Kate middle issue, royal family sues, and freedom of the press problem

[Minikin]

so just read about what happened to kate middleton. topless photos posted in a french magansine. And now the royal family is sueing this magasine for privacy infringement. My query is, if the reports claim freedom of speech and such as a defense do you think its correct. Not lawfully correct but morally correct. This is right after the events happening in the mid east due to a movie (not condoning the actions of burning embassies or anything) but it almost seems that everytime a reporter or press does something like this they run behind the covers yelling "freedom of speech! freedom of speech!". Does society care anymore that its a freedom and right but it doesnt mean unabashed slander or that words can actually hurt or insult someone, cause damage (not damage as stick and stones and what not, but damage as in causing sparks such as in the mid east).

I mean as a fairly black and white scenario. Lets say guy A bad mouths guy B on the street. Turns out guy B is alot stronger and a kickboxing champion. Guy b beats the living snot out of guy A. guy A claims assault, guy B claims provocation. What would have stopped guy A from slandering guy B, given that guy B had done nothing to provoke him in the first place. And if the answer is "everything, cuz guy A acted on his on account" then how come society can just the "freedom of speech" umbrella be a constant get out of jail free card?

thoughts?

[Serpenth]

Are the pics on the net? Or only the magazine? I want to see!

[NoRest4Wicked]

Just google Kate Middleton Topless Photos and go into images.

[endersblade]

Just google Kate Middleton Topless Photos and go into images.

Yup, that's so full of win right there.

[Themius]

Where were the pictures? Were they legally attained?

[Deleted]

The above responses are pretty typical. xD

---------- Post added 2012-09-15 at 04:09 AM ----------

Okay so I caved.
Nothing special really.

[Minikin]

lol u goons! at least answer my question! (o.0)!!!

[Sj]

France has pretty tough privacy laws. Besides that, they did have an expectation of privacy being that they were located on private property.

[geewhiz80]

I'd imagine if she were on a public topless beach then I would think she would be outta luck. If it were some guy taking pictures somewhere private where she should have a reasonable amount of privacy then I could see them having to pay.

[Jokerfiend]

France has pretty tough privacy laws. Besides that, they did have an expectation of privacy being that they were located on private property.

Sorry, if you are in your home and happen to accidentally have your blinds open, and walk around the house naked. Then you are liable if someone happens you view you. They are CONSTANTLY stalked by reporters salivating at the chances for shots. They knowingly went outside, naked.

Now, they can expect privacy issues, if they got shot inside. Not outside stark ass naked. Sorry. That's asking for trouble. People in the THAT position know better.

[Minikin]

Sorry, if you are in your home and happen to accidentally have your blinds open, and walk around the house naked. Then you are liable if someone happens you view you. They are CONSTANTLY stalked by reporters salivating at the chances for shots. They knowingly went outside, naked.

Now, they can expect privacy issues, if they got shot inside. Not outside stark ass naked. Sorry. That's asking for trouble. People in the THAT position know better.

what if they were in their private area, and got taken pictures off. does that not count as privacy breach?

besides whatever happened to the "hey im about to take this action, it might offend this person lets no do it", people seem to have eradicated that concept.

[DEATHETERNAL]

besides whatever happened to the "hey im about to take this action, it might offend this person lets no do it", people seem to have eradicated that concept.

Care for money > care for how anyone feels.

[Twotonsteak]

Sorry, if you are in your home and happen to accidentally have your blinds open, and walk around the house naked. Then you are liable if someone happens you view you. They are CONSTANTLY stalked by reporters salivating at the chances for shots. They knowingly went outside, naked.

Now, they can expect privacy issues, if they got shot inside. Not outside stark ass naked. Sorry. That's asking for trouble. People in the THAT position know better.

This is all dependent on easy access. If Kate Middleton was on an enclosed property, requiring the offending photographer to climb up and look over a fence to even see her, then she is entitled to an expectation of privacy. Likewise if the property she was on was so vast as to require the photographer to trespass to get the shots then, again, she is entitled to an expectation of privacy.

If, however, she was walking around bare for the world to see, with no barrier to protect her (whether that barrier be a fence, land, ect), then she has lost her expectation of privacy.

[Jokerfiend]

This is all dependent on easy access. If Kate Middleton was on an enclosed property, requiring the offending photographer to climb up and look over a fence to even see her, then she is entitled to an expectation of privacy. Likewise if the property she was on was so vast as to require the photographer to trespass to get the shots then, again, she is entitled to an expectation of privacy.

If, however, she was walking around bare for the world to see, with no barrier to protect her (whether that barrier be a fence, land, ect), then she has lost her expectation of privacy.

It was taken in premise of the property. Though it was still taken with a high powered lens. Sorry, if I looked out my deck, knew about where Kate was at, and got that shot. I would have taken it and walked with my money.

[Aeka]

This is all dependent on easy access. If Kate Middleton was on an enclosed property, requiring the offending photographer to climb up and look over a fence to even see her, then she is entitled to an expectation of privacy. Likewise if the property she was on was so vast as to require the photographer to trespass to get the shots then, again, she is entitled to an expectation of privacy.

If, however, she was walking around bare for the world to see, with no barrier to protect her (whether that barrier be a fence, land, ect), then she has lost her expectation of privacy.

That actually seems to be what the French privacy law states. If she'd been topless on the beach at Cannes, or even on a balcony in clear view of other places up and down a beach, the pics would be good. Essentially if a person is flaunting, they're fair game.

If they have an expectation of privacy, they're not. Big trouble for this magazine.

---------- Post added 2012-09-15 at 12:24 AM ----------

The good news? To me it shows a nice couple in love. They're only going to help her and Will's popularity.

[Deleted]

What if that had been a snipers scope rather than a camera? The secret service needs a good wake up call.

[Minikin]

What if that had been a snipers scope rather than a camera? The secret service needs a good wake up call.

thats actually a fairly frightening prospect. havent thought of that

[chazus]

Problems in the middle east: Important problems and things that need attention

Stuff regarding Kate Middleton, photos, magazines and lawsuits: Seriously? Why do people even give a frak?

[Thelxi]

Royal boobies

[EyelessCrow]

Think they were on private property but still. Part of the royal family so you have zero expectation of privacy, especially tanning topless outside. That whole thing is their personal business and the only comment I can make about it is I don't find her being very smart doing that and being surprised about what happened.

I'd hate to pay a royal family tax that basically does nothing for the country but PR and the PR is usually bad anyway.