General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsToday's simple lesson: If you don't want pictures of you topless to go public-----
Then don't go topless where you can be seen.
Yeah I know they were in a private villa--- but for god sakes, are they unfamiliar with Paparazzi skills?
Prince William, Kate 'hugely saddened' by publication of topless photos
Britain's Duke and Duchess of Cambridge said Friday their privacy has been "invaded in a grotesque and totally unjustifiable manner" after topless pictures of Middleton were printed by a French magazine.
Blurry, long-lens shots of Kate, taken while she and William were on vacation in Provence, in the south of France last week, were printed in Closer magazine on Friday.
A statement from St. James's Palace, in London, said the pair were "hugely saddened" by the publication, adding that William and Kate "had every expectation of privacy in the remote house" where they were sunbathing at the time the pictures were taken.
http://www.nbcnews.com/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)I hope this doesn't hurt their career prospects.
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)
FSogol
(45,488 posts)On the other hand, her Dad has money, so they should be ok. 
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)Spending time naked at the beach while our hard earned taxpayers go to support her laziness.
I bet she's going to start popping out kids any day now. . .
FSogol
(45,488 posts)
renie408
(9,854 posts)FSogol
(45,488 posts)
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)he works in a sea/helicopter rescue unit. Had to leave the Olympics early to return to work. Some Canadian lady who broke her leg on a hike got the airlift of her life, lol, it was all over the news here.
But I get where you are going with that. Just sayin'.
DavidL
(384 posts)And they also raise a lot of charity funds in their off-work hours.
I think Harry is back in Afghanistan this week, if he hasn't been plucked out and returned to the UK, after the threats were issued.
I like both of them, I think they would be just as nice if they were not so rich, and they had no choice in the matter of wealth or station in life, lucky they are, true, but they can't escape it, and they are doing pretty well, (not perfect) considering.
GoCubsGo
(32,084 posts)He's a helicopter pilot with the Search and Rescue Force. I wouldn't call that "unemployed".
louis-t
(23,295 posts)
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)She has breasts. Someone took a photo of her. It's not that big a deal, really.
Was someone amazed that she had breasts?
trumad
(41,692 posts)
edhopper
(33,580 posts)Maybe she should just wear a burka at all times.
I guess you don't think there is such a thing as invasion of privacy.
Nice blaming the victim there.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)I did not even know that such photos existed until you posted this. I'm sure that Kate Middleton has breasts. It's a matter of no interest to me, and I wouldn't take 30 seconds out of my day to see them.
You have played right into the hands of the magazine that paid for those photos, and are further publicizing this. Why? Why is it interesting?
You are part of the whole process, actually. By posting this, you've called even more attention to this violation of that woman's privacy. To what end?
Who cares? My point is just that. Why is this interesting? Why should anyone be interested in seeing Kate Middleton's breasts in some fuzzy telephoto image?
Are you interested? Apparently you are, since you shared this.
Feh!
trumad
(41,692 posts)fucking mother fucking ugg.
I could care less about her breasts---what I care about is their outrage over something that they certainly knew could happen.
The paparazzi will never change their behavior... ever.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)Neither do I, and I said just that. But, you've called everyone's attention to what you don't care about, it seems. That is the point of my post.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"I care about is their outrage over something that they certainly knew could happen. "
We should never, ever become outraged over something that happens if we knew there is a possibility of it happening.
"The paparazzi will never change their behavior... ever."
That seems to apply to many dogmatic people...
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)MineralMan
(146,317 posts)thing is that people want to see this woman's breasts, and that money is made by the magazine that published the photos. That's the real problem. Our obsession with women's breasts is pretty bizarre. That there is an entire industry devoted to taking secretive photos of the breasts of public figures is the real issue.
When I say who cares, I mean why would anyone be titillated by seeing Kate Middleton's breasts? Really? Trumad is doing exactly the same thing that magazine did by letting us all know that such images exist. He's acting as an unpaid publicist for some French magazine.
I can guarantee that if you go to Google Images and search for the name of whatever magazine published those photos and the name Kate, you'll be able to gaze at the images yourself. Millions of people are doing that even as I write. The question is: Why would anyone want to do that?
You've misinterpreted my post.
trumad
(41,692 posts)Why would people want to do that?
Good question---but millions do. What---you gonna shout and all of a sudden people won't want to do that?
Not reality---not by a long shot.
Tabloids sell because people love shit like this.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)Including you, apparently.
Simple world? Not really. I just don't care about some other man's wife's breasts.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)give us.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts).
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)In any case, it doesn't matter. Tabloid or magazine, it's playing on people's salacious interest in seeing naked people. And trumad helped people find these photos, while blaming the person photographed for appearing outdoors topless.
The whole thing is ugly. And yet, people flock to see such photos. No doubt many on DU searched for them after trumad posted this here.
All in all, a worthless venture.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)Apologies.
Yes - a worthless venture.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Uh, (speaking frankly) because I like seeing an attractive woman's breasts, period?
The day I no longer get a charge out of that, please shoot me...
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)He was just asking why anyone would get excited to see them...
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)I like women's breasts too. But, I'm not going looking for surreptitious photos of people's breasts. I prefer a voluntary exposure by someone I know and love.
Your mileage may differ.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)They're out there now, whether I search for them or not...I don't know how this is any different from a candid celeb shot, "wardrobe malfunction" or private celeb homemade sex video...
I do also have a nerdy curiosity on the quality of the shot, the distance and equipment used...
A few DUers watched the Erin Andrews video (or Scarlett Johannsen any number of similar cases) before commenting on it; how is that any different? (Luckily the Duchess has a lot more legal might behind her than Erin Andrews ever did)..But the good news is the Duchess learned a lesson, and will be more vigilant in the future...
Have you ever looked at/read/watched something previously private exposed online thinking "I really shouldn't be doing this, but what the hell, I'm curious to see for myself..." (i.e., wikileaks?)
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)MineralMan
(146,317 posts)It's a great coincidence.
cynatnite
(31,011 posts)The paparazzi are scum. They didn't care that she was at a private villa. They have no concept of someone's privacy. This is dispicable.
trumad
(41,692 posts)Seriously---?
This is the 21st century---where---- there are about a 1000 tabloid rags competing on a daily basis for pictures that sell their rags.
This is called reality and no matter how much you and others are disgusted by it.... it's a fact of life in today's fucked up world.
The errrr Prince and Princess should know this---hell they do know this....but...she goes outside topless anyways...and guess what... pictures are taken. DUH!
Oh but they are so saddened!!!! Well I'm saddened by their stupidity.
You don't want topless pics going public... be more fucking careful.
cynatnite
(31,011 posts)People have the right to do what they want when in private without having to worry about someone with a mega zoom lens infringing on that.
If she had been on a beach, walking down the street or in any other public area...yeah, you'd have a point. She wasn't.
I don't care who who you are...it does not give anyone the right to violate your right to privacy. That's what happened here.
trumad
(41,692 posts)but will you agree that being outside topless --- might allow a photog to photograph you er topless.
cynatnite
(31,011 posts)That's the difference you're not seeing.
Lex
(34,108 posts)cabal of paparazzi with no morals.
Response to Lex (Reply #45)
cynatnite This message was self-deleted by its author.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Advantage: never having to worry about money and having the best of everything. Disadvantage: everyone on the planet is interested in everything you do. Sometimes life is a trade-off.
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)heads should roll
back in the day, they would have!
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Look into the issue and how US courts have ruled regarding this.
I will leave it at that, since don't feel like loosing another day on DU.
But seriously we have had similar cases come before US courts that involve public streets, high points and looking into private property.
That is all.
regnaD kciN
(26,044 posts)According to U.S. law, at least, if you are in a public place. or can be seen from a public place, you can be photographed from that public place and those photos can be used for editorial (but not commercial i.e. advertising) purposes, even without your permission.
So, if this had been in the U.S., and the only way the paparazzi could have gotten topless pictures of Kate would have been to take them on the villa's property, they would be breaking the law. However, if they had been able to get topless photos of her (even using an extreme telephoto lens) from a road, park, or public beach, it would have been completely legal, and those photos could be used by any magazine, as long as it wasn't to advertise a product.
I mention this because lots of people don't know the law, and assume they are protected by privacy laws when they really aren't. Forewarned is forearmed.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Papparazzi. Scumbags, the lot of them, subscribing to scumbag beliefs.
alp227
(32,025 posts)The paparazzi TRESPASSED on private property, end of story.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)She should have known better.
Would you it think it okay for Obama's girls to sunbathe topless, anywhere? Not that they'd do it...they have too much class.
cynatnite
(31,011 posts)even if they were fully clothed, DU would be up in arms.
They would call it stalking and want the photographer arrested at the very least.
Instead, many here at DU just shrug their shoulders and say that Kate asked for it.
It doesn't matter that she was at a private residence relaxing with her husband and had the misfortune to think that someone wasn't stalking her. She felt that she was in a safe place without prying eyes. She takes her top off and gets treated like trash by many here at DU. It's pure hypocrisy.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)The Royal Family is NEVER SAFE. She signed up for it.
I don't think that she is trash. I just think that she should have known better. Princess Di would have never done that.
randome
(34,845 posts)Quite a few people actually ENJOY being nude in the outdoors. You're saying they should keep themselves covered like...um, fundamentalist Muslims, maybe?
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)Won't don't you get?
I feel no need to sunburn my boobs, but that's just me. 
cynatnite
(31,011 posts)No one signs up to be stalked.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)Any young woman that marries a Prince of England is signing up to be stalked. It's unfortunate, but it's reality.
Let's not play games here. Life is never going to be perfect.
Yes, she is entitled to her privacy....but again, she knew what she was getting into.
Heck, I'd trade nudity for billions of $s anyfreakingday!
whistler162
(11,155 posts)
RandiFan1290
(6,235 posts)
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)I think I am going to vomit.
cbdo2007
(9,213 posts)so that it will be less embarrassing if this happens to me in the future.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)photographers following them around promoting them...don't be surprised if it comes back to haunt you.
cynatnite
(31,011 posts)Thanks for clearing that up.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)Of course, that's not my point, and you know it, but if it makes you happy, be my guest!
cynatnite
(31,011 posts)Wow, you should have clarified that since you said that the only reason they're famous is because of the paparazzi promoting them. 
Jennicut
(25,415 posts)Kind of normal for over there, no? The public shouldn't care and if I was Kate I would simply say "So?"
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)Lex
(34,108 posts)like, "So?"
Jennicut
(25,415 posts)Nothing to be ashamed about. At all.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)does that mean we are ashamed?
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)Lex
(34,108 posts)LOL
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)(yes, i'm typing this with one hand)
DonRedwood
(4,359 posts)Or Muslim.
In Europe breasts are breasts, not dirty, nasty nudity.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)is a whole lot different than going topless down Main Street. In the first you have an expectation of privacy, in the second, not so much. And in the privacy of your own home/back yard/rented villa, why CAN'T a woman take off her top? What the hell is the big damned deal, anyway? I wish guys could be forced to wear an underwire bra for just a week. You'd know how uncomfortable the damned things are. It's why it's one of the first things that women take off when they get home. And to rub salt into the wound, the picture that was taken with a LONG-RANGE LENS is now being published without her permission. That's pretty damned sleezy if you ask me.
Sorry, Trumad, but I'm calling sexist bullshit on your part.
trumad
(41,692 posts)That's not my fucking point...
I'm think the whole topless thing is stupid as shit...they're fucking breasts for God Sakes....
With that said---what the fuck did they except?
cynatnite
(31,011 posts)trumad
(41,692 posts)she was outside--- which gave the Paparazzi the chance to snap her picture.
Again--- you don't want that to happen, keep you top on.
cynatnite
(31,011 posts)She had no reason to think that someone with a mega zoom lens would take a picture of her while relaxing in private.
I do see what you are saying. I just completely disagree with you.
trumad
(41,692 posts)there is no privacy anymore---none.
It's been proven a thousand times over with this type of shit.
And again---that's my point.
cynatnite
(31,011 posts)MineralMan
(146,317 posts)Uff da! I have no doubt that many people who read this thread have found the photos and peered at them. Thanks a lot, trumad. You've helped that magazine by your post.
TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)Her husband's entire family has been subject to and victim of such prying for decades and she's been the focus of it, ever since someone noticed the pair of them holding hands behind the rotunda.
It's not right, but IT IS AS IT IS. Expecting anything else, is just bloody stupid.
It's the first thought that came to mind when I heard this story. And I'm a woman. It's not like this is the first time this has ever happened. If you don't want to be photographed, don't take your top off when you're outside. Those paparazzi scum are everywhere.
randome
(34,845 posts)Now where have I heard that kind of thinking before?
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)
aint_no_life_nowhere
(21,925 posts)If the papparazzi who took the shots trespassed on private property to get the photo, that's one thing. Quite another is whether the breasts could be seen from a public street. I wouldn't have an expectation of privacy if I were to open my curtains of my living room and display my nude body to the neighbors or passers by. The police wouldn't be committing a "search" for example, if they were able to see criminal activity on private property if it is in public view and then engaged in an arrest thereupon.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)You think she got what she deserved for not wearing a top in private, I think it's she deserves her privacy in a PRIVATE settting. Your position is a "blame the victim," my position is "put the blame where it belongs -- on the tabloids AND, more importantly, the people who pay to see such sleezy shit."
redqueen
(115,103 posts)So depressing to see this kind of shit rationalized here.
cynatnite
(31,011 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)It's the way of the world. You can't shame tabloids or paparazzi any more than you can shame a corporation into behaving better.
Now if anyone thinks new laws should be passed -or stricter fines- that's a different matter.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)In similar cases...I guarantee you are in for a surprise.
All elements were met, photo was taken from high point, from a public street. It sucks, but way it is.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)I'm in UK Royalty Semi-nudity heaven!
Drale
(7,932 posts)and our own sexuality, when behind closed doors we are obsessed with it. One of my favorite stores to go in is Lovers Lane because they have no problems talking sex with couples. I really wish we could be more open about who we are as humans.
alp227
(32,025 posts)I think body shaming, virginity, etc are archaic, idiotic comedies, but not basic rights of privacy.
HopeHoops
(47,675 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)have a problem with being exposed.
what messed up thinking that is.
and the long lens photographer and the magazine that violated her rights should be the ones held accountable.
Drale
(7,932 posts)why does anyone else care? Its just skin. They are just breasts, every women has them in some way. Pretty much ever man over the age of 13 has seen a set of breasts at some point in their lives.
alp227
(32,025 posts)I can't believe so many are missing the point. Whatever happened to privacy being part of human dignity? We howl and scream all day and all night on this board for years about the PATRIOT Act, wiretapping, NDAA, drone strikes, and all sorts of exploitations of OUR privacy/civil liberties, but we lose our minds just because the victim was a young hot princess?
no_hypocrisy
(46,116 posts)Last edited Fri Sep 14, 2012, 01:56 PM - Edit history (1)
Remember about 20 years ago when Fergie was also at a private residence, going around topless and letting John Bryan (financial advisor, yeah) suck on her toes. That's what led to her compulsory divorce.
You can't say that it will never happen or it will never happen again.
You can discuss ethics and decency but that won't necessarily stop a long-ranged lens from invading privacy.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Royals have been caught in candid positions before, why do they keep getting caught?
redqueen
(115,103 posts)FFS, how is this in any way defensible?
It's an invasion of privacy. Full stop.
These paparazzis are asshole vultures and they surely don't deserve to have anyone sticking up for them by making excuses about how they didn't need to trespass for their super duper lenses to help them invade someone's privacy.
Un fucking real.
alp227
(32,025 posts)FINALLY a sensible reply, see also my reply 170. I thought this forum became TMZ Underground, Porno Underground, Patriarchy Underground, Authoritarian Underground, you name it for a moment.
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)If someone climbs a tree to look into my fenced back yard to take photos of me, I would call it stalking and go to the police, regardless of who is doing it.
I am presuming that Kate was sunbathing in a reasonably private area of the villa, i.e., that one couldn't see her from the street or from the neighbor's balcony. If that is the case, these photographers would have had to go out of their way to get these photos, and that is stalking, no bones about it. Just because she's a member of the royal family doesn't mean that she's given up her rights as a member of society, and I am ashamed that so many here at DU seem to think otherwise. Very misogynistic tone to this thread.
And anyone who keeps blathering about breast being breasts can go naked down the high street tomorrow, and see if they feel so nonchalant about it when pictures of them are posted all over the internet!
muriel_volestrangler
(101,320 posts)because they know they'll make up for it in sales.
...
But these days there are raunchier titles, like Closer, Public and Voici, who unashamedly indulge in the celebrity gossip. And they budget for the legal payouts which in this case are seemingly inevitable.
A few years ago Closer was sued for invasion of privacy by Jenifer Bartoli, a well-known pop singer who featured on Star Academy.
As part of its punishment half of the magazine's front cover was blanked white, with the facts of the judgement printed in black. But for editors the fine is worth the risk.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19595796
And guess who owns the magazine?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Your friend and mine - Silvio Berlusconi!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/kate-middleton/9543098/Duchess-of-Cambridge-privacy-row-live.html
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)As the owners of the Closer brand and publishers of Closer magazine we have complained in the strongest terms to the licensee of Closer France, over the publication by them of photographs of their Royal Highnesses, Prince William and the Duchess of Cambridge.
We deplore the publication of these intrusive and offensive pictures and have asked that Closer France takes these pictures down immediately from its website and desist from publishing any further pictures.
Bauer Media and Closer UK regards publication of these photographs as a gross intrusion of their Royal Highness’ privacy.
We were not aware in advance of the purchase of these photographs or of any intention to publish. We have absolutely no control over the editorial decisions of Closer France.
In the light of their publication, we are now urgently discussing this matter with our licensee.
http://www.bauermedia.co.uk/press/news/article/statement-on-behalf-of-closer-magazine-uk
Is Bauer Media Berlusconi's too ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bauer_Media_Group
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)Both Chi and Closer are controlled by Italian publisher Mondadori, part of the media empire of former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and chaired by his daughter Marina.
Chi Editor in Chief Alfonso Signorini said the special edition would include a 26-page reportage with topless pictures of the duchess, including some unpublished shots of her vacation with Prince William, second in line to the British throne.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/09/15/uk-britain-royals-kate-italy-idUKBRE88E0AO20120915
Confirms ownership you mentioned.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)It's only her body in the pictures, why should she have a say.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts).
redqueen
(115,103 posts)And I'm sickened that anyone else feels that way, or that anyone else would even want to see them knowing that's how she feels... but that does seem to be the case, so oh well.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)oh wait... that argument just does not fly. they are still about patriarchal objectification of women and her a thing for male entertainment.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,320 posts)The Dublin-based tabloid is a joint venture between Northern & Shell - publisher of the UK Daily Star - and Ireland's Independent News and Media.
Mimi Turner, Northern & Shell's communications director, said the company "abhorred" the Irish Daily Star's decision to publish the photographs and "very much regret the distress it has caused".
"We, like St James's Palace, believe (it) to be a grotesque invasion of their privacy," she continued.
Ms Turner added that Northern & Shell were not given advance notice of the Irish Daily Star management's decision.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19611407
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)with Ireland's Independent News and Media. It is considered that doing so will lead to the closure of the the Irish Daily Star.
I have never seen such a look of anger on someone's face while being interviewed.
It is unfortunate that will lead to the loss of 100 jobs. Those affected may chose to vent their anger on their **** of an editor who chose to publish the pictures. I have a feeling their editor will become a pariah within his own industry.
It is also foreseen that the main reason none of our main UK newspapers chose to publish the pictures is that it would have led to an unprecedented loss of readership.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)making one hell of a big deal about this womans boobs.
fuckers, all of them. that we have so much disrespect for a woman.
Response to trumad (Original post)
bupkus This message was self-deleted by its author.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)person? that someone is exposed against their will and it is about YOU?
really?
Response to seabeyond (Reply #64)
bupkus This message was self-deleted by its author.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)that they put out a strong statement.
i get you do not give a shit. that is the basic disrespect so many tend to now a days.
this? middle school at best. more elementary school.
Response to seabeyond (Reply #145)
bupkus This message was self-deleted by its author.
tama
(9,137 posts)they must live in a prison so people enjoying more freedom can and should pity them.
But that's not what this is about. Hit the sleeze media where their heart is: the wallet. That's what this is about.
Response to tama (Reply #167)
bupkus This message was self-deleted by its author.
Alduin
(501 posts)The paparazzi is scum.
Stinky The Clown
(67,806 posts). . . . . Sr. Silvio Berlusconi, late of Italian Prime Ministership, and lifelong letch.
Response to Stinky The Clown (Reply #67)
bupkus This message was self-deleted by its author.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)'nuff said.
Atman
(31,464 posts)She's a "celebrity." She KNOWS paparazzi is following her EVERYWHERE. She should have chosen a more discreet location, or, better yet, just rolled with it and said "why do you care that I sunbathed topless on my vacation?" I don't see that "taste" enters into it.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Atman
(31,464 posts)And it's always "nifty" that you're there to speak up for every human on Earth. She did NOT have her "privacy invaded." She was outside, and she KNEW she was constantly stalked by paparazzi. I disagree 100% with the other poster (maybe it was you) who likened it to a paparazzi sticking his head in your window and taking a picture. COMPLETELY different thing. She is a celebrity. She was outside, obviously in view of cameras. I'm not saying she shouldn't be upset, I'm saying she shouldn't be surprised. What was she thinking? Especially after what just happened to Harry? When you are followed 24/7, THAT should be what you're upset about, not that someone finally got the picture you KNEW they were looking for.
I've been to nude beaches, but no one wants a picture of me. I am not a celebrity. But still, if I saw some dude trying to take a picture of my wife (or me, for whatever strange reason they might do that), I'd confront them. But if I KNEW, as Kate must have known, that she was likely being stalked by paparazzi, why would she put herself in that situation?
I'm tired of your bullshit, Goddess of all thing fem, telling those of us -- who, seriously, are on your side. I AM a feminist. I DO support women's rights on every level. This has NOTHING to do with that -- telling those of us that we're somehow trying to diminish your concerns, or whatever the hell you're doing. This is about Harry, just as it is about Kate, and it doesn't matter whether you have breasts (last I heard, Harry has breasts, too) or a dick, or whatever. THAT IS NOT THE POINT. It is entirely about a celebrity who put herself "out there," and then got upset that people hired to "see her" saw her.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)she is not bothered, but no.... i do not feel like i can tell her how she ought to feel.
IF this is what you are trippin about, that is not really my issue. yours.
Atman
(31,464 posts)I suggested a strategy to put the whole issue to rest, and take the outrage away from you professional outragers....she could have just come out and said, essentially, "Grow up, you idiots. I was on vacation and I took my top off. Raise your hand if you've never done the same thing." And walked away. I didn't tell her how she ought to feel. I suggested a way to shut it down.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)without picture being publized for others privilege.
really, atman? you really think that she would be bothered that we are on her side?
or maybe being told she ought to expect it and not be bothered about it....
which do you think she may find more "outrageous"
Atman
(31,464 posts)Today, this. Tomorrow, it will be something different. It really doesn't matter what I say...you seem to feel it is your duty to be outraged on behalf of all the voiceless celebrities of the world.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)lmfao
trumad
(41,692 posts)Paparazzi scum? Yes
I'm not arguing that point.
The point is--- she or he---no matter the gender, leave them selves exposed if they do it where they can be exposed.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)Atman
(31,464 posts)I just didn't say that! I'm sure you can read...point out where I said it made stalking "okay!" Please!
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)Atman
(31,464 posts)I was pretty clear in what I was saying. The courts frequently rule on "expectations of privacy." You expect privacy in your bedroom or your house, and a cameraman sticking a lens in your window is never considered okay. A celebrity on a public beach, or out on a veranda in view of cameras, when they know they are stalked 24/7 by paparazzi, probably (maybe, though, I'm not a lawyer) does not have an expectation of privacy. If you are one of the world's biggest celebrities, and want total privacy, don't put yourself out on a veranda with no top on. It has nothing to do with breasts, dicks, anything...it has to do with common sense. Do paparazzi suck? Of course! Am I defending them, as you say? Of course not! Nothing of the sort. I'm just saying, get serious...an heir to the throne took her top off when she knew she was being followed by photographers. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? You suddenly expect the paparazzi to be POLITE?
why should the paparazzi and Berlusconi be allowed to make money from her breasts?
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)
taterguy
(29,582 posts)I'm pretty sure there's no demand to see photos of me with no shirt on.
Inkfreak
(1,695 posts)"YEEEAAAAA! Let's get topless!! T-O-P-L-E-S-S!!"
Zorra
(27,670 posts)"Most Americans have no idea that what we are fed by the news media is nothing more than a portrayal of what powerful corporations want us to believe, that what happens to pass as education is as often as not mere propaganda, that what we learn in church may have very little or nothing to do with the truth, that what our parents teach us may be nothing more than an accumulation of their own personal biases, no doubt a rather subtle modification of what they were taught by their parents. And through such a process, governments and nations around the world wield control as to what their citizens, believe, value, and do."
~ Doug Soderstrom
Get over it.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)consent to have those boobs splashed on the front page. and you are telling her to "get over it". or france? cause i really do not see what it has to do with the u.s.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Although the quote itself was directed at Americans, I should have specified that it was relevant to anyone who has not really ever learned how to think for themselves.
I was not implying in any way that it was acceptable for a woman's privacy to be invaded in this way. And was not implying that Kate should "get over it". I was saying that people in general should get over the ridiculous fear of seeing breasts exposed in public.
What I was implying was that it is silly for women be forced to cover our breasts in public, and that if it were just part of every day life for women to appear topless in public, that moronic, thoughtless, greedy people would not be taking pictures of women's breasts and publishing these pictures without a woman's consent.
Seriously, why do people go all gaga over the sight of breasts. It's so juvenile.
If everyone simply viewed women going topless as no big deal, as part of "normal life", taking pictures of any topless woman would never be a reason for an idiot with a camera to invade someones privacy so that they could make money.
Don't you think it's ludicrous that it is illegal, and some kind of big deal, for women to go topless in public?
I really do; and I resent it
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)what did they do in france. they publicize a picture of a topless woman that did not give consent, to sell magazines and go all gaga over them.
so, the theory that if we just plastered breasts everywhere, that would take care of the problem, does not seem to have happened in france.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)although The Sun did print photographs of Prince Harry naked in Las Vegas," he reported. "It hardly matters, though. They will be readily available on the internet."
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/49030478/ns/today-today_news/#__utma=14933801.587364228.1346209851.1346779793.1347650604.5&__utmb=14933801.1.10.1347650604&__utmc=14933801&__utmx=-&__utmz=14933801.1347650604.5.5.utmcsr=democraticunderground.com|utmccn=%28referral%29|utmcmd=referral|utmcct=/&__utmv=14933801.|8=Earned%20By=msnbc|cover=1^12=Landing%20Content=Mixed=1^13=Landing%20Hostname=www.nbcnews.com=1^30=Visit%20Type%20to%20Content=Earned%20to%20Mixed=1&__utmk=78174228
If there was no money in it, it wouldn't happen.
Atman
(31,464 posts)...by just saying "So the fuck what?" Okay, maybe she's have to be more diplomatic than that, but the point is, SO WHAT? She was in a private villa and took her shoot off...some creep in the bushes a quarter mile away got a photo of it. SO WHAT? What is your effing problem with a woman sunning herself at her private vacation villa????
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)There is an expectation of privacy when you are in a private residence. The royals will sue and they will win. First the press had a hand in killing his mother and now going after his wife - pathetic vultures.
WI_DEM
(33,497 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Are her breasts that good?
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)Just titillation.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts) MineralMan
(146,317 posts)Very applicable here, too.
Oddly enough, though, it's a coincidence. The word derives from the Latin word for tickle.
randome
(34,845 posts)MineralMan
(146,317 posts)Words are wonderful.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)Did you go search for and look at those photos?
I did not, but you enabled others to do so, whether they knew about them in advance or not. In doing that, you helped publicize them.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)I'm looking for boobs closer to home.
And not just the ones I trip over here on D.U....
Upton
(9,709 posts)OMG!....the horror!
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)I didn't post the OP.
trumad
(41,692 posts)Nah---just kidding---I wouldn't check that place out if it was the last internet site on earth.
That place is full of dumb asses who post there now and have posted there in the past.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)I know slightly. Lenses a mile long used to take nude pictures while he was inside the house. Now this guy is not body shy at all, but he photographed looking silly and looking vein, he was in his own damn house.
It is an invasion of privacy, nothing to do with breasts or prudes. Taking those photos was a crime, yes it was, both the ones of my aquiantance and those of Kate. A crime. Those who publish such crap are usually low lives and reprobates who would do other crimes as well, tap phones for instance.
Do you say, 'if you have a phone, don't use it or assume it is tapped by Berlusconi?' It is easy to tap a cell line. It is also a crime. It is also done to famous people to invade privacy. No nudity physically. Emotionally, you bet. So do you use the same standards? Folks should assume their phones are tapped by Ruperts and no one should do a thing about it?
Just amazing how peeping toms and phone tappers are seen so differently. Folks here went to 'breats, we are prudes we are animals, men are this, women are that' and this has zip to do with nekkid and everything to do with spying and invasion of privacy.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)and this has zip to do with nekkid and everything to do with spying and invasion of privacy."
Spot fucking on.
The Link
(757 posts)Should they have privacy? Sure.
Should they know that they don't? Absolutely.
Is the really saddened? I think not.
ProdigalJunkMail
(12,017 posts)to expect any privacy? fifty meters? 150m? at what distance do you have the right to expect a little privacy? as tech improves does that distance just keep growing?
sP
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)satellite camera technology gets good enough to take hi-res candid shots...even if you're indoors...
ProdigalJunkMail
(12,017 posts)you know those little pesky drone things that our military uses to spy on and blow up people? well, as we have already seen, there are smaller, non-military versions of these things cropping up everywhere. you can mount a kick-ass camera on one of those bad-boys, ya know. just how high up can one of those things fly and take hi-res pics? i don't know, but i bet it is high enough that you cannot hear it. would THAT be a violation of privacy? i mean, at some point, airspace becomes public...
sP
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)MUCH cheaper to deploy and easier to use...But they can also be found, tracked and eventually traced to the user if flown in controlled airspace, I think...
ProdigalJunkMail
(12,017 posts)but i would not be surprised to see these things show up in the papsmearrazzi's bag of tricks.
sP
Atman
(31,464 posts)My son showed me yesterday. So far only major cities have been mapped. But apparently, they fly drones around inner cities with an array of 360 degree cameras. You can literally go down between buildings, fly around the whole city. Like "Street View," but in every direction. I wonder when they'll catch someone naked on their deck, or having sex on the roof, or shooting someone in an ally. It's a brave new world!
ProdigalJunkMail
(12,017 posts)let's say you snap a shot of the celeb du jour who would otherwise be invisible to the world were you not above them. does THAT violate their privacy? and if it does, then what is the difference from being out of sight to anyone or anything other than a high-powered telephoto lens?
sP
Atman
(31,464 posts)Personally, I don't think it is "right" to publish the photos. As in, it just isn't morally right. It is a scummy, low-rent thing to do. But, and this is where seabeyond especially, and a few others, are missing the point I'm making; we KNOW the scum paparazzi are in business to be scum. We KNOW a crack dealer is not looking out for your best interest. We KNOW Mitt Romney is only about getting himself more tax breaks. When you KNOW what your adversary is all about, you really can't (or shouldn't) be shocked when they do what they do. You step into a lion cage, don't be surprised if a lion attacks you. As much as abhor what they do, I don't see paparazzi as being much different. I'm not saying it's right, contrary to what seabeyond saying, I'm not saying it is your fault if some scumbag violates your privacy. I'm saying that if you are a celebrity and you know you are stalking all the time by paparazzi, you take every precaution to protect your privacy, with the realization that if you do something like get naked in public, someone just be interested in it. Personally, no one has ever cared that I've been to a nude beach, so I rarely give it much thought. But I'm not an heir to the British throne.
ProdigalJunkMail
(12,017 posts)and acknowledge beforehand that it is absurd.
you make the effort to secure your home, your family, your possessions and papers. we have laws to protect your right to do that and to punish those would would violate your efforts to gain access to said items. everyone has those rights (in the USA). if i have a right to snap your image (naked or not) despite the fact that you have made reasonable efforts to NOT be photographed, isn't that a violation as well? what if i gain access to your medical records because someone didn't check EVERY POSSIBLE hack? i mean, they are on a computer attached to the public intertubes...
should you have to live like a prisoner (or a nun) to avoid having some sleazebag attempt to make money off your image? if the paparazzi are everywhere, is the whole fucking world your 'lion cage'? can you have no privacy? ever? you cannot even stand on your veranda (or in my case, porch) without being photographed? that is a shitty world... i think it should be changed.
privacy should be something we can obtain...even outdoors. not on a public street or other public place, but on private property? i think so.
sP
Atman
(31,464 posts)You can't release my medical records, you can't clandestinely photograph me from outside my home, or, if you did, you are legally bound to get a release in order to publish the photo. This is where it gets troublesome for celebrity -- courts have repeatedly ruled that you give up a certain level of expectation to privacy if you are celebrity. You are FAMOUS. You make your living off of being seen. People pay you every day to appear in films and pictures...other people make money off of you appearing in said pictures. You exist to be seen. Your chosen profession (after all, no one forced you to seek an acting career) involved being photographed, and dealing with paparazzi. That is why big stars have big bodyguards.
Also, there are laws against being recorded clandestinely, and you can't release my tax returns without my permission, etc, etc. There are actually quite a few laws against the stuff you mentioned. But again, not so much if you choose to be a big celebrity. Sad that it may be. Because yes, these people should be afforded some degree of privacy. It would suck to have to live like that. But it's the "business" of being super famous.
ProdigalJunkMail
(12,017 posts)your papers are secure... as are the celebrity's papers. i believe their image should be as well. i guess i am just an old fuddy duddy. everyone should be able to say, 'i don't want to be photographed today. i will be staying out of public view because today it is my desire to do so.' and when that is said (or implied by going to a private villa where someone had to use a massive telephoto lens to take your image) it should be honored and in my opinion protected by law.
my world also has skittles falling from rainbows...
sP
Atman
(31,464 posts)Where do you fit in a photographer paid money by a corporation?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)every angle to ensure they had the privacy for her to go topless without anyone getting a photo. and oooops, they didnt see that tree half a mile away, that angled perfectly, got between the other two trees.
wtf was she thinking taking off the top to sunbathes. she should EXPECT to get got.
ProdigalJunkMail
(12,017 posts)a little photo-drone would do nicely...and you don't have to worry about falling and breaking your neck...
sP
Atman
(31,464 posts)You want to ignore every other aspect of her celebrity. And what I said before about the entire attitude about this. SO THE F*CK WHAT! I bet the Prince had his shirt off! Yes, they certainly should be able to have total privacy everywhere. I should, too. I don't. You don't. And we're not world-wide celebrities. You keep wanting to frame this as a violation on all women, like "if you wore short-shorts and a tube top, you were asking to be raped." But I'm not saying ANYTHING LIKE THAT at all. You are trying to conflate this into some sort of women's rights issue again, just because the "victim" has breasts. I'm saying, it has nothing to do with her breasts. I guarantee that the paparazzi were following the couple anyway, and taking pictures anyway, and she certainly must have know that. I'm not saying she should not have been able to sunbathe topless. And she didn't "deserve" to be "got," as you say. She is an intelligent woman and knew she was being stalked by photographers all the time. There are times I know that I can swim naked off my dock, because no one is around, or it is 1 am and dark, whatever. But if I got caught, I wouldn't blame the person who caught me for invading my privacy. I'd have to say, oops...I guess I wasn't as alone as I thought. My bad.
ProdigalJunkMail
(12,017 posts)i do. and no, it's not about her breasts. if you make a reasonable effort to be alone, you should be able to be alone and not be in fear of being photographed at any time. it is no wonder celebs say they feel like they are in a prison when it comes to the paparazzi. they cannot live their lives without having to constantly look over their shoulders and even then, someone finds a way to thwart their efforts at being left alone.
sP
Atman
(31,464 posts)How do you define "a reasonable effort to be left alone?" Again, you and I will probably never have to worry about this. But you know what, if someone hires a PI to follow you, do you have "a reasonable effort to be left alone?" And, sadly, the DO have to live their lives constantly having to look over their shoulders, because they're crazy famous! People WANT to see them. By virtue of their celebrity, they have become a commodity, and people are willing to pay big money for a simple photograph. Again, won't happen to you or me, but we're not Brad Pitt, or Prince Harry, or Kate. There is a reason lots of famous books have been written on this subject. Celebrity sounds cool when you're not one...but you sell yourself for the privilege. We get into several layers, here. Is it "right?" No. Do sharks eat helpless seals? Yup.
ProdigalJunkMail
(12,017 posts)preach it... but i do think it should be a right...as you will see in my other response to you just now.
sP
appleannie1
(5,067 posts)
Xithras
(16,191 posts)My backyard is surrounded by tall hedges and solid fences. There is no way anyone can see in without really working to get a view.
If someone snuck a camera over the fence and posted nude pix of my wife or daughter on the Internet..well, they'd need an ER when I was done with them. The jailtime would be well earned.
liberal N proud
(60,335 posts)Too much prudishness.
brooklynite
(94,585 posts)...which is, WHY IS THIS AN ISSUE?
Unless someone's heard an allegation that she was cavorting in the back yard with the pool boy, I assume she was sunbathing; in which case, so what? This happens all the time in Europe (France especially) where shipping the Puritans over here seems to have made a world of difference. There will always be Paparazzi, and there will always be gossip hounds, but why is this worth getting worked up about?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)womans nudity against her wants for their entertainment as you point the finger at all the prudes. it sounds like your french are the ones that made a big deal about this. if nudity was not an issue, they would not have felt the need to put on the front page.
so.... it is kates problem because she does not want to be nude for the public? really? she is not allowed to not be exposed because nudity is not an issue, as people make it an issue putting it on the front page because the nonprudes gotta have their right to all peoples nudity?
what sense does this make.
no one is outraged that... gasp... kate has boobs or chose to sun bathe without a top. she and others are outraged because she does not have the right to do it in private, but the public feels they have the right to her naked.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)sort of refutes your OP right there.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)I'd bet that the royals will sue and win big.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)Thing is, that will keep the photos in the news.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)pants off, in light of the role which the paparazzi played in his mother's death.
It's not about the photos as much as it is about payback, and I hope he collects BIG.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)Royal aides drew parallels between Diana's most upsetting encounters with certain elements of the press and the "unthinkable" actions of the French magazine Closer, which left Kate and William feeling "anger and disbelief".
And tonight the palace announced that lawyers would be pursuing the matter through the French courts.
In a short statement, the palace said: "St James's Palace confirms that legal proceedings for breach of privacy have been commenced today in France by the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge against the publishers of Closer Magazine France."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/royals-launch-legal-action-after-topless-kate-middleton-photographs-in-french-closer-magazine-8138710.html
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Thanks for the update.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Where precedent would protect the photographer.
Sorry kids, that's the way it s in the US...tripple so when make money from public light.
(And that does not mean it is right or wrong or moral, or any other buzz words du jour)
But French law might be different.
Blue Idaho
(5,049 posts)Perhaps we should condem the perpetrators instead of the victims?
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)when you are on private property. She wasn't on the beach at St. Tropez, in which case she would have no cause for complaint.
If she sues, I suspect she will win on the grounds of invasion of privacy. As well she should.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I guarantee you are in for a shock.
It has zero to do with morality or any other buzz word.
And there are cases like this one, similar conditions, photo taken over a wall, on high point, from public road, every so often.
Oh and yes expectations of privacy and all that come up too.
At least in the US part of it is the other, not to be discussed by me any longer, subject du jour are also part of the argument.
tama
(9,137 posts)her own fucking royal tits. If paparazzi and filth media and public don't respect her fucking royal privacy, the least she can do is try to stop the fucking paparazzi and filth media from making money from her royal tits. Her tits, make the papparazzi and filth media pay for making them public.
randome
(34,845 posts) seabeyond
(110,159 posts)
redqueen
(115,103 posts)
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)I guess there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the world anymore. If someone wants to spy on you, they will. WOW.
Very creepy photo.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)is considered to be that of a sniper doing the same.
Notwithstanding that it was a shit thing to do. 
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)And not expect some jackhole with a 3 foot long telephoto lens capable of taking pictures from over 2 miles away to snap pictures of you and sell them to the highest bidding smut peddler!
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)and if I were them I would say they weren't. That they were fakes.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)paparazzi understand?
NashvilleLefty
(811 posts)I guess she "deserved it", huh?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)or that she has no right to privacy.
when did we become this world
where every one has the right to invade anothers privacy.
camera in a hotel room, dressing room, bathroom cool too? cause we should know, there is no moment of private, anymore.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)...and some peeping tom takes pictures.
Is that OK?
I'm with Kate on this one.
