Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Duchess Catherine photographed topless...A breach of privacy? Options · View
MarySweets
Posted: Monday, September 17, 2012 6:28:55 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/5/2012
Posts: 292
Location: In my fantastic mind, Australia
I just read this article on Prince William's wife Catherine taking legal action against a magazine publication of paparazzi photos of a topless Catherine.

The royals will take it to court as in breach of privacy and the defenders said something along the lines that it wasn't a breach of privacy.

So guess is the paparazzis taking it to far by posting to the world topless photos of Duchess Catherine?

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/8534261/british-royals-sue-as-kate-pics-spread-to-italy

"Sexual pleasure in woman is a kind of magic spell; it demands complete abandon; if words or movements oppose the magic of caresses, the spell is broken."

Simone de Beauvoir
blazestcyr
Posted: Monday, September 17, 2012 6:39:07 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/19/2011
Posts: 737
Location: where bugs die
i totally believe it should be against the LAW to photograph any person at a private party...naked or otherwise...to make MONEY for oneself

regardless of her royal status....these pics of anyone naked is a breach of privacy and makes me sick

as i i have said before i skinny dip in my pool all the time..it is MY right to be safe in my own backyard...

good question mary!
Guest
Posted: Monday, September 17, 2012 6:41:55 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 659,414
Totally shocking!!! she is our future queen FFS
MarySweets
Posted: Monday, September 17, 2012 6:49:09 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/5/2012
Posts: 292
Location: In my fantastic mind, Australia
I think it is sad royality or a celebrity people can not enjoy their own thing while in private. Out shopping or walking down the street having photos taken is one thing.

Being topless or naked and having photos taken just for the sake of $$$$$$ is sickening. I can just imagine the horror and humliation the couple are feeling because they are just normal human beings enjoying a hot summers day in each others company as husband and wife doing what most husband and wives do in private.



"Sexual pleasure in woman is a kind of magic spell; it demands complete abandon; if words or movements oppose the magic of caresses, the spell is broken."

Simone de Beauvoir
She
Posted: Monday, September 17, 2012 8:35:38 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/24/2010
Posts: 2,546
Location: Europe
Why is it sad?

They wanted fame, they wanted money that comes with fame, so.. I have no sympathy for their whining how they have no privacy. They have chosen their lifestyle, they are more than well paid for it, so they need to suck it up with consequences of the lifestyle they have chosen. The same goes for 'poor royalty' living off their taxpaying people's money. If you want to be a princess, living off someones money, than sweetie, suck it up and act like princess. If it's inappropriately to be topless, than she shouldn't be topless where people can see her.
Guest
Posted: Monday, September 17, 2012 11:05:58 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 659,414
Its not about the fame money or lifestyle, It has just gone a bit to far when they cant enjoy moments of privacy! .........even a princess is allowed just a little bit of that surely.......public eye or not!
elitfromnorth
Posted: Monday, September 17, 2012 11:27:20 AM

Rank: Brawling Berserker

Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,635
Location: Burrowed, Norway
She wrote:
Why is it sad?

They wanted fame, they wanted money that comes with fame, so.. I have no sympathy for their whining how they have no privacy. They have chosen their lifestyle, they are more than well paid for it, so they need to suck it up with consequences of the lifestyle they have chosen. The same goes for 'poor royalty' living off their taxpaying people's money. If you want to be a princess, living off someones money, than sweetie, suck it up and act like princess. If it's inappropriately to be topless, than she shouldn't be topless where people can see her.


Statistics show that Royal families tend to grant the country more income than they actually spend through their representation and how their sort of shallow visits gives a great opportunity for some backroom dealing between nations. Not to mention all the commercial a country get from a state visit. Very few countries have Royal families, thus being visited by a king, queen or any other member of the royal family will help front the country in a way that a president or prime minister couldn't. So to say that they're leeching off the tax payers is a truth with very much needed modification.

And as far as the two royal princes and their families are concerened; even if they distanced themselves from the royal family and William denounced his right to be an heir the paparazzis would still follow them. He was born into a life of celebrety, he didn't choose it. And we all have a right to privacy. She wasn't there as a representative of the country, thus she has her right to privacy, especially since the photographer stood 1 km away to take the snapshot...

"It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."
She
Posted: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:32:39 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/24/2010
Posts: 2,546
Location: Europe
elitfromnorth wrote:


Statistics show that Royal families tend to grant the country more income than they actually spend through their representation and how their sort of shallow visits gives a great opportunity for some backroom dealing between nations. Not to mention all the commercial a country get from a state visit. Very few countries have Royal families, thus being visited by a king, queen or any other member of the royal family will help front the country in a way that a president or prime minister couldn't. So to say that they're leeching off the tax payers is a truth with very much needed modification.

And as far as the two royal princes and their families are concerened; even if they distanced themselves from the royal family and William denounced his right to be an heir the paparazzis would still follow them. He was born into a life of celebrety, he didn't choose it. And we all have a right to privacy. She wasn't there as a representative of the country, thus she has her right to privacy, especially since the photographer stood 1 km away to take the snapshot...



It is matter of choice, this or that way (take a look for instance Princess of Monaco, Stephanie) I just really don't like whining part. I don't mind them living off taxpaying money, I really don't care about their fame and what goes with it, but as said hate whining about it. If she didn't want to be abused by paparazzi, than she really shouldn't be topless. No, need for provocation because (and I suppose) she should be aware of all that came with title she got with marriage. To me this looks like fishing for publicity and as you mentioned, getting some money back to country with it.
How does royal family helps country where president and prime minister are unsuccessful?
And stats that you are mentioning, they don't seem realistic to me. Who was doing those statistic? Royal experts?

ElChupacabras
Posted: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:43:49 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/13/2012
Posts: 205
Location: Ibagué, Colombia
I think it's not a breach of privacy. I think they actually need this media scandals every now and then to somehow "justify" their place in society, if not the taxfunds spent on their luxurious living habits...
A song from the band Deep Purple (Strangeways) says it all in one sentence:
"Have you read the headlines? "Princess Engaged", three million out of work but that's on the second page...."
sheepholy
davie
Posted: Monday, September 17, 2012 1:17:49 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 6/16/2009
Posts: 55
Location: Edinburgh, United Kingdom
I agree with most of what 'She' said. I do mind them living off the taxpayers money particularly since the Queen has millions of a oersonal fortune. William and Catherine should had more sense than to sunbathe topless even if it was in relative privacy. The British royal family are an expensive anachronism and if we need a head of state then they should be elected
Guest
Posted: Monday, September 17, 2012 1:29:48 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 659,414
elitfromnorth wrote:


Statistics show that Royal families tend to grant the country more income than they actually spend through their representation and how their sort of shallow visits gives a great opportunity for some backroom dealing between nations. Not to mention all the commercial a country get from a state visit. Very few countries have Royal families, thus being visited by a king, queen or any other member of the royal family will help front the country in a way that a president or prime minister couldn't. So to say that they're leeching off the tax payers is a truth with very much needed modification.

And as far as the two royal princes and their families are concerened; even if they distanced themselves from the royal family and William denounced his right to be an heir the paparazzis would still follow them. He was born into a life of celebrety, he didn't choose it. And we all have a right to privacy. She wasn't there as a representative of the country, thus she has her right to privacy, especially since the photographer stood 1 km away to take the snapshot...



A brilliant concise and articulate reply..........not an ounce of whining or dole queues in sight.....yep 'strangeways here we come'
Nikki703
Posted: Monday, September 17, 2012 1:47:10 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/7/2009
Posts: 13,781
Location: The Other Side Of The Mirror
Whether they are of a member of the Royal Family or just a normal citizen, I believe it is wrong to publish the pics. She was topless in a private home and should have the right to expect privacy. If she was sunbathing on a public beach than I wouldnt have any problem with it, but to take photos of her in the setting she was in is just wrong.

I sunbath and swim nude in my pool all the time and I would be pissed if someone was lurking in my trees and took pics of me without my permission. But just being normal citizen, I doubt anyone would have any interest or be able to sell them for money. And after all its all about Money. Doesnt matter who you hurt!

I hope she wins her lawsuit. Although I doubt she will.

Having said that, I will look at the pics so I guess that makes me a hypocrite!
1ball
Posted: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:02:02 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
I don't think a right to privacy exists for what can be seen without trespassing on private property. It's rude to peep, but if someone is in plain sight, it's their own fault if they get peeped. Royalty, celebrity and profit are irrelevant. I don't know enough about the circumstances to know if an expectation of privacy was reasonable. I would guess not, considering how trespass is treated as a very minor offense and paparazzi come with the territory of being someone whose life is the stuff of fairy tales. Nobody was libeled, slandered or defamed. Nobody's reputation was wrongly besmirched.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Guest
Posted: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:02:47 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 659,414
Nikki703 wrote:
Whether they are of a member of the Royal Family or just a normal citizen, I believe it is wrong to publish the pics. She was topless in a private home and should have the right to expect privacy. If she was sunbathing on a public beach than I wouldnt have any problem with it, but to take photos of her in the setting she was in is just wrong.

I sunbath and swim nude in my pool all the time and I would be pissed if someone was lurking in my trees and took pics of me without my permission. But just being normal citizen, I doubt anyone would have any interest or be able to sell them for money. And after all its all about Money. Doesnt matter who you hurt!

I hope she wins her lawsuit. Although I doubt she will.

Having said that, I will look at the pics so I guess that makes me a hypocrite!


Nikki, I agree with you that it is a genuine case of an invasion of privacy. If I am not mistaken, the police here in the US can not "enter" a private home without a Warrant. However, if you are in your car, you are in public by law, even though it is your car. That is why they can search our cars for anything they please.

I believe that no one can come to your home and take pictures of you inside it. I believe that is also true of our property.

I do not know if they have such laws in UK protecting people in their homes.

But you raise the issue of our time here regarding our "rites" as citizens. Because of Internet profiling, and other technological insertions into our personal space, many of us can google our names and get a whole profile page that can include a shocking amount of information. I was shocked to see mine (no topless photos, thank heavens!! lol) and felt "unsafe" after seeing what they put into the public domain. I really felt "betrayed" somehow and "violated."

So the issue of privacy does not just extend to a lady's body only, but to our whole human existence.

I recall the philosopher Nietzsche saying that we must beware of "unlimited uncovering." Our desire to know things can turn up things we really are going to be sorry we dug up.

I sometimes have to do historical research that can bring me face to face with some horrible realities that I am, after a nights' lost sleep, glad are not generally disseminated.

We must consider the effects of this loss of privacy that is becoming pervasive in many societies
including ours here in the US.

Don't I, or any of you who read this, have the right to the privacy of our own existence? People are NOT things!
adeleeve
Posted: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:15:21 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/9/2011
Posts: 148
Location: United Kingdom
I think it is a total invasion of privacy, it is totally different if you put your pictures out there.

All of this is driven by money, the magazine sells loads more copies, apparently they are on E bay for up to £30.

If the photographer was not trespassing and thinks they are accceptable why are they in hiding??.

Although they are the royal family they make themselves accesable, they do tons for charities all over the world they should have the right to a PRIVATE life away from the papparazzi scum

Vanellus
Posted: Monday, September 17, 2012 4:53:28 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 5/8/2012
Posts: 28
Location: Chevy Chase, United States
She wrote:
Why is it sad?

They wanted fame, they wanted money that comes with fame, so.. I have no sympathy for their whining how they have no privacy. They have chosen their lifestyle, they are more than well paid for it, so they need to suck it up with consequences of the lifestyle they have chosen. The same goes for 'poor royalty' living off their taxpaying people's money. If you want to be a princess, living off someones money, than sweetie, suck it up and act like princess. If it's inappropriately to be topless, than she shouldn't be topless where people can see her.


Exactly!!!!

Especially her. She had a choice. He can arguably say he was born into it without much choice. But if she wanted to be an obscure private married woman, she could have been. Very easily.
elitfromnorth
Posted: Monday, September 17, 2012 5:13:34 PM

Rank: Brawling Berserker

Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,635
Location: Burrowed, Norway

She wrote:


To me this looks like fishing for publicity and as you mentioned, getting some money back to country with it.



Fishing for publicity when they're at a private house hidden far away into the mountains and the photographer has to stand 1 KM, 1 KILOMETER away to get a clear shot to the pool area because there are plenty of trees in the way? I highly doubt you can call that fishing for publicity. Bring your camera and try to take a picture of a person 1000 meters away and see how good a shot you get and you'll see this wasn't just an opportune moment. This was waiting and bringing the gear like a photo assassin.

And the magazine who published it is known for it's rather law bending methods of getting the stories that they want.

She wrote:


How does royal family helps country where president and prime minister are unsuccessful?
And stats that you are mentioning, they don't seem realistic to me. Who was doing those statistic? Royal experts?



A monarch is a politically independent. Although the monarch is technically the head of state, people won't protest the King/Queen for being a warmongerer or being shit at financial policies, thus giving a poltical-free face to the country. When a royalty arrives the country they put relationships between the two countries on the agenda, and only that. If a PM or president arrives it's usually different and international cases as well, usually some that overshadows the debates between the two countries on how to improve trade and so forth. Like I said, a royal visit is a setting that's better for backroom discussions and agreements.

Economists. When Queen Elizabeth is visiting the country it's the Queen of England, not just Queen Elizabeth II, thus giving not only publicising herself but also the country.

"It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."
mrplow
Posted: Monday, September 17, 2012 5:15:51 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/5/2007
Posts: 1,030
Location: Here and now
Kate Middleton Topless Shocking New Pics Revealed!!!

Not exactly much to write home about...

Who cares. It's probably a publicity stunt to get the Royals back in the public eye, it's been what, 5 months since they got married. The Royals haven't done much since, other than the ginger one partying in Vegas? All good PR.
MarySweets
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 2:52:43 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/5/2012
Posts: 292
Location: In my fantastic mind, Australia
mrplow wrote:
Who cares. It's probably a publicity stunt to get the Royals back in the public eye, it's been what, 5 months since they got married. The Royals haven't done much since, other than the ginger one partying in Vegas? All good PR.


Actually they were married in April of 2011 lol. I'm not sure what to make of it. Currently the couple are on tour of the Soloman Islands. There is some publicity about their stay at the Islands.

"Sexual pleasure in woman is a kind of magic spell; it demands complete abandon; if words or movements oppose the magic of caresses, the spell is broken."

Simone de Beauvoir
She
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 3:14:36 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/24/2010
Posts: 2,546
Location: Europe
Your arguments didn't convinced me to change my mind. At this point I should say that even though I don't share much sympathy for public figures and their whining about their lack of privacy, I don't read gossip news in any form, and if it wouldn't be on Euronews (only English channel while I was abroad) I wouldn't know that Prince got married.. So you can basically say that I do give them privacy kekekegay

elitfromnorth wrote:

Fishing for publicity when they're at a private house hidden far away into the mountains and the photographer has to stand 1 KM, 1 KILOMETER away to get a clear shot to the pool area because there are plenty of trees in the way? I highly doubt you can call that fishing for publicity. Bring your camera and try to take a picture of a person 1000 meters away and see how good a shot you get and you'll see this wasn't just an opportune moment. This was waiting and bringing the gear like a photo assassin.

And the magazine who published it is known for it's rather law bending methods of getting the stories that they want.


Yes, fishing for publicity. For sure she couldn't get naked in front of Buckingham Palace, they would lock her down put her into institution.

elitfromnorth wrote:
A monarch is a politically independent. Although the monarch is technically the head of state, people won't protest the King/Queen for being a warmongerer or being shit at financial policies, thus giving a poltical-free face to the country.

Exactly, so thay have zero impact in any kind of decisions as we both said..

elitfromnorth wrote:
When a royalty arrives the country they put relationships between the two countries on the agenda, and only that. If a PM or president arrives it's usually different and international cases as well, usually some that overshadows the debates between the two countries on how to improve trade and so forth. Like I said, a royal visit is a setting that's better for backroom discussions and agreements.

Economists. When Queen Elizabeth is visiting the country it's the Queen of England, not just Queen Elizabeth II, thus giving not only publicising herself but also the country.


What I got from this is that on my second date I will send my mother, so she can make my 3rd date happen. Yes, royalty is only a lovely advert for tourism, nothing else nothing more and I am not saying any of this with disrespect.
keoloke
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 5:59:22 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/12/2010
Posts: 599
Location: United States
MarySweets wrote:
I think it is sad royality or a celebrity people can not enjoy their own thing while in private. Out shopping or walking down the street having photos taken is one thing.

Being topless or naked and having photos taken just for the sake of $$$$$$ is sickening. I can just imagine the horror and humliation the couple are feeling because they are just normal human beings enjoying a hot summers day in each others company as husband and wife doing what most husband and wives do in private.



I personally don't enjoy looking at boobs of someone who do not want to publicly show. I have not seen the photos and I hope she was not naked.

As you say they are human being.... However, they enjoy good things in a way that we may not even immagine, and in this case they were not even elected... so they are extremely far from being like you and I.
Was their not so small wedding private? Was it like you and I? In these economic trying times?

It is unfortunate what has happened, I do not approve it. This is why I have never bought those magazines. But when you enjoy fame and money that came from the people. They have a wrong understanding of what is private. Every thing you write, say or do is constantly under scrutiny.

Last, we do not have every celebrity boob shoot recorded? Why? Because some choose not to show, even at a remote area. Why? Because paparazzi with their thousands of dollars lens supported on structure can take photos miles away.

Again, yes they are human being but share a bit of the fault.

Choose n Practice Happiness

Life is simple; we are what we eat and what we read. Talk is superfluous.
Ruthie
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 1:41:54 PM

Rank: Story Verifier
Moderator

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,696
Location: United States
Kate Middleton is a parasite sucking the blood of the British, Scot, Welsh and Northern Irish people. She should parade around naked for everyone to see and sell sex tapes of her and her worthless husband on the Internet to raise money for the treasury. No member of the UK's royal family deserves any privacy. If they want privacy let them get jobs and support themselves.
lafayettemister
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 3:04:28 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,428
Location: Alabama, United States
Was it an invasion of privacy? Yea, probably. Should they have expected someone to invade their privacy by taking pics with a zoom lens? Definitely. It was careless, she's now one of the most well known women in the world now. Pictures of her will always be taken no matter the situation. The photographer should have let it go and taken the high road, but that's not going to happen. If a naked woman is viewable to anyone with a camera, a picture will be taken.

Some have mentioned it was a private place and it should have been respected. Yeah, uh huh. Go ahead and open your living room or bedroom windows and walk around naked for all your neighbors and their children to see. Walk around naked, masturbate, have sex. See how long before the police show up at your door to arrest you for indecency for what you do in the privacy of your home.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
stickyvix
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 4:59:14 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 4/20/2012
Posts: 26
Location: United Kingdom
Well, since it has not been added to the thread, Kate+Wills won their court case and have an injuction against the publication of the photos. This is in France, where both the pictures were taken and the first magazine to publish are based. An Italian magazine has also published them as well as an Irish newspaper. The Editor of the newspaper has been suspended and the owners are threatening to close the paper down (though prob won't).

The defense for publishing these photos is based along the lines of "it's normal, it's nothing to be ashamed of and is modern etc.etc." was always going to be put against the "If they are that irrelevant, why bother publishing them?"

I do also wish people would have a proper understanding of the whole of the British Royal Family before they have a go at them. The Royals (collectively) do a massive amount to generate good PR for the while of the UK. The Queen spent 60 years on the thrown and is considering the number of people living off benefits in this country works harder than most of them at the age of 86. Even Prince Andrew who has a bit of reputation has done and still does much to promote british industry to foreign countries.

Lets not forget that Japan and the USA are both (in general) Royal obsessed countries and are 2 of the largest economies in the world. Look at the global hoo har about Harry in Vegas, which was really a case of "Drunk serviceman gets naked with woman in the party capital of the world" and he is hardly the most sellable royal.

Both Wills and Harry serve their country in the forces - How many politicians can say that?

Yes the royals have it lucky (with materials things, but look at their love lifes), but lets not confuse our jealousy with the benefits they bring to the country as a whole.

Lets also not forget that whilst Diana did court the press, she was killed whilst being chased by them, and Wills can only be expected to be protective in this situation. If a publication knows that they will get criticised publically, taken to court and have massive fines (and also criminal action - the editor of the french magazine could be banged up for a year) they will think twice before printing pictures in the future.
stickyvix
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 5:05:43 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 4/20/2012
Posts: 26
Location: United Kingdom
CoopsRuthie wrote:
Kate Middleton is a parasite sucking the blood of the British, Scot, Welsh and Northern Irish people. She should parade around naked for everyone to see and sell sex tapes of her and her worthless husband on the Internet to raise money for the treasury. No member of the UK's royal family deserves any privacy. If they want privacy let them get jobs and support themselves.


Urmm, Kates husband is a Helicopter Pilot in the RAF, so easily able to support her. Her parents run their own business, she doesn't have a silver spoon.

And I think it is quite plain to see that the revenue from the royal wedding - and I mean the money people spent on having a good time over that weekend in the UK, as well as all the additional tourism and global publicity that came from that one event - more than covers the costs that these 2 have generated since that day.

Every member of the ROyal family deserve privacy, just like you or I do. SO get off your bigoted soapbox and understand what they actually do.
kylie_kained
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 5:42:30 PM

Rank: Detention Seeker

Joined: 8/17/2010
Posts: 994
Location: Over your Knee Screaming and Kicking!, United King
I feel that although the paparazzi went to far in this day & age it's expected whoever you are. If Princess Kate wants to get her breasts out to get the attention of her Willy obviously in full view of a long range camera, then they should expect whats happened. Not long ago Prince Harry had pictures taken of him naked in a hotel room, those also being published. At the end of the day it just goes to prove that the Royals are only human like the rest of us.
















Dani
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 5:51:06 PM

Rank: Big-Haired Bitch
Moderator

Joined: 12/25/2010
Posts: 5,657
Location: Under Your Bed, United States
She wrote:

It is matter of choice, this or that way (take a look for instance Princess of Monaco, Stephanie) I just really don't like whining part. I don't mind them living off taxpaying money, I really don't care about their fame and what goes with it, but as said hate whining about it. If she didn't want to be abused by paparazzi, than she really shouldn't be topless. No, need for provocation because (and I suppose) she should be aware of all that came with title she got with marriage. To me this looks like fishing for publicity and as you mentioned, getting some money back to country with it.
How does royal family helps country where president and prime minister are unsuccessful?
And stats that you are mentioning, they don't seem realistic to me. Who was doing those statistic? Royal experts?


That makes perfect sense. Stop living your life because people think they're entitled to know everything you do 24/7. There's really no excuse. She's not whining. She has her rights. All she did was marry a prince. That makes it ok to violate her?? I can't stand when people try to justify blatantly violating people's privacy just because they're famous. They're not whining, you'd be pissed off too. It's not about stats or their money. It's about her right to PRIVACY.


Dani
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 5:57:54 PM

Rank: Big-Haired Bitch
Moderator

Joined: 12/25/2010
Posts: 5,657
Location: Under Your Bed, United States
I am so appalled at some of these fucked up responses. No one should be able to say that no one has the right to privacy....EVER! I don't care what the circumstances are. It's humiliating and degrading for someone to publish your private moments. Let someone follow you with a camera all day and snap candid photos of you just because they can. You tell me how it feels. It's the sickest thing I've ever heard...justifying the violation of someone's rights and privacy. If you're going to be bitter, fine, be bitter. But did her topless photos change your conditions? No. Someone else is making money off of them, and you're not seeing a single cent of it. So I honestly don't understand the gloating. It's pathetic and extremely immature. Says everything about you and nothing about her.


Buz
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 7:51:45 PM

Rank: The Linebacker
Moderator

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 7,124
Location: Atlanta, United States
Paparazzi are total scum. They are immoral leeches on society. If you purchase the sleazy mindless tabloids or websites that publish their work, you are contributing to this nonsense.

1ball
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 8:06:52 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
slipperywhenwet2012 wrote:
No one should be able to say that no one has the right to privacy....EVER!


We do have a right to freedom of speech and we do have a right to keep government from violating our privacy (under normal circumstances), but that plain sight issue is a tough one to assert a right against when it comes to nosy private citizens. You can't sit in your front yard naked and expect that just because you're on private property nobody will peep, even if you're royalty. From there it just becomes a matter of light waves and lenses. If you block binoculars, you have to block eyeglasses. If you block cameras, you have to block all cameras, including the ones the government uses.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.