is going to use backroom clout to get some action on an issue which he is personally invested. None of that is really in contrast with my posts that this isn't a rare, isolated, or illegal event. That it happens all the time to celebrities.. Your point is though that this celebrity is tied in better than most and can use his clout where others can't and of coarse that he is very emotionally involved here because of his mother's death; which also occurred in France.

[MartinC]

Strong points... what did you think when you heard the Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi owned the rag which broke the story?

I had to laugh - at least he is consistent. I also thought Kate was a bit old for him .....

By the way Berlusconi is not the Italian Prime Minister anymore. He is out of politics at the moment (at least officially).

---------- Post added September-18th-2012 at 03:58 PM ----------


.In truth I don't know if the Prince Charles has a lot of money either. I think the Queen is one of the wealthiest women in the world, and I think all funds flow from her. Charles will be wealthy when he is ordained.

Prince Charles owns the Duchy of Cormwall from which he derives a private annual income of over 16M UK Pounds per year (this in addition to the money he gets from the Civil List to cover his official Royal duties). The Duchy is valued at around 700M UK Pounds in terms of its portfolio of business and property.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Cornwall

[Special K]

Only there is a big difference in the eyes of the Law... Once again you kind of run into troubles when you make your grand proclamations; because you ignore the law.. I would go so far as you don't even care about the law, because your moral code.. yada yada yada.... but for the rest of us who do live in a world ruled by laws.. you couldn't be more wrong.

Me taking a picture of you while standing in a public place and selling it is not considered a crime. Me taking a picture of you in your home while peering through your window, standing on your property; is certainly a crime.. Both clothed or not.

I guess the big difference is, moral codes are great when they direct your personal conduct... They are idiotic, self serving, and boorish when you try to impose them on others where they directly contradict the law.
Evidently a French juge doesn't agree with the "world of laws according to JMS" since the photographs have been deemed an invasion of privacy and ordered to be handed over. Obviously the judge hasn't read your posts on ES explaining the "law." Maybe you should forward them to him so that he may be enlightened :)

---------- Post added September-18th-2012 at 05:43 PM ----------


But they didn't issue an injunction against future publication. They issued a 10k fine ( meaningless fine) in the event the magazine publishes one of the same 12 photo's published last Friday, inside France. Which is so nuanced it's irreverent...

I don't know, but since this lawsuit and "injunction", didn't result in a fine or penelty against the publication who really cares; certainly not the magazine who probable made millions from this event as well as is now the most famous paparazzi rag in Europe and maybe globally.



The royals didn't get an injunction against additional publication though did they. They didn't get jack.



The original photo's are already being published outside of France. The other photo's can still be published inside of France without fear of any financial penelty from this case.

I just don't see why anybody calls this a victory for the Royals...





If the magazine's photographer had broken the law, he would be in front of a criminal court and all these photo's would be confiscated under penalty of a prison term. The fact that it's not even in criminal court is a testament to the fact no law was broken.

The fact no penalties were assessed to the magazine for publishing the photographs is also a victory for the magazine.

We'll see if any future civil penalties accrue.. I doubt any substantive penalties will.

:ols: :ols::ols: Where the heck do you get your information from? Does a monkey read the articles about this case and give you the cliff's notes version? Your facts are completely bassackwards. Good Lord.

[Hubbs]

:ols: :ols::ols: Where the heck do you get your information from? Does a monkey read the articles about this case and give you the cliff's notes version? Your facts are completely bassackwards. Good Lord.

Forget it, he's rolling.

[JMS]

Evidently a French juge doesn't agree with the "world of laws according to JMS" since the photographs have been deemed an invasion of privacy and ordered to be handed over. Obviously the judge hasn't read your posts on ES explaining the "law." Maybe you should forward them to him so that he may be enlightened :)


You mean the judge who sits in the civil court right. cause this wasn't a criminal case was it. You said their was no difference between this photographer standing on a public street and a peeping Tom, standing in the bushes of this woman house. clearly the fact this was a civil case points to the error in your argument.

Also, I think the civil judge absolutely agreed with me. Although you are right he did say the photographs were an invasion of privacy and ordered the originals to be handed over. The fact there was no penalty for the magazine, and only minor restrictions on how they can use the photographs in the future ( the original 12 published can't be republished inside of France without paying a whooping 10k fine). Looks like it was a face saving matter for the royals, and no real consequences for the magazine who will still make millions from the photographs.

What does an "original" photograph even mean. Photographs are by definitions copies. copies of negatives, or copies of digital files. The judges ruling has no affect outside of France. Even inside of France the penalties are so small as to be insignificant.

Some have said this is only round 1. Well that might be, but round 1 went to the magazine.



:ols: :ols::ols: Where the heck do you get your information from? Does a monkey read the articles about this case and give you the cliff's notes version? Your facts are completely bassackwards. Good Lord.
The BBC article which I posted, feel free to post an alternative version from a more reputable source than the BBC.

And if my facts are "completely" wrong, I challenge you to pick one fact, just one in which I am in error cause I was quoting the BBC article almost verbatim... Where as you haven't made a valid point in the entire conversation, while personally insulting and attacking me constantly.

It's a pretty slimy trick to just attack someone personally, while calling their creditability into question without giving any specifics for one to reply too.
If you want a response make your objection specifically to one of my statements and I'll support what I said better.. Although in truth, the BBC article quoted contains all the facts necessary to support my positions.

---------- Post added September-19th-2012 at 10:27 AM ----------


Prince Charles owns the Duchy of Cormwall from which he derives a private annual income of over 16M UK Pounds per year (this in addition to the money he gets from the Civil List to cover his official Royal duties). The Duchy is valued at around 700M UK Pounds in terms of its portfolio of business and property.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Cornwall

Ok, I'll call that wealthy. 16m pounds per year is pretty well off. The queen I've heard is worth around a Billion, so she's certainly in a different class of wealthy, but you've supported your statement. A pleasure discussing this with you, you are well informed, your impressions are well thought out and have a ring of realism and truth to them, your facts which I questioned, you've entirely supported.

[Corcaigh]

:ols: :ols::ols: Where the heck do you get your information from? Does a monkey read the articles about this case and give you the cliff's notes version?

That wouldn't be enough to explain it. You left out the part that the monkey's notes are in Portuguese, which JMS doesn't understand apart from the occasional word.

[JMS]

That wouldn't be enough to explain it. You left out the part that the monkey's notes are in Portuguese, which JMS doesn't understand apart from the occasional word.

et tu brute; Again I ask you for any specific statements I've made which you think is in error, and I will support my position. Coarse that would actually require you to read what I've written and think about it. Which I understand is a lot of work; where as I'm guessing you have the personal attacks as part of your everyday use vernacular, practiced to be called upon reflexively without exposing yourself to an actual response. A response which you really aren't interested in.

I think you are more interested in the appearance of being right, and less interested in any discussion.

and here is the same paragraph in Portuguese.

et tu bruta; Novamente eu pergunto por quaisquer declarações específicas que eu fiz o que você acha que é um erro, e eu vou sustentar minha posição. Grossa que realmente exige que você leia o que eu escrevi e pensar sobre isso. Que entendi é um monte de trabalho, onde, como eu estou supondo que você tem os ataques pessoais como parte de seu vernáculo o uso diário, praticados a ser chamado reflexivamente sem se expor a uma resposta real. A resposta que você realmente não está interessado polegadas

[Special K]

That wouldn't be enough to explain it. You left out the part that the monkey's notes are in Portuguese, which JMS doesn't understand apart from the occasional word.

:ols:



Forget it, he's rolling.
You're right. My bad. Carry on, JMS!

[JMS]

You're right. My bad. Carry on, JMS!

You are consistent.

[JMS]

The pictures continue to spread.


Topless Kate Middleton photos appear in Swedish magazine
Danish magazine to publish 70 topless Kate pictures as French police raid Closer's Paris office
Chi, a glossy Italian gossip magazine, also published topless photos.
YouPorn Is Willing To Pay 'Closer Magazine' Any Price To Obtain The Rights To Kate Middleton's Nude Photos - buisness insider


The French Authorities are trying to find the name of the photographer.


Kate Middleton topless photos: Police raid Closer magazine France ... to find evidence of the name of the photographer



In support of MartinC's assertion


Christophe Bigot (great name), a barrister who specialises in media law, immediately questioned the legality of the raid - suggesting that it had solely been authoritised because members of the Royal Family were involved.

Journalistic sources - who include photographers - are strictly protected by French law, which was tightened up as recently as two years ago.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2205467/Danish-magazine-publish-70-topless-Kate-pictures-French-police-raid-Closers-Paris-office.html?openGraphAuthor=%2Fhome%2Fsearch.html% 3Fs%3D%26authornamef%3DPeter%2BAllen

[AsburySkinsFan]

Oh you can just smell the criminal charges now. This smut peddler is as much of a journalist as Larry Flynt.

[JMS]

Oh you can just smell the criminal charges now.

You might be right, they seem intent on finding the identity of the photographer.


This smut peddler is as much of a journalist as Larry Flynt.



Larry Flynt: If the First Amendment will protect a scumbag like me, it will protect all of you.


Yeah Larry Flynt is an exceptionally bad example for your position. Larry Flynt who published hard truths about John Bolton which made his confirmation impossible in the senate. Larry Flynt who caused several Republican candidates for Newt Gingrich's speaker ship to be passed over, including Bob Livingston who resigned all due to their own affairs which Flynt uncovered. ( important at the time because the House Gop majority was involved in impeaching Bill Clinton ). Flynt also helped recall California governor Gray Davis.

Flynt is currently offering a million dollars to anyone who produces any of Mitt Romney's unreleased tax returns.

Larry Flynt has absolutely covered serious news in an informative way which both put important relevant information before the public, and changed the course of important events due to how his information effected public opinion.

And the First Amendment did protect Larry Flynt. He's fought several prominent first amendment cases and has won a few of them.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

JMS, where did you graduate law school?

[JMS]

response self deleted.

[AsburySkinsFan]

You might be right, they seem intent on finding the identity of the photographer
One difference...one MASSIVE difference....the women Flynt exploits through the objectification of their bodies allow their pictures to be taken WILLINGLY and LEAGALLY. Not even the 1st Amendment would protect Flynt if he was taking pictures of nude women against their will.

So keep trying JMS but all I smell is herring.....red herring.

[JMS]

One difference...one MASSIVE difference....the women Flynt exploits through the objectification of their bodies allow their pictures to be taken WILLINGLY and LEAGALLY. Not even the 1st Amendment would protect Flynt if he was taking pictures of nude women against their will.


AsburySkinsFan, seriously.... why you talking smack about things you know nothing about? Larry Flynt launched his entire publishing empire behind nude pictures of Jackie O, who was photographed sun bathing in 1971 also in Europe as I recall. I believe the guy was actually in a boat offshore, and video taped Jackie. The images were taken without jacky's knowledge or consent. And yes the first amendment protected Larry Flynt as he published the pictures and sold 1 million copies of his magazine in the United States, which made him his first million dollars.

As I've said since the beginning of this thread, this kind of thing is not uncommon. It's what happens to many celebrities who take their cloths off and go outside where they can be seen and photographed. Also happened to Goldie Hawn. Jannet Jackson, Natalie Portman, Elizabeth Hurley, Kate Moss.. The list goes on and on. More recently it happened to Selena Gomez who is a star on the Disney channel, for pete sake
.
Emma Watts had an objectionable photo taken of her as she got out of a sports car.



So keep trying JMS but all I smell is herring.....red herring.

All I smell is folks who are talking about personal morals, .while I'm talking about reality of the world we live in, and why that reality is preferred.

If the press is limited to only report what no one person finds objectionable they will never be able to serve the public interest. If who is a member of the press is defined narrowly again, the public interest is less likely to be served. Our constitution errors on the side of providing more knowledge to the public. Which means we have less ability legally to filter objectionable stories and photo's. The more you filter the press, the more likely you are to stop the press from informing the public on truly important matters... Americans used to be proud of that, and we all knew about that too.


You think Watergate would have been reported if Nixon could have classified Woodward and Bernstein as non journalists?
My lai Masacr?
Pentagon Papers?
You think Garry Heart would have been allowed to get away with defaming the Miami Herald if they were not allowed to prove their story about him was correct?
You think Bill Clinton, who systemically rewarded women who had sex with him with six figure jobs, and fired women who would not have sex with him over a 20 year period, would have been impeached if Matthew Drudge wasn't protected by the 1st amendment.
What about Senator Tower? You think we would have had a Secretary of Defense who used to grope military women assigned to him as he visited military bases without journalists having the ability to inform the public?

A free press, means you have to put up with stories .which you find objectionable. It's the price of having a free press. You are free not to buy the magazine. You are not free to stop a publication on the grounds you don't like what they are saying... These are trade offs common in societies with freedom of the press.

And yes photography is a form of journalism and is equally protected under the first amendment just like words in a story.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Yeah keep talkin' from the cheap seats JMS.

[Special K]

Watergate whistleblowing journalism = peeping Tom pics of the Duchess :doh:

Evidently I need more coffee as I cannot believe someone is trying to equate reporting on illegal/unethical activity and taking pictures of someone at home. :ols:

[AsburySkinsFan]

Watergate whistleblowing journalism = peeping Tom pics of the Duchess :doh:

Evidently I need more coffee as I cannot believe someone is trying to equate reporting on illegal/unethical activity and taking pictures of someone at home. :ols:

No, no really, this is legit journalism...he makes a really good point, and I'm registering the domain name jms@ home.com and I'm going to hire stalkers to take pictures of him all the time and I will pay 1/10th a cent per photo and post all the photos to the internet so everyone can see every moment of his life on display. Expectation of privacy be darned!

[JMS]

Watergate whistleblowing journalism = peeping Tom pics of the Duchess :doh:

There you go making things up again. France has peeping Tom laws I'm sure as does the United States. If those laws were easily applicable the Royals wouldn't have started out in civil court rather than criminal court. Also Larry Flynt never would have been able to publish his Jackie O pictures if they were the result of a crime.

Supreme Court Cases which protect pornography under the first amendment


Stanley v. Georgia , (1969) (The First Amendment as made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth prohibits making mere private possession of obscene material a crime). unanimously overturned the earlier decision and invalidated all state laws that forbade the private possession of materials judged obscene, on the grounds of the 1st and 14th Amendments. Justices Stewart, Brennan, and White, contributed a joint concurring opinion. Justice Hugo Black also concurred, with a separate opinion having to do with the Fourth Amendment search and seizure provision. The case also established an implied right to pornography.
Blount v. Rizzi , 400 U.S. 410 (1971) (Administrative censorship scheme permiting the Postmaster General to stamp as "Unlawful" and return to the sender letters addressed to any person and to prohibit the payment of postal money orders to that person if he finds, on "evidence satisfactory to [him]," that the person is obtaining or seeking money through the mails for "an obscene . . . matter" violates the First Amendment since it lacks adequate safeguards against undue inhibition of protected expression.)
Papish v. Board of Curators of University of Missouri , 410 U.S. 667 (1973) (Expulsion of student for distributing on campus a publication assertedly containing "indecent speech" proscribed by a bylaw of a state university's Board of Curators held an impermissible violation of her First Amendment free speech rights since the mere dissemination of ideas on a state university campus cannot be proscribed in the name of "conventions of decency").
Jenkins v. Georgia , 418 U.S. 153 (1974) (The film, "Carnal Knowledge" is not obscene under the constitutional standards announced in Miller and appellant's conviction therefore contravened the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The film shows occasional nudity, but nudity alone does not render material obscene under Miller's standards).
Fort Wayne Books, Inc. v. Indiana , 489 U.S. 46 (1989) (The pretrial seizure of petitioner's bookstore and its contents was improper. While a single copy of a book or film may be seized and retained for evidentiary purposes based on a finding of probable cause, books or films may not be taken out of circulation completely until there has been a determination of obscenity after an adversary hearing. The risk of prior restraint, which is the underlying basis for the special Fourth Amendment protection accorded searches for, and seizures of, First Amendment materials renders invalid the pretrial seizure here).





Evidently I need more coffee as I cannot believe someone is trying to equate reporting on illegal/unethical activity and taking pictures of someone at home. :ols:

There has been a long term struggle between censorship of ideas, and morality clauses in many countries including the Untied States. The supreme court has long sought to balance the two issues have been struggling with this for decades.

That is exactly why France for example has strict protections for photographers and reporters including the guy who took these pictures according to the lawyer referenced above. It's not because France want's to protect this photographer who did a seedy thing, it's because they don't know how to protect the journalist serving the public interest without protecting this photographer who took the Kate Middleton photo's.

You know it when you see it, doesn't really work for a legal system where granting arbitrary powers are to be avoided at all cost. You must be able to codify what is objectionable and what is not. If you can't codify, then it is better to put up with objectionable material than lay society open for the abuse of power which comes from granting authorities an open arbitrary power to act against it's citizens.



---------- Post added September-20th-2012 at 12:28 PM ----------


No, no really, this is legit journalism...he makes a really good point, !

You make this sound like I'm the decision maker here.. I was 8 when Jackie O was photographed like Kate Middleton naked sunbathing and those pictures were plastered across the country by Larry Flynt. I'm not deciding anything, I'm just telling you why it is so. I understand it. I personally do like less government censorship not more, and if that means putting up with a few distasteful photo's of celebrities caught naked outside when they are trying to act like nobody should care; I think it's the lessor of two evils. I do. I do think the country would be much worse off if as you suggest, the government could define who is an who isn't a reporter, and worse; what is and isn't newsworthy. I think both are very dangerous and would fundamentally change our country for the worse.


I'm registering the domain name jms@ home.com and I'm going to hire stalkers to take pictures of him all the time and I will pay 1/10th a cent per photo and post all the photos to the internet so everyone can see every moment of his life on display. Expectation of privacy be darned!

If you really think there is a market for such things, I'm game. PM me and we can work something out. I have some ideas for the fetish crowd.

[AsburySkinsFan]

No you're not the decision maker, you're just defending the people who do this which is defending the peeping tom's right to peer into your windows......oh he doesn't have a camera...well heck get the pervert a Nikon and he's legit!

[JMS]

No you're not the decision maker, you're just defending the people who do this which is defending the peeping tom's right to peer into your windows......oh he doesn't have a camera...well heck get the pervert a Nikon and he's legit!

Peeping Tom is different matter, and nobody "peered into a window" or even physically trespassed in this case. If your case is so weak you have to invent facts to support your position then this discussion will cease to be interesting pretty quickly. I am not defending somebody who trespassed on private property, or even photographed somebody behind closed doors. This guy took a picture standing on a public street which is not nearly as clear cut and dried as you suggest. It doesn't make what he did any more tolerable, but it does make it harder to penalize under the law without seriously harming the public interest in my mind. If you made it against the law to take pictures in public except with permission, you basically crush photo journalism.

And, yes Asbury, I am defending this magazine, and the photographer who took these pictures, because I don't know how not too, and still protect real journalism.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Yes Asbury, I am defending this magazine, and the photographer who took these pictures, because I don't know how not too, and still protect real journalism.

You don't protect pedophiles because you want to protect the rights of consenting adults.

[JMS]

You don't protect pedophiles because you want to protect the rights of consenting adults.

Even pictures of naked children are not always cut and dried as indefensible.



http://pulitzerprize.org/files/2009/07/kim-phuc.jpg

This Pulitzer Prize-winning photograph by AP photographer Nick Ut shows terrified children, including Kim Phuc, center, fleeing down a highway June 8, 1972, near Trang Bang, Vietnam, after an aerial napalm attack. The terrified girl had ripped off her burning clothes. Pham Thi Kim Phuc, now grown and married, forgave John Plummer, the U.S. officer who called in the strike, when they met last November at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington.


This important picture helped in framing public opinion in the United States against the Vietnam war.

I will agree with you though their is a balancing act and the equation is different when children are involved.. Just not always cut and dried either.

[AsburySkinsFan]

JMS busily defending the guy who takes pictures up the skirts of women and publishes them to the internet on a blog.....legitimate journalism.

[JMS]

JMS busily defending the guy who takes pictures up the skirts of women and publishes them to the internet on a blog.....legitimate journalism.

JMS busily defending any news organizations(*) right to determine what is newsworthy and opposing any move by the government to sensor the news, even if it means defending abuses.

Putting up with abuses is better than putting up with sanitized news. If you don't want pictures of the boobs in the newspaper, don't go outside naked... If you don't want folks shooting pictures up your skirt, for god sake wear underwear and don't flash a sidewalk full of photographers, even accidentally. Know that if you do these things same laws which protect the public rights to know will protect the guy who takes the picture of you and makes a million dollars. That's the way it's been for decades. That's the trade off we make for living with freedom of the press.

If you have a better system I'm all ears. But if you start off by saying the government should limit who is and who isn't a newsman, or news organization, or what is and what isn't in the public interest; then you've lost me before you've begun.

[AsburySkinsFan]

JMS busily rationalizing smut.

[JMS]

JMS busily rationalizing smut.

Actually rationalizing the defense of smut, would be a more precise synopsis... Absolutely... I find rational arguments to be the most enlightening, persuasive, and helpful in framing a discussion..

Do you find the synopsis of your contradicting position more palatable? Casually and irrationally, arguing in favor of censorship without regard for the consequences.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I absolutely affirm the protection of a person's right to privacy whether in their home, whether on their estate a 1/2 mile from the nearest vantage point, and I without question affirm the right of an individual to not have a camera stuck up her skirt in order to sneak a peak. You say all of that needs to be allowed in order to protect actual journalists....I say that's asinine.

We've gone as far as we're gonna in this thead. So I'm done. I'm also appalled that someone would think that an invasion of privacy would be considered journalism.

[JMS]

I'm also appalled that someone would think that an invasion of privacy would be considered journalism.

That's because you aren't considering the bigger picture. There is no doubt that an invasion of privacy is considered journalism.
What the hell else is investigative journalism if it's not invading somebody's privacy? Politicians right to privacy about bribes they've taken or laws they've broken, military men's privacy about the consequences of their actions, .

One more thought I will leave you with... How many pictures of the one like the naked child running from an american napalm attack are you willing to miss, in order to keep the princesses boobies out of the newspapers. That picture probable saved many children's lives as the US military in Vietnam was forced to change their engagement rules of bombing villages with napalm. What is it worth that the press can cover a story showing a naked young lady, which no doubt many thought was pornographic at the time it was published to inform the American public of what their military was doing in their name? I would argue there is no comparison between sparing the princess a little embarrassment and the risk of stopping just one photograph like that of Kim Phuc. I would also argue in order to safeguard the Princesses "right" to walk out side naked, you would deny all the Kim Phuc, Nguyen Ngoc Loan victims, kent state massacrers, and countless other controversial photographs which have the potential to stop the nation in it's tracks and get the majority to rethink what is happening....

If you can describe a law which would protect the princess and all the other victems of abuse but would still permit Kim Phuc's photograph and the other important controversial photographs to get through then I'm all in.. But you can't. Nobody can.. So I vote in favor of Kim Phuc and you would too if you were thinking clearly. And that's the reason the first amendment applies to those schmucks.

.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Photos of napalm attacks = photos of boobies by peeping toms

Welcome to JMS's world. :doh:

[JMS]

Photos of napalm attacks = photos of boobies by peeping toms

Welcome to JMS's world. :doh:

Now you are just being intentionally obtuse. Trying to obfuscate the issue with meaningless sound bites which you know don't represent the discussion.
It's dishonest, and I would think beneath you.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Now you are just being intentionally obtuse. Trying to obfuscate the issue with meaningless sound bites which you know don't represent the discussion.
It's dishonest, and I would think beneath you.

Please, you offer up a red herring and expect me to treat it like a legitimate argument, not gonna happen.

[Kilmer17]

Soooooooo.

Has anyone seen them?

[AsburySkinsFan]

Soooooooo.

Has anyone seen them?

Prince William has.....repeatedly. :pfft:

[Kilmer17]

Prince William has.....repeatedly. :pfft:

Bwahahah

Them= the pictures.

But very well played!

[JMS]

Please, you offer up a red herring and expect me to treat it like a legitimate argument, not gonna happen.

You think it's a red herring to note the fact that the paparazzi are afforded the same rights as journalists and protected by the first amendment? You think this is mere over site? coincidence? Some sort of loophole which nobody has ever really thought about?

Here are a few FAQ's from the First Amendment Center's Web Page.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faq/frequently-asked-questions-press



Who is ‘the press’?

Courts have long struggled with this seemingly easy question. While no doubt exists that “mainstream” media, such as broadcast stations, newspapers and magazines, enjoy the freedom of “the press,” the line gets blurrier in cases involving underground newspapers, free-lance writers and pamphleteers. In general, however, courts have defined “the press” so as to include all publishers. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, for example, has said that First Amendment protections extend to “‘every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion.’” von Bulow v. von Bulow, 811 F.2d 136, 144 (2d Cir.) (quoting Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 452 (1938)), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1015 (1987).


What types of conduct by the news media can lead to intrusion claims?

Many different types of conduct can cause someone to file an intrusion/invasion-of- privacy lawsuit. Common examples include trespassing on private property without the owner’s consent, installing hidden cameras or other secret surveillance equipment to monitor someone’s behavior, and harassing a person by continually following him.

An example of conduct that was held to be intrusive enough to warrant judicial relief was the case of paparazzi photographer Ron Galella. Galella was relentless in his pursuit of photographs of Jackie Onassis and her children. After a court injunction and appeal, Galella was prohibited from approaching within 25 feet of Jackie O., blocking her movement in any public place and engaging in “any conduct which would reasonably be foreseen to harass, alarm or frighten the defendant.”


The reporters and editors at my local newspaper are highly biased. Is there a federal regulator who should know about this?

No. Under the First Amendment, newspapers and magazines can publish information as they see fit, biased or not. If published information is libelous, the publication can be sued by the person claiming to be libeled. But the federal government does not and cannot regulate newspaper content.

[AsburySkinsFan]

You think it's a red herring that the paparazzi are afforded the same rights as journalists and protected by the first amendment?
The red herring is pretending that the photo of the napalm attack in Vietnam which had a naked child in it is equal to a photo of Cathrine's boobs taken by peeping toms.

Do I believe that the paparazzi should be protected by the 1st Amendment? No more so than a peeping tom is who decides to publish his pictures on the internet. You think that publishing pictures like these somehow legitimizes the source as the press when they are nothing more than peeping toms.

We've gone over this, and I believe that you've checked your moral compass at the door on this issue. You'll obviously disagree. But I'm done.

bai

[pjfootballer]

Soooooooo.

Has anyone seen them?

If someone admits to it, then they are sick, perverted and as bad as the papparazzi according to some in here.

So with that I'll admit, I wanted to see what all the hubbub was about. The pictures are very blurry and you can see boobs, but the pictures are not very impressive nor is her chest. There.

[JMS]

The red herring is pretending that the photo of the napalm attack in Vietnam which had a naked child in it is equal to a photo of Cathrine's boobs taken by peeping toms.

I did no such thing. You brought up child pornography. I merely demonstrated that one person's child pornography was another person's world changing event and one of the most important pictures taken in the 1970's. I did this to demonstrate how hard and potentially dangerous it would be to legislate morality laws as such laws could have easily been used to block that important photograph. This is why courts are hesitant to penalize paparazzi. This is why the supreme court have at times sided with folks like Larry Flint. Not because they like Larry Flint, but because the findings for him can be applied to the NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post etc...



Do I believe that the paparazzi should be protected by the 1st Amendment? No more so than a peeping tom is who decides to publish his pictures on the internet. You think that publishing pictures like these somehow legitimizes the source as the press when they are nothing more than peeping toms.

It's really not about what you believe. It's about the reality in which we live, because the supreme court believes, and why they believe..

Also Ashbury, This Paparazi photographer literally was not not. For the 20th time, this guy wasn't a peeping tom. Peeping Tom laws apply to folks who trespass. Every state in the union has anti peeping tom laws. This guy did not trespass he was standing on a public street. So to protect Kate Middleton from a guy standing on a public street, as a handful of states have including California, you would need to pass laws to restrict what can be photographed while standing in a public place. This is very dangerous because it limits what the NYTimes and legitimate news organizations can photograph too. Which Many people believe is a huge dis-service to the public interest.



We've gone over this, and I believe that you've checked your moral compass at the door on this issue. You'll obviously disagree. But I'm done.


Compass is the wrong analogy. It's a moral equation. An equation with two sides which must be considered. The intrusion by the press on Kate Middleton's ability to walk around in public view naked and the intrusion of the press at it applies to covering legitimate news stories where those being covered would love to exert some sort of right to privacy claim. You can't protect Kate without seriously impacting the public interest in having a strong independent news industry..

[Special K]

Stop JMS. Please go spend your time enhancing your superiority in all things case law.

You have us all convinced!

...said no one. Ever..

[DeanCollins]

The difference being since they are rich and famous they are entitled to more privacy since they can afford it?

I would be fine with forbidding publishing pics w/o consent, but that is not the way it works.

I was also thinking that this would be the only practical way for the law to address this.

[Burgold]

A flaw in JMS' thinking is this. If I call you, technically I'm not allowed to tape our conversation without your knowledge. There's a presumption of privacy. Likewise, if you are on your private property, then you have a presumption of privacy which is why things like peeping tom laws are constitutionally valid. If you are on a public beach and I am taking photos you are fair game. It's crude, but okay to profit off that. Likewise, the Vietnamese child is in a public area with no presumption of privacy and thus it is okay to include her in the photo.

In some arenas even in public it is considered best to get a signed concent whenever using someone's likeness. This gets murkier when we get into the concept of a "public figure" But freedom of speech and the press is not unlimited. Reporters certainly have gone to jail for tresspass, invasion of property, etc.

I will say that I agree with JMS that the line does not to be gray because sometimes the right to know supercedes privacy, for example Watergate.

[China]

Paparazzi photographer who took topless pictures of Duchess of Cambridge set to be arrested by French police (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2224439/Paparazzi-photographer-took-topless-pictures-Duchess-Cambridge-set-arrested-French-police.html?ICO=most_read_module)

French judicial police are preparing to arrest a paparazzi linked to topless photographs of the Duchess of Cambridge, it emerged tonight.

It follows confirmation that the name of the photographer had been handed over to detectives investigating the alleged crime.

It took place in September at Chateau d’Autet, a holiday retreat in Provence owned by the Queen’s nephew, Viscount Linley.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/10/28/article-2224439-15BBB969000005DC-373_634x384.jpg

Click on the link for the full article

[Kindred]

S. 1301 (108th): Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004

OFFICIAL SUMMARY

This summary was written by the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress. GovTrack did not write and has no control over these summaries.

12/23/2004--Public Law. Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004 - Amends the Federal criminal code to prohibit knowingly videotaping, photographing, filming, recording by any means, or broadcasting an image of a private area of an individual, without that individual's consent, under circumstances in which that individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
(Defines a "private area" as the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of an individual.) Makes such prohibition inapplicable to lawful law enforcement, correctional, or intelligence activity.
S. 1301 (108th): Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/108/s1301

[Special K]

Hopefully someone gets pics of the arrest :)

[AsburySkinsFan]

Paparazzi photographer who took topless pictures of Duchess of Cambridge set to be arrested by French police (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2224439/Paparazzi-photographer-took-topless-pictures-Duchess-Cambridge-set-arrested-French-police.html?ICO=most_read_module)

Yep, a vital part of journalism, and yep just a slap on the wrist. I'm so glad the oppressive censorship government in France protects the rights of individuals more than some posters on here would.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Waiting in earnest for JMS to comment on this doubtless perceived latest miscarriage of justice against a photographer just making a honest living. Or however he's spinning it today.

Hail.