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

[miche]

She wasn't in a public place

 

[olebabs]

I am always amazed that the argument from the tabloids is, that the public is asking for the pictures and we have a right to know. A right to know that she has breasts? Well, that can hardly come as a surprise.
And who exactly asked for these pictures? Show of hands! I certainly didn't.
I can't for the life of me see the point of publishing these pictures. I can only imagine the level of anger Prince William is experiencing. He must be so worried for the safety of his wife, seen in the light of what happened to his mother.

 

[sndral]

I can´t believe some are talking about jail, that would be a serious case of censorship and violation of freedom of speech.

Freedom of the press has never applied to situations involving private actions. Just as police cannot break into your home without legal authority, the press can not invade your privacy w/out your permission in France. Perhaps it's different in your country, but the law seems pretty clear in France, the consequence for breaking the law regarding press intrusion in France includes fines and up to a year in jail for the editor and the photographer, these french citizens (assuming the photographer was french) need to be held accountable according to the laws of their own country. A year in jail might put a stop to these invasions of privacy so many have suffered.

 

[EchoLynn]

Like most women she didn't want tan lines... She is photographed so much, tan lines would be pointed out and another thing people use to pick on her. She was on vacation...personally I hope they sue and win. They work so hard representing Britain... what they do in private should stay that way.

 

[Kataryn]

I believe it is pure hypocrisis what some "Royal observers" like Ingrid Seward write here.

Reminds one of ancient cults like those of the goddess Vesta where the priestresses were forced to live a secluded life serving for the sake of others, who sponsored them but lived completely different. How harsh the priestresses were punished if they took one step wrong because that would have reflected badly on their sponsors....

If you want the private life of the future queen to be just that, ignore such pics and leave the legal fight to those actually involved. The more talk there is about that, the high the plausibility that the next illegal pics will be bought by somebody else.

But to do as if the future queen of Britain has no legs is hypocrisy in 2012.

 

[Kataryn]

You´re not getting my point. I´m not bringing the vacation schedule here since it seems a lost case. For some people here they may take 10 vacations a year and it will be fine. I was referring to the blatant lie about them not being able to attend the closing ceremony because he was on duty"!!!!! And they were having their bodies tanned in France. That is the scandal.

Rosana, it seems to be that you are one of those members who constantly twist the facts to write mean things about the Royals. Fact is William was on duty during the time of the closing ceremony of the Olympics - so Harry and Catherine stood in for him with Harry representing the queen.

He was on holiday during the closing ceremony of the Paralympics but nobody said anything about him being on duty and the Crown certainly was well represented there.

So where is this scandal you are fuming about? And who said what you claim happened in order to make in scandalous?

 

[helenbeee]

look they are just boobs the paparazzi were out of line but Will and Kate will have to assume some responsibility what with the Harry Vegas episode I would have thought the 'bits' you dont want the public to see on your body shouldnt under any circumstance be put out there even if there is the smallest of risk of being photographed.
I feel sorry for her but seriously if you are the Queen in Waiting topless sunbathing has to head the list of activities that you once enjoyed and can no longer do and Will should have been all over this one.
She is probably more traumatised by the fact that Charles, Andrew, Edward, Philip her Dad or brother have all seen her jubblies. It could make for a very embarrassing family gatherings unless she gets pregnant quick and puts them into breastfeeding mode when its ok to show a bit of boob in public. Oh well its happened now and is engraved in history for all to remember if I were her I would play the "They are just boobs what of it?" and move the conversation along to something else. Before it gets way out of hand spin wise.
Theres a really big lesson in this lets hope she has learnt it.

 

[justina]

ok. page 13
what do you want really.

stop talking about this and its finished

our local paper thought its a good headline on their internet site -
but not one comment was there, so they didn t mention it again.

Sorry, but common people with a life don t care
and when I go to the Sauna everybody - also my family - can see me naked. wo what.

stop it

 

[Kataryn]

l
Theres a really big lesson in this lets hope she has learnt it.

What lesson? Lessons mean you take something out of it for yourself. If Catherine only learned that for certain people and certain media outlets she is just an object, a means to make money - then what?

Decent people are simply not interested in coverage like that but are (like me) annoyed that there is no respect for her, for the Royal family and for Great Britain and its citizens.

As long as Catherine does not behave like a starlet and makes no money out of presenting herself undignified in public, she should be treated with respect.

IMHO, of course. And no, I didn't look the pics up at the internet as I've seen pics of Catherine in swimwear before and have a decent idea of how a woman looks without a bikini top.

 

[Mirabel]

We should all stay away from looking at the photos, or even looking at photos of the photos. Changing the behavior of the paps will only happen when people stop buying the mags and looking at the pics online.

That's not going to happen.
It's against human nature, and things that are against human nature never work (think Shakers, or Communism).

No, people are curious, they have a prurient interest in these pictures, they like to see famous people unclothed.
It's happened before and it wil happen again.
The best thing for Kate to do is hold her head up and move on.

 

[Empress Merel]

Catherine is not a victim. She sunbathed outside topless and was photographed. It does not make her a victim. I absolutely agree that everyone should have an expectation of privacy. However, that is not life. Catherine married the son of the most photographed women of her generation. Being hounded by cameras simply will be her life. If she does not want to be photographed in compromised situations she simply will have to not put herself there. And if people were not interested in royals lives, clothes and love life there would not be any royal boards.

So by saying she's not a victim, you're justifying the fact that someone else took the liberty of displaying someone else's body for the whole world to see. Without her permission. Nobody has the right to photograph you like this, even if she did take her top off. That doesn't justify it. At. All.

There should be an unspoken law for this. And that is; stop exploiting females. The fact that William is Diana's son, does not make it ok for Kate to be put out like this. That does not mean she should have to put up with this. Because if she wants to live a remotely down to earth life and provide her future children with a safe and carefree childhood, there has to be made a clear limit.

It blows my mind that quite a few women on this board are so easy to brush this off. You would not be doing the same if this was your daughter, sister, firend or yourself.

 

[EIIR]

You´re not getting my point. I´m not bringing the vacation schedule here since it seems a lost case. For some people here they may take 10 vacations a year and it will be fine. I was referring to the blatant lie about them not being able to attend the closing ceremony because he was on duty"!!!!! And they were having their bodies tanned in France. That is the scandal.

As for the lawsuit, it will make things worse and longer. Princes Caroline lost a case this year before the European court, this can be taken as an antecedent. And honestly how is it invation of privacy to take pictures from a road. Don´t they know about other cases? Fergie? Diana? Paparazzi lenses can take pictures from miles away? What was she thinking? At least Harry, even if he was a fool, was in a hotel room ( and probably drunk, it is not nudity whay I had a problem with but the situation that led to that).
I can´t believe some are talking about jail, that would be a serious case of censorship and violation of freedom of speech. So they use the press and enjoy their attention when they need it but they want them to refrain from reporting if they make topless in a balcony?

Clarence House didn't say that William was 'on duty' when the closing ceremony of the Paralympics was held. They merely said that William and Kate had a prior commitment, i.e. they were doing something else. They didn't say that William was at work that day.

There's an enormous difference between freedom of speech / a free press, and wilfully breaking the law by invading an individual's right to a private life which is enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. There was no public interest here, Kate was doing nothing wrong in a private property on a private holiday.

The idea that Kate is not a victim is truly outrageous. The paparazzi who took the photos and the magazine who published them BROKE THE LAW. In France photos cannot be taken of anyone, whether they be public persons or not, without their consent. The next thing we know, some member of the Queen's staff is going to snap a photo of her in the bath on their mobile and sell it. I suppose posters here would then say the Queen deserved it by taking her clothes off to have a bath when there was a possibility of someone seeing her.

This would be funny if it were not so serious and depressing.

 

[kakieanne]

some people should calm down here. some examples on rape victims, for instance, are completely out of scope.

i have never gone topless in public places. i just don't find it appropriate and i guard my intimacy for myself. yet, not very many people would be interested in taking naked pictures of a stranger like me on a beach, let's say (unless they are a bit perverted, hence why i never had interest in doing it - because, as i said, precaution is the best safeguard).


i like kate, and feel bad for what's happened to her. i am by no means justifying the photographer or saying that it was only kate's fault. we don't tango alone. it takes two for this to happen. so if kate didn't want to see such pictures out there, if harry didn't want his naked pictures to be shared or if fergie didn't want the toekissing pictures to be public, don't do it in the first place. and by all means, don't do it in a semi-public place. to them as public people, the interest in high everywhere and you are just starting to feed the beasts by doing it. that's all. you can hardly expect that those pictures won't be used once they reach an editorial.

Well said. The photographer was standing on a public road.

 

[Queen of Quitealot]

Those pictures are a gross invasion of privacy, plain and simple. But unfortunately in this day and age 'freedom of the press' now means that nothing is beyond the pale anymore. And the internet means that these horrible pictures will be around forever. And our 'blame the victim' mentality is just a shame. Catherine should be afforded the same amount of privacy as any of us would expect, no 'ifs ands or buts'. Just because she is a member of the Royal Family does not mean that she is any less human or less deserving of basic human rights. If any of us were unknowingly photographed 'en dishabille' and those photos were published or posted to the web, we would be apoplectic! Good Heavens, I go ballistic when my husband takes a picture of me without makeup! (OK, overstating here, but you get my point). It's easy for some to be self-righteous with "Well, she should have known better" when we know we, ourselves, will never be in her position and are in no danger of having such a terrible invasion of our own privacy.

Catherine was not some overblown starlet cavorting on a beach or hotel balcony. She was for all intents and purposes a 'private person' (yes, I believe that even royalty can be 'private people' at times) relaxing in a private setting.

It's too bad that Catherine will probably now never be able to feel fully relaxed and 'safe' unless she is within 4 walls with the doors closed and drapes drawn. I'm glad that she has William to stand by her and support her. She must just feel devastated not only at the pictures themselves, but at the thought that she may unwittingly have embarrassed the RF. I'm sure they are reassuring her that it's not so, but still, I know it would upset me.

I hope the people who authorized publication are punished to the full extent of the law.

 

[soapstar]

Well said. The photographer was standing on a public road.

A mile away. You can barely even see the house from that distance, much less the occupants. The photographer used a zoom lens to get those photos. He invaded their privacy and the magazine broke the law by publishing them.

 

[BeatrixFan]

I can't quite believe Ingrid Seward's comments. That's the last time I buy Majesty.

 

[NGalitzine]

Well said. The photographer was standing on a public road.

And the Duke and Duchess were 1/2 mile or more away on Private Property. What is your point? Their privacy was violated according to French Law.

 

[angieuk]

Surely a High Court Injunction issued before Monday will stop the Italian Magazine from publishing 26 photos. A Judge can do that over the weekend. They are now saying Kate is happy to turn a blind eye and not take legal action as she feels it will be all forgotten in a week.

It is William who wants to take legal action.

 

[soapstar]

I can't quite believe Ingrid Seward's comments. That's the last time I buy Majesty.

Yeah, Ingrid's article surprises me. Especially since her reaction to Harry's photos was much more sympathetic.

 

[Lenora]

Some allusions are quite "interesting", that " Kate wanted to be photographed".
I see no moment of this desire, it was just a happy private moment of two people.

 

[grevinnan]

So by saying she's not a victim, you're justifying the fact that someone else took the liberty of displaying someone else's body for the whole world to see. Without her permission. Nobody has the right to photograph you like this, even if she did take her top off. That doesn't justify it. At. All.

There should be an unspoken law for this. And that is; stop exploiting females. The fact that William is Diana's son, does not make it ok for Kate to be put out like this. That does not mean she should have to put up with this. Because if she wants to live a remotely down to earth life and provide her future children with a safe and carefree childhood, there has to be made a clear limit.

It blows my mind that quite a few women on this board are so easy to brush this off. You would not be doing the same if this was your daughter, sister, firend or yourself.

You are entirely missing my point. Life is not fair. Accept it. This is a case of cause and effect. For William and Catherine to assume that they will not always be a target for photographers (who by the way probably made a very handsome income from the photos) is simply naive. Princess Diana has already proved the point that there is no privacy.

It doesn't make it right. It doesn't make it decent. But the reality is different. They will be hounded. It is up to William and Catherine to decide if they want to make the hounding profitable for the photographers and magazines.

 

[Amelia]

You are entirely missing my point. Life is not fair. Accept it. This is a case of cause and effect. For William and Catherine to assume that they will not always be a target for photographers (who by the way probably made a very handsome income from the photos) is simply naive. Princess Diana has already proved the point that there is no privacy.

It doesn't make it right. It doesn't make it decent. But the reality is different. They will be hounded. It is up to William and Catherine to decide if they want to make the hounding profitable for the photographers and magazines.

If something is not right, if something is not decent then you don't just accept it. If people did we would be living in a very different world today. It is not naive for a woman, regardless of who she is, to expect not to have her body exploited by others. The idea that anyone would tell a woman who has had photographs of her nude body taken in a private place without her knowledge or consent to just accept it is just sickening.

 

[Queen Penelope]

If something is not right, if something is not decent then you don't just accept it.

Well, they aren't accepting it (that's why they are suing) but it is, unfortunately, the reality of the world they live in. Hopefully this will be the "straw that broke the camel's back" as it were and because of this there will be substantially toughened laws to eliminate scum taking advantage of situations like this.

 

[Al_bina]

That's not going to happen.
It's against human nature, and things that are against human nature never work (think Shakers, or Communism).

No, people are curious, they have a prurient interest in these pictures, they like to see famous people unclothed.
It's happened before and it wil happen again.
The best thing for Kate to do is hold her head up and move on.

[my bolding]
Given the cheap outrage in this thread, I would say that the freedom of press combined with a healthy captitalistic desire to make money do not work as well. It is entertaining to see the western minds lost in the jungles of free press.

 

[Osipi]

Ugh.... as I was reading this thread, I glanced at my TV and across the bottom of CNN scrolls "Italian magazine Chi to publish royal photos".

I would think that the Cambridge's taking legal action against the French publication and photographer would serve as a deterrent to anyone going any where near these photos but seems like even legal action is just a small side effect of getting the voyeuristic scoop of the year to their credit.

 

[Al_bina]

One lawsuit means nothing in this case. Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have to take legal action against offending parties the same way the Church of Scientology does.

 

[NGalitzine]

Ugh.... as I was reading this thread, I glanced at my TV and across the bottom of CNN scrolls "Italian magazine Chi to publish royal photos".

Both Closer and Chi are owned by Silvio Berlesconi, the former Italian PM, so I don't think we should expect much in the way of integrity, descency or journalistic ethics (if such things even exist anymore).

 

[camelot23ca]

Ugh.... as I was reading this thread, I glanced at my TV and across the bottom of CNN scrolls "Italian magazine Chi to publish royal photos".

I would think that the Cambridge's taking legal action against the French publication and photographer would serve as a deterrent to anyone going any where near these photos but seems like even legal action is just a small side effect of getting the voyeuristic scoop of the year to their credit.

Nothing will change until the consequences of being sued and losing cause actual pain to the people who take the pictures and the people who choose to print them. Look at the dollar number from the sales of the magazine that have these pictures in it. Look at the projected revenue from the website pictures. Add those numbers and multiply it by some arbitrary factor to account for all the indirect publicity the magazine got just from people knowing the photos existed - and that's your fine. Setting a minimum fine but then giving judges some discretion to add onto the minimum for more egregious violations would be an effective deterrent, IMO, without infringing on the freedom of the press. Media is a business like any other - they like to talk about separation of the financial and editorial components of journalism, but they need to make a profit, or at least not lose money.

 

[EIIR]

The Italian magazine is publishing a 26-page special dedicated to these pictures apparently.

The Irish Daily Star newspaper has also published the pictures today. That publication is a joint venture with the company who owns the British Daily Star, whose owners have now said that they will end the joint venture as they don't support the IDS decision to publish the pictures. I'd guess that'll mean the end of the Irish Daily Star .

I'm not surprised with the Irish press who'll always take any opportunity to embarrass a member of the British royal family.

 

[bethaliz6894]

some people should calm down here. some examples on rape victims, for instance, are completely out of scope.

i have never gone topless in public places. i just don't find it appropriate and i guard my intimacy for myself. yet, not very many people would be interested in taking naked pictures of a stranger like me on a beach, let's say (unless they are a bit perverted, hence why i never had interest in doing it - because, as i said, precaution is the best safeguard).


i like kate, and feel bad for what's happened to her. i am by no means justifying the photographer or saying that it was only kate's fault. we don't tango alone. it takes two for this to happen. so if kate didn't want to see such pictures out there, if harry didn't want his naked pictures to be shared or if fergie didn't want the toekissing pictures to be public, don't do it in the first place. and by all means, don't do it in a semi-public place. to them as public people, the interest in high everywhere and you are just starting to feed the beasts by doing it. that's all. you can hardly expect that those pictures won't be used once they reach an editorial.

i agree with your comments, she wasnt raped, she had pictures taken of her. claiming this is the same as rape really demeans the people who are raped. the pictures were taken outside. not through a window.

if she didnt want the royal ta ta's shown in public...then dont bare the royal ta ta's in public, semi public, or what you hoped would be public. at least the werent doing 'IT'.

another thought, if you can get that close with a camera lense, who is to say you cant get that close with a niper scope? i really hope her security is on it a little better next time.