Catherine & William: 'Closer' Magazine and Breach of Privacy - September 2012

[Duke-of-Earl]

Kate Middleton topless photos probe: Criminal investigation launched to find paparazzi who took the pictures of Duchess of Cambridge - Mirror Online

I think there will be jail sentences over tthis

 

[PrincessDianafan]

I think there will be jail sentences over tthis

I agree. This person will be made an exmaple of and rightly so.

 

[Kit]

A jail sentence is unlikely but a hell of a lot of money to pay in combination with something more drastic is entirely appropriate. And if said money would then be divided among William's and Kate's charities something good at least would come out of this scandal.

 

[COUNTESS]

A jail sentence, how ridiculous. It is silly photos, by some dope who wanted to make a big buck and people who will pay for it. If you don't have a buyer, it wouldn't be done. And the poster who said, it is not right to infinge on a person's privacy, that person, also, has to make wise choices. Harry's nude photos, William peeing in public, Kate removing her swimsuit are, also, poor choices.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

What part of it is illegal in France to do what was done do you not understand?! Good gracious its like trying to teach some of you people chemistry; in one ear out the other.

 

[COUNTESS]

What part of it is illegal in France to do what was done do you not understand?! Good gracious its like trying to teach some of you people chemistry; in one ear out the other.

Yes, it is illegal, but, not knowing French Law Terms, is it a Felony or a misdimeanor? Using American Law Terms. Is it a Class A Felony or Misdemeanor, or a Class D Felony or misdemeanor? Do you get fined, expelled from your profession. You need to take these things into consideration. What evidence do they have to present to a jury, if there is a trial, if a person committed the act. Do they plea bargain? How much will it cost the French Court System to prosecute someone, way after the fact, unless they have "real evidence" as to the perpetrator and what does the law, actually say? It is illegal to park near a fire hydrant in this country, but it is different than committing a murder or a burglary. But they are all "illegal".

 

[Kit]

Exactly! Thanks.

 

[Muhler]

A jail sentence, how ridiculous. It is silly photos, by some dope who wanted to make a big buck and people who will pay for it. If you don't have a buyer, it wouldn't be done. And the poster who said, it is not right to infinge on a person's privacy, that person, also, has to make wise choices. Harry's nude photos, William peeing in public, Kate removing her swimsuit are, also, poor choices.

You are perhaps referring to me?

I see we are talking past each other.
You talk about realities of life - as they are now.
I talk about principles. The basic right to privacy. A right that should not be breached for profit.

According to at least Danish legislation, I can dance around in my backyard stark ravers (do try and keep that image out of your heads, if you can ) as long as I:
A) Cannot be seen from a public area by happless passerbys.
B) Or by neighbors from their windows or while they are just standing in their garden.
C) Or by innocent guests. Mainly children, minors and people who are in my garden on business, say craftsmen.

If anyone takes a picture of me in my front garden, fully dressed, without my consent, I can sue in the certainty that I will win. Even if the photographer is standing in full view just on the other side of my hedge.

That, in my mind, is a fundamental right to privacy.

The only exceptions are if I'm kicking our dog, beating up my children or burying my wife. I.e. doing something criminal. Period!

I want that right, that basic right, to apply to royals and celebrities as well.
If we don't have that right, we might just as well live in houses with transparant walls. And we will go mad in no time.

If you are only visible from a public road 800 meters away, IF people happen to be in possession of a 30.000 mm lense, then you have done what can be reasonably expected to assume you are private.
I don't care if W&K leapfrogged each other wearing yellow fullbody spandex. 800 meters away on a private terrace, that's their right. - They keywords are: They did not do anything criminal that would justify a deliberate breach of their privacy!

As it is today, the magazines calculate on the victims not taking actions.
They calculate on reaching a fairly modest settlement, should the victims sue.
They calculate that the penalties are ridiculesly low, should they lose a lawsuit.
That's wrong and that ought to be changed. Everyone should have a right to privacy.

 

[NGalitzine]

Yes, it is illegal, but, not knowing French Law Terms, is it a Felony or a misdimeanor? Using American Law Terms. Is it a Class A Felony or Misdemeanor, or a Class D Felony or misdemeanor? Do you get fined, expelled from your profession. You need to take these things into consideration. What evidence do they have to present to a jury, if there is a trial, if a person committed the act. Do they plea bargain? How much will it cost the French Court System to prosecute someone, way after the fact, unless they have "real evidence" as to the perpetrator and what does the law, actually say? It is illegal to park near a fire hydrant in this country, but it is different than committing a murder or a burglary. But they are all "illegal".

Article 226-1 of the French Criminal Code:
“A penalty of one year’s imprisonment and a fine of €45,000 is incurred for any wilful violation of the intimacy of the private life of other persons by resorting to any means of:
1° intercepting, recording or transmitting words uttered in confidential or private circumstances, without the consent of their speaker;
2° taking, recording or transmitting the picture of a person who is within a private place, without the consent of the person concerned.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

Great comment!

 

[cinrit]

William was also photographed while peeing during a polo game. (Those pictures are available on the internet.) Some day Diana's photo's will also be released...

I think a little precision is needed here. William was photographed after a polo game, far from the polo field, where he thought he was alone. Anyone who cares to search for the photo on the Internet will see that is so. Shame on the photographer who stalked him and was crass enough not only to take the photograph, but to sell it.

As a matter of interest (or maybe not), there is also a photograph on the Internet of General George S. Patton urinating into the Rhine in public in broad daylight.

Cindy

 

[USAF_Veteran]

I know what u mean. I have been around celebrities and society people, and respect their privacy. Case and point, working at a truckstop outside Salem, OR and Lindsey Wagner came in. I knew who she was but I figuired she was on vacation or on her way to a set helped her when she asked questions and went back to work, her husband or companion came over and asked me why I didn't ask for an autograph and I told him I was repecting her privacy and he said he would be right back and he was with Ms Wagner and she gave me her autograph and thanked me for being nice and repecting her privacy. I think everybody had the right to his or her's privacy.

 

[COUNTESS]

Article 226-1 of the French Criminal Code:
“A penalty of one year’s imprisonment and a fine of €45,000 is incurred for any wilful violation of the intimacy of the private life of other persons by resorting to any means of:
1° intercepting, recording or transmitting words uttered in confidential or private circumstances, without the consent of their speaker;
2° taking, recording or transmitting the picture of a person who is within a private place, without the consent of the person concerned.

That's a good answer. Not just a general statement, with no facts. How, vigorously, they enforce these, I do not know and since, there is no suspect.....as for the unrinating William, he chose to do a private act in public, even though he might not have seen the photographer, he had to, especially, with his experience, know he was fair game, and General Patton did what he wanted to and, perhaps, in his way was expressing his opinion. There is, for everyone, a fundemental right to privacy, the laws in each nation differ. But, when you are a celebrity you are quite well aware of what the atmosphere is like. The real villains are the buyers. Remember, no one risks breaking the decent respect people should be entitled to, unless they have an outlet and it is lucrative. It is, really, the outlet that allows these things to occur.

 

[Daria_S]

I think there will be jail sentences over tthis

I certainly hope so. An example needs to be made, because if there are no consequences, acts like this will be committed again, and again.

 

[MARG]

Article 226-1 of the French Criminal Code:
“A penalty of one year’s imprisonment and a fine of €45,000 is incurred for any wilful violation of the intimacy of the private life of other persons by resorting to any means of:
1° intercepting, recording or transmitting words uttered in confidential or private circumstances, without the consent of their speaker;
2° taking, recording or transmitting the picture of a person who is within a private place, without the consent of the person concerned.

Ah, that's what I like to see . . . a clear, unequivocal statement of the law. No ifs, no buts, no maybes. And, most important of all, no room for anyone to witter about "it's only . . ." or "she shouldn't have . . ." or "she was silly and naive".

The law was broken and how that law is enforced is of moment to many high profile people, not just William and Catherine. Either the law is enforced or the law is an ass. Either people are entitled to private lives under the law or open season is declared. The lines are quite easy to draw.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

I certainly hope so. An example needs to be made, because if there are no consequences, acts like this will be committed again, and again.

It wont make a difference because there will always be countries where publishing such pictures wont be illegal. Its about making money, nothing else. If William continues this approach to the media he will be busy for the rest of his live looking who took what picture and published it where. Harry is far more relaxed, he could have sued easily but took it as it is, nobody is talking about any longer.

I think in the future Harry will be more careful about when to take his clothes off, and so should Kate.

 

[nylonluva]

...You talk about realities of life - as they are now.
I talk about principles. The basic right to privacy. A right that should not be breached for profit...

Amen...thank you!

 

[Queen Camilla]

Yeah because having human decency is so much harder than Harry and Kate being paranoid non stop. I wonder if this coupled with his mothers death made William at least think of saying screw it and becoming William Wales and ditching the Prince part. Though I doubt he would put such a burden on his little brother.

Harry would give up his rights before Willam, so we'll have a Queen Beatrice.

 

[KittyAtlanta]

I haven't heard anything said about the photos lately, in the real world. Seems the only place it is being discussed is in royal forums and is dying down, except for this forum. News gets old and becomes irrelevant very quickly.

 

[PrincessDianafan]

I certainly hope so. An example needs to be made, because if there are no consequences, acts like this will be committed again, and again.

I hope they catch the pap who did this. Seriously!

 

[Catherine J]

I think one of the problems we have is that we consider this "news" versus a criminal violation and that it must, therefore, have a shelf life. As Muhler points out, this is bigger than a discussion about something which has exceeded its public interest shelf life. In fact, the very idea that it can be considered to have expired as a topic of interest should tell us we're in more social trouble than we may realize.

People were violated, in broad daylight, the very act of which is a crime in the country in which it happened. The *notion* that some people think we should forget about it and move on to more current topics is *frghtening* to me. This is called a "slippery slope" and once the slide down begins, it moves fast.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

It's in the same line as those who said WnK should have just not acknowledged what happened and just go about their daily life.

 

[KittyAtlanta]

I think one of the problems we have is that we consider this "news" versus a criminal violation and that it must, therefore, have a shelf life. As Muhler points out, this is bigger than a discussion about something which has exceeded its public interest shelf life. In fact, the very idea that it can be considered to have expired as a topic of interest should tell us we're in more social trouble than we may realize.

People were violated, in broad daylight, the very act of which is a crime in the country in which it happened. The *notion* that some people think we should forget about it and move on to more current topics is *frghtening* to me. This is called a "slippery slope" and once the slide down begins, it moves fast.

Yes, I realize it is deemed a crime, but that was not the focus of my recent post. I'm glad it has died down and I hope it doesn't happen again.

 

[Polly]

I don't believe that this matter has 'died down', as it were. Au contraire.

It's being discussed with some urgency in legal and publishing circles in many parts of the world. That you and I are not privileged to these discussions doesn't mean that they're not on-going and frenetic.

The facts of the matter are that the few hundred thousand pounds that the original photos sold for is nothing in the broader scheme of things. These photos, and others, have now appeared on subscription-only porn sites and have already garnered tens of millions of dollars for the site owners.

What, to me, is profoundly disturbing in all of this is that the women's consent doesn't seem to matter – quite the opposite. All that matters is because there's a market for the pictures, they should expect to have their privacy grossly violated.

I contend that the public should not have the right to see someone’s naked body without their consent. The media should not have the right to publish photos of someone’s naked body without their consent. Photographers should not have the right to photograph someone’s naked body without their consent.

It is believed that there are over 300 photographs, not the relative few openly sold and published already. These photographs include a naked William. These photographs are all stills from a video.

I look forward to evaluating the criticisms (if there are any) of William if this video becomes public property, and comparing them with the vitriol, gleefulness and smirks which Catherine has suffered. Arguably, he should have known much better than she of the possibility of their being spied upon.

It has been salutory to read the opinions and views of those criticising Catherine with nary a mention of her husband's participation.

 

[AdmirerUS]

It's in the same line as those who said WnK should have just not acknowledged what happened and just go about their daily life.

Well, they are going about their daily life. Aside from the legal action, one would be hard pressed to tell, after the first two days, that anything had happened to the couple. They were heads held high and doing their jobs. Cudos to them for being a class act on the tour - and I would guess, next week as well.

 

[Catherine J]

It's being discussed with some urgency in legal and publishing circles in many parts of the world.

As usual, your entire post was full of good points.

This quoted bit, I can attest personally, is in fact true. Not quite the shot heard around the world yet, but it's certainly not a "blank".

 

[Roslyn]

It is believed that there are over 300 photographs, not the relative few openly sold and published already. These photographs include a naked William. These photographs are all stills from a video.

I look forward to evaluating the criticisms (if there are any) of William if this video becomes public property, and comparing them with the vitriol, gleefulness and smirks which Catherine has suffered. Arguably, he should have known much better than she of the possibility of their being spied upon.

It has been salutory to read the opinions and views of those criticising Catherine with nary a mention of her husband's participation.

I can only speak from having read (most, but not all, of) the posts on this thread on this forum, for that is all I have read about the matter, but I don't recall reading any vitriol or glee about Catherine's situation here. A number of us have commented that she should have been aware of the risk of being photographed, but took it anyway, and made an error of judgment. From recollection, even those of us who made those observations agreed that her privacy had been breached and did not condone the photographer's/s' behaviour.

I wasn't aware they were stills from a video. Without knowing what else is on the video, I can't really comment, save to say that if they were both naked then I think they were both very foolish, and if they were doing more than just being naked, they were extremely foolish. Even if there wasn't a photographer around, there would be staff.

I feel no differently about Catherine than William in this situation. They are both intelligent adults and responsible for their own behaviour, one no more so than the other. She should have been as aware as he of the possibility of being spied upon. No, she didn't live through the Diana years with William, but she has no doubt been told a lot about it over the several years she has been with him. The whole world knows about it, and there are plenty of other sources of information that tell us how easy it is to spy on and photograph people from a distance. Wrong though it may be - and the extent of the wrongness varies from country to country - it happens.

 

[Catherine J]

I can only speak from having read (most, but not all, of) the posts on this thread on this forum, for that is all I have read about the matter, but I don't recall reading any vitriol or glee about Catherine's situation here. A number of us have commented that she should have been aware of the risk of being photographed, but took it anyway, and made an error of judgment.

Can't cite you the actual posts but there were a few so they're not so pure and now the world can see them for what they are type posts, which you might and might not call "glee" - depends upon whether one falls into the linguistic/ideal/analytical or ordinary language school of philosophic thought. It certainly is a certain type of response that attends the "glee" family reunions

In some deep thought circles one supposes that glee could also be ascribed to the act of victim blaming, if one wanted to really plunk down and think about it. Glee could reasonably be defined as malignant satisfaction. Blaming the victim is precisely that - a twisted form of self satisfaction. Since it did not happen to me, I must know better and so should they have, is the subtext. Glee made manifest.

Ho hum, I know. But, you know ... words count - whether one is aware of why this is true or not. The ones chosen, the order in which they are placed and the emphasis put upon them all contribute to the implication and the inference of what is being said.

Sorry for the lecture. I go on, I know

 

[Catherine J]

It has been salutory to read the opinions and views of those criticising Catherine with nary a mention of her husband's participation.

Indeed. I mentioned in one of my many posts (maybe even the one where I said I believed I was done with this discussion :!) that (a) I found it odd William was not really discussed in terms of who was to blame and (b) William's nakedness had somehow completely fallen under the radar.

You have it exactly right, I think with the "no one has a right to see someone's naked body without their consent" making all forms of creating/representing and/or selling a likeness without permission illegal in every corner of the world.

At some point someone will have to realize we can't live in a world with global communication and global free idea exchange among the masses without soon having some global laws. Something has to give soon

 

[COUNTESS]

I hate to break it to you, but this is not the "shot heard round the world". It has, now, become a, purile, argument. Yes, they are entitled to privacy. Yes, they should use their brains. It is not victim blaming, it is a factual and adult acceptance of blame. One, who is a celebrity, knows that they will be stalked, (not right), but makes sure they are never in the position to find themselves on front pages. Sorry, too much pity.