Privacy and the Britsh Monarchy - Harry + Kate

[Deleted]

<Snip>
I don't think much of my original point about privacy invasion is affected either. Their job is an extremely high profile and public one (my grumbling addition that the British public partly funds royalty was merely an irate addition from a hot-air filled Republican) and they or anyone else shouldn't be surprised that this makes a lot of people curious about other, more private aspects of their lives and that jobs are created to fill the demand from consumers for snippets of insight and information about celebrity figures. Paparazzi only do what they do because it is profitable.

This is the part that really gets my cogs turning when people mistakenly think that we (the public) 100% fund the royal family. It is when you read into things a lot more complex than the government just "writing a blank cheque" so to speak. There is land throughout the country which is owned by the crown, this is farmed and lived on by regular people which provides a lot of income, as well as the income from all the stately homes. Many of the "minor" royals have there own business's which provide them their own income. There is also the money that the Royals donate to charity, I would need to go research this but I am pretty sure that they donate more money to charity per year , than they receive from the government.

[Kalis]

I'd rather we didn't. I'm not sure what kind of concession you're hoping to get. I'm just saying there's not much one can do. This sort of thing is going to happen to people who willingly live their lives in the spot light, like it or not, and as long as any laws aren't broken (I'm not sure if they were, just arguing from a standpoint assuming they haven't been), there's not much more to say than, "Oh well.". If it really bothers them, they'll just have to try harder. Doesn't mean one has to like it or condone it.

The legal system shouldn't have to legislate a need to behave responsibly, but if we can't do so, then it has no other choice but to get involved.

European personal rights are slightly different from some other countries, in that you can behave how you want, unless your behaviour infringes on other peoples rights.

[koodledrum]

I think you and a lot of other people are missing the point, She was photographed in private. Sure when they are involved in something that is in the interest the public domain, or on public property then yes they have absolutely zero right to privacy, exactly like every other man woman and child on the planet.

How would you feel if you where a woman bathing topless in your garden, only to find that someone took some photo's then uploaded them to the web so that everyone could see them, now imagine they done this without your permission and the first you find out about it is when someone tells you.

This is not about who they are, it is about what has happened. The Press, Paparazzi, Glossy Chat Magazines, Whatever Have Absolutely no right at all to go round photographing anyone when they are in a private residence. however once they are in public they are "free game"

you didn't read the whole post did you, I stated several times that while I don't like paparazzi journalism, it's not something you can do a damn thing about but once the photos are there, it's fair game - shit as it may be that's just the way life is, my point was against the monarchy being held as better than any other person when they are not.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

Paparazzi are among the lowest forms of human life. They are pretty much the sole reason why I have no ambition to become famous.

[Deleted]

The legal system shouldn't have to legislate a need to behave responsibly, but if we can't do so, then it has no other choice but to get involved.

European personal rights are slightly different from some other countries, in that you can behave how you want, unless your behaviour infringes on other peoples rights.

I was having a nosey at the European Convention of Human Rights (which have been worked into UK law) and it seems that privacy laws are deliberately ambiguous. But, where would it go if we decided to make privacy laws more defined and what would be crossing the legal line? Taking and/or publishing pictures of someone on their own property without consent? Surely that would lead to something like the British Isles being a blurred out blob on Google Maps, which I would see as a lot more internationally embarrassing than a couple of candid pics of royal orbs.

This is the part that really gets my cogs turning when people mistakenly think that we (the public) 100% fund the royal family. It is when you read into things a lot more complex than the government just "writing a blank cheque" so to speak. There is land throughout the country which is owned by the crown, this is farmed and lived on by regular people which provides a lot of income, as well as the income from all the stately homes. Many of the "minor" royals have there own business's which provide them their own income. There is also the money that the Royals donate to charity, I would need to go research this but I am pretty sure that they donate more money to charity per year , than they receive from the government.

Yeah, it's an interesting subject for discussion and the arguments for pragmatism over blind ideology at times can be rather convincing. I'm pretty sure I didn't think that royal income was exclusively from public money (was just broadcasting my beef with any of their income being from it), at least, I hope I didn't.
Being for or against the monarchy is really just a point of ideology because the arguments in favour of keeping an active monarchy around or not are strongly in the Windsors' favour.

Edit: Also, forgot to say. Never be discouraged from rebutting something I say just because I am a mod. I enjoy debate and appreciate being called out on stuff if I'm wrong.

[oblivionx]

If you don't want naked pictures of you taken, don't be naked in public?

[Solidito]

A PRIVATE holiday should be just that, it's their private time and they can do what they like. Imo the paparatzi should not be allowed to post stuff from their private time, tbh it surely is close to stalking isn't it..no one finds this weird?

[Deleted]

A walking cane made from the bones of baby seals in one hand

I so totally want one of them now... and the three boobs...

[Soxxy]

Paparazzi are just stalkers with cameras in my books, they should be outlawed globally. All these scumbags contribute to is ruining lives and giving photographers a bad name.

Newspapers need to stop printing this drivel too, I think we all found out that men have dangly bits and that women have nipples thousands of years ago. It's not news.

[Deadvolcanoes]

Photographers wouldn't be taking their pictures if the public didn't want to see these pictures. I find it to be disgusting, and yet after I type this, I'm going to google "Kate Middleton Topless," cause yeah.....

[MerinPally]

If you don't want naked pictures of you taken, don't be naked in public?

It wasn't in public in Kates case. Even Harry's was semi hidden at a party in LA.

In Kates case they were in an extremely remote and rural area of France with no other buildings anywhere near and she was sunbathing with her top off. To get those pictures, the photographers had to go out to some remote rural hills with nothing anywhere near them, and specifically go out of their way for it to happen.

---------- Post added 2012-09-14 at 03:37 PM ----------

Photographers wouldn't be taking their pictures if the public didn't want to see these pictures. I find it to be disgusting, and yet after I type this, I'm going to google "Kate Middleton Topless," cause yeah.....

I already did that, couldn't find anything. Yet. Was this morning though.

[Kalis]

I was having a nosey at the European Convention of Human Rights (which have been worked into UK law) and it seems that privacy laws are deliberately ambiguous. But, where would it go if we decided to make privacy laws more defined and what would be crossing the legal line? Taking and/or publishing pictures of someone on their own property without consent? Surely that would lead to something like the British Isles being a blurred out blob on Google Maps, which I would see as a lot more internationally embarrassing than a couple of candid pics of royal orbs.

Privacy laws have to be ambiguous in order to allow intrusion that is in the public interest. The problem is that if the ambiguity is exploited for reasons other than the public interest, then the law will become stricter.

With the current feeling towards press intrusion in Britain, primarily caused by the phone hacking scandal, then further occurrences like this may actually end up screwing the system for real journalism.

[koodledrum]

I'm pretty sure google are censoring the content displayed for fear of being sued over here where the amount would be larger than the €10-15k they can expect to win from any case in France. Also, it's one thing to say it wasn't in public, but she was kinda on a balcony - now while I agree it's a private residence, c'mon man we all know there's camera phones everywhere these days, if you don't want that shit being snapped, don't go to a place where it can be snapped - open air should be your first alarm bell ringing!

[semaphore]

Well, if they are not violating the law

They are. You don't get to photograph somebody in the privacy of a private residency with special equipment.

I whole-heartedly agree with this, if they don't like it they can always abdicate

Do you even know what that word means?

[Soxxy]

With the current feeling towards press intrusion in Britain, primarily caused by the phone hacking scandal, then further occurrences like this may actually end up screwing the system for real journalism.

It may limit proper news photographers in some ways, but I think that it's a necessity now. Magizines are almost entirely filled with tripe today; naked people, underwear, pictures of celebrities' children, mocking women for being "fat". People are getting large paychecks for this crap, and real photography/journalism are largely ignored.

[semaphore]

If you don't want naked pictures of you taken, don't be naked in public?

But they weren't? At pretend to read the article before deciding that she brought it on herself.

[Deadvolcanoes]

They are. You don't get to photograph somebody in the privacy of a private residency with special equipment.

Privacy laws differ in every state/country. Would be interesting to know exactly what they are in this case.

In America, I'm not so sure this would be illegal, only for the fact that they are outdoors, but I could be wrong.

[semaphore]

I'm pretty sure google are censoring the content displayed for fear of being sued over here where the amount would be larger than the €10-15k they can expect to win from any case in France. Also, it's one thing to say it wasn't in public, but she was kinda on a balcony - now while I agree it's a private residence, c'mon man we all know there's camera phones everywhere these days, if you don't want that shit being snapped, don't go to a place where it can be snapped - open air should be your first alarm bell ringing!

They used long lens cameras to take the photos from god knows how far away. That's got nothing to do with camera phones.

I'm fine with saying when you're in public, you're fair game. But the tabloids have stretched "visible from the streets" beyond all reasonable interpretation.

---------- Post added 2012-09-14 at 03:07 PM ----------

Privacy laws differ in every state/country. Would be interesting to know exactly what they are in this case.

France has some of the strictest privacy laws in the world. This is clearly illegal under French laws.

In America, I'm not so sure this would be illegal, only for the fact that they are outdoors, but I could be wrong.

Try peeping into the bathroom windows of your neighbour and see what the police does when they show up. Then repeat with a camera and call yourself a "journalist".

[MerinPally]

An update - Wills and Kate are going to sue Closer magazine.

[Kolossal]

Misunderstood the question.