Why does the Royal Family care about topless photos?

[Alcsaar]

I actually feel stupider for reading this. Do you really believe this, or just trying to defend an indefensible point bloody mindedly because you do not wish to admit your wrong?

Your argument about a police officer is a strawman to say the least, and has absolutely no relevance whatsoever in this case. The girl (ignore the fact that she is a celebrity/royal member) was taking part in an action on private land, and in a private area, thus she has a right to privacy. Attempting to argue that because a photo was taken on a public space is ludicrous to say the least. Many times have invasion of privacy cases such as this caused the offender to be forced to pay damages to the the *victim*. The only reason these papparazi take pics such as these, is because they know full well whilst they will have to pay out, (or the paper will), but they will receive payment for said pictures well above what it will cost them in court.

I already made my reply about this subject. I won't admit I'm wrong because there is no right or wrong to this "case". Its entirely opinion based.

[semaphore]

Decided to delete and repost after checking google for more citations of the distances.

a public road about half a mile from this chateau

Regardless, it shouldn't matter. If you're with in the public eye FROM A PUBLIC ACCESS POINT, and you engage in something you'd rather not them see, that is your own fault.

The Sunday Times says 0.8 mile. There's apparently another photographer who took decent photos from about half a mile out, but in any case half a mile is the minimum distance I can find on google.

However, even half a mile out is still a very substantial distance out. You can't even see her properly with your naked eye at that distance. Those photographers had to use special equipment, and probably climbed some trees, to even take the photos. Insisting that it is "from a public access point" while ignoring the fact that it is, again, at a distance beyond all reasonable expectations of privacy, is called stretching the truth beyond recognition.




Anyone within those walls is not within the public's eye by any reasonable measure.

Its the same reason a cop has every right to arrest you if they look in your car and see illegal objects from outside

That is ridiculous and absurd. The paparazzi is not police or any sort of lawful authority. Nor is sunbathing "illegal" or anything of remotely any public interest.

---------- Post added 2012-09-16 at 10:34 AM ----------

Its a public road does hold up. Lets say its a random guy that just happens to be taking photos in the area when he snaps them in his lens. Suddenly he can be accused and charged for voyuerism?

You're dishonestly misrepresenting the facts to argue an indefensible point. A random guy randomly taking photos in the area will not be able to get anything remotely close to such pictures. He'd have to be using special, extra-long range cameras, standing at the optimal spot, and aiming in a very specific dirdection to even find her.

Do you have no conception of just how far a mile actually is, or are you just hoping that nobody else will realise you can't actually see someone with your naked eyes from a kilometre away?

Or if I hopped in front of a photographer nude, suddenly its the PHOTOGRAPHERS fault?

straw man.

It might seem unlikely, but its innocent until proven guilty for a reason.

The photos proved the photographer guilty.

[Palmatum]

Not really getting the problem here. So what. She was sunbathing topless. Its not like she was caught having an affair or something.

Making it a bigger deal then it even needs to be. Unless thats their entire goal...

I can't imagine many people being pleased with nude or partially nude photos of them being published...

[Deleted]

"Derp, we are royal, we get special priveledge because we were born in a family that ruled to long in a democracy"

This.

Porn everywhere, naked pictures and nippleslips of nearly every celebrity on the web. And just because shes royal everyone starts to cry because they probably got traumatised by those godawfull ugly tats of her. Did u see em? They look like 2 molten Oompa Loompa babies.

[sulfuric]

Not really getting the problem here. So what. She was sunbathing topless. Its not like she was caught having an affair or something.

Making it a bigger deal then it even needs to be. Unless thats their entire goal...

When you don't want the entire world to see your tits, and the entire world is looking at your tits. That is why the Royal family cares.

[Deleted]

I can't imagine many people being pleased with nude or partially nude photos of them being published...

U know that when ur a celeb, the cockroaches are coming for u. Its just a matter of time before they get u. They lost, cockroaches won. End of story.

[semaphore]

More photos to illustrate the ridiculous, shamelessly self-serving, downright inane claim that these illegal photos are somehow justified because it is visible from a public road. I don't believe anyone can honestly say that standing on a hill or climbing up a tree to stare into someone else's home with a high powered telescope is acceptable behaviour, public road or not. It shouldn't be different just because you do it with a telescopic camera or that the victim of your voyeurism is famous.

I mean, seriously here. You can barely even see the chateau.

[Puck]

U know that when ur a celeb, the cockroaches are coming for u. Its just a matter of time before they get u. They lost, cockroaches won. End of story.

You don't seem to understand that the French have different privacy laws than you.

[semaphore]

"Derp, we are royal, we get special priveledge because we were born in a family that ruled to long in a democracy"

This is so stupidly ironic, I feel like I've lost brain cells just from reading it. You can't bash her for wanting the "special" privilege of having the same basic human and legal rights that you and every other normal person are entitled to.

[Catta]

Uh, really?

Its the only Royal family the world even remotely cares about anymore. Kate And Prince Williams.


How modern in that rock you're livin under?

Right - so what do you count as "the world"?

[Deleted]

Why do they care?

Why should any of us care?
1. Personal Privacy
2. Decency
3. And most importantly... The Human Rights act:
Article 5: Right to Liberty
Protocol No 1 - Article 1

All these apply and what happened to the royal family on their "private ground" is a gross and despicable violation of their privacy, royal or not, celebrity or average joe, we all have guaranteed rights which were breeched in this particular care. Moot!

[Kalis]

From an English standpoint; I don't really have no problem with the photographer taking the pictures if he thought that what he was doing was in the public interest.

However, as the photos showed her doing nothing illegal or behaving in a hypocritical way to her public statements (such as having an affair whilst public preaching the sanctity of marriage), they should have been destroyed as soon as the photographer realised they weren't in the public interest.

That he sold them, and magazines and newspapers are publishing them, makes the entire episode an a disgrace.

[Deleted]

Serves them right for plaguing my TV with their stupid wedding, for 3 weeks.

[Deleted]

Not really getting the problem here. So what. She was sunbathing topless. Its not like she was caught having an affair or something.

Making it a bigger deal then it even needs to be. Unless thats their entire goal...

Same reason anyone does and doesn't want their picture published in news papers.

[Deleted]

IS no one else concerned that it could have been a snipers scope rather than a camera? Royal protection failed big time.

[Deleted]

IS no one else concerned that it could have been a snipers scope rather than a camera? Royal protection failed big time.

Well, to be fair to the CP teams, there's only so far you can project security and given the range and accuracy of modern weapons systems it's a big ask to secure an area that large.

[Deleted]

Dissolves the whole superior etiquette that surrounds the royal family I guess.

If that's the case then I only support this 'scandal' since it shatters their superiority complex a bit.

[semaphore]

If that's the case then I only support this 'scandal' since it shatters their superiority complex a bit.

Yes, demanding to have the same rights as you is totally a "superiority complex". How dare those snobby royals expect to be treated like an ordinary human being with a corresponding legal protection of human rights?

[Tzalix]

The only ones that can be blamed is the media. Their job is no longer to report news, it's rather to report nonsense and then make it seem like a much bigger deal than it is.

[Palmatum]

"Derp, we are royal, we get special priveledge because we were born in a family that ruled to long in a democracy"

This.

Porn everywhere, naked pictures and nippleslips of nearly every celebrity on the web. And just because shes royal everyone starts to cry because they probably got traumatised by those godawfull ugly tats of her. Did u see em? They look like 2 molten Oompa Loompa babies.

"Nip slips" getting out of a limo in a public area are one thing... Standing 500m away with a telephoto lense taking pictures of someone on private property is just wrong.