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

[Roslyn]

Sorry for the lecture. I go on, I know

No need to apologise. I find your detailed posts and writing style interesting and always worth reading. Now you've jogged my memory, I do recall reading at least one post of the sort you mentioned in your first paragraph, and I suspect the reason I didn't recall it at first was because it just didn't make much sense and I dismissed it.

 

[Catherine J]

I hate to break it to you, but this is not the "shot heard round the world".

It's always a drag doing things you hate. My condolences.

I agree. In fact, I quite specifically said "this is not the shot heard around the world". So, no need to have given yourself any anxiety over the matter as I already knew that.

It has, now, become a, purile, argument.

I assume you mean puerile. And no, it most certainly is not. Nor is it an argument. It is a discussion.

Sorry, too much pity.

No need for sympathy, don't be sorry.

My friend, there is never enough pity* in this world.


*when I use the word pity I mean it in the classic sense: sympathy and empathy. Let's use as our boilerplate definition the Aristotlean standard ... "Let pity, then, be a kind of pain in the case of an apparent destructive or painful harm of one not deserving to encounter it..."

In short, if you do not feel pity then you do, ipso facto, believe they deserve what happened to them. It's not a terribly complex thesis.

 

[COUNTESS]

It is interesting, that if you don't feel that the issue is a minor one and that their lives will be in complete ruin, one is not empathetic. Pity, in this world, should go to those who suffer, real problems (no homes, no food, great illness, no healthcare) and have a whole lot less, than two very well endowed people. Do they deserve a private time, yes. Then they have the resources to have that. They can plan that part of their lives and use the security that is at their disposal and common sense. Yes, of course, I meant puerile, and I still mean it. It has become nonsense and only here is it a "argument", discussion. The world evolves.

 

[Catherine J]

Yes, the world evolves Or that is the hope.

I suppose we disagree on the idea that pity ought to be metered out based upon socio-economic standing. Tragedy, mishap, loss, invasion, violation - these are all human tragedies and occur regardless of circumstance and the damage or pain they inflict is, likewise, not mitigated by circumstance. To use a simple example: a broken heart is a broken heart and rich or poor, healthy or ill, privileged or not, it hurts *exactly* the same way.

I understand your point, of course: that having no food and having naked pictures of yourself taken while you were by the pool at one of your family's many castles and exotic properties are hardly comparable. But I say they are, at root. They both involve society's determined unwillingness to be honorable and prove that we simply do not have enough pity in the world, in general.

I have no less pity for William and Catherine than I do for the poor people. To be so judgmental would be, I believe, a particularly virulent strain of glee: the jealous kind.

I reject outright your assertion that it is nonsense.

There are people all over the world discussing poverty and disease, healthcare and housing. Right now. Thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of them. I comment them for their efforts.

Here, in this place, we are discussing privacy violations.

Comparing the two things is what a good editor would call a red herring, a general would call a diversionary tactic and my grandmother would call bu**sh*t.

 

[COUNTESS]

You grandmother is right on the mark, but it is this subject that falls into that category. I am not negating their right to privacy and it was breached, but the over, hysterical, lock them up and their lives are ruined mentality, belies the real issue. Yes, today, there is too much public scruntiny of everyone and everything. 24 hour news and an ugly need for prurient photos exacerbates the current situation. But, if you come from William's background, especially, you know what the press is like and what real care needs to be taken. I think he was as angry with himself, as he was with the photos, because, he let his guard down.

 

[Catherine J]

Y
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.

Yes. This is the crux of it. We argue whether they should have known, whether they were to blame or not, whether they erred in judgement or whatever ... it clouds and obfuscates the issue.

There seems to be a direct correlation between persons who express the opinion that William and Catherine ought to accept this lack of privacy as the price for wealth, popularity and prestige and persons who express the sentiment that this is inevitable, no big deal and we should move along.

Society is just punishing celebrity FOR their celebrity and the price they demand for the wealth/status/popularity so enjoyed is the right to know everything.

I am not at all interested in discussing whether they should or should not have known, whether they had good or bad judgement. I'm kind of not interested in it in a specific William and Catherine context anymore. I do think William and Catherine should move along - they should carry on carrying on, as the saying goes.

But I do not for one second think *we* should move along because the price of democratic freedom and human rights, which propels or harnesses social evolution, is that *the people* do not allow themselves to simply go with the flow and accept what is simply because it seems too big to change.

Don't make me quote Winston again! :!

Seriously, it's a really huge issue and what you say is spot on.

 

[Mermaid1962]

My previous point exactly. Few people would have been interested in these photos had they not been of the Duchess of Cambridge, who is perhaps one of the most--if not THE--most photographically pursued woman in the world today. And why? Because she was courted by and married a famous man and is a beautiful young woman. It's as though those who view the pictures are saying in effect, "So you think you're so great? You're not so great after all. Look at what we've managed to do to you." It's a despicable form of bullying, whether the paps/publishers/consumers realize it or not.

Society is just punishing celebrity FOR their celebrity and the price they demand for the wealth/status/popularity so enjoyed is the right to know everything.

 

[rosana]

^Which bullying? She took the bikini off in front of a road for god sake! Not the top, but the bikini. It´s not that the guys walked miles on private ground to reach the position. It´s a contradiction in itself. If she is one or the most photographed women in the world (I believe some A list celebrities are much more famous worldwide than her) where did she expect paparazzi to be? Any photographer who would found out they were there would have kept watching from that road, unless to see them pass by. They happened to see much more than they expected. I believe neither the papz saw this coming or thought she would be so little cautious.
It is a question of common sense, not so much about law. Because laws are strict in France I can make topless in a balcony then? If I walked at 2 am around a marginal and dangerous neighbourhood with jewlery and an expensive watch, well, it is aganist the law to steal me. It is highly probable that it happenes anyway.

 

[Polly]

Whether it's appropriate to feel pity for Catherine (and I do) it doesn't diminish the pity anyone might feel for the tragedy of many millions of other lives. We all do what we can, I'm sure, but it's not the issue.
Under discussion is the invasion of privacy, the denial of autonomy, and the overriding of consent. A free press is a great thing, but with freedom comes responsibility, and that includes a mandate to behave with at least some respect.

In an increasingly digital age, of course, it's not just the princesses of the world who can suffer the humiliation of having unauthorized images of themselves held out for all to see. Publication of photographs or images without consent has been a source of misery for many, particularly teenagers. It's a particular problem for girls who have sent photographs of themselves to boyfriends, and the photos are then shared on Facebook. Bullying is now understood to include publishing unwanted or embarrassing images online, whether the victim was initially consenting to the pictures being taken or not. Sadly, more than one young person has killed themselves as a direct consequence of spying cameras or the unauthorised publication of compromising images.


I think that, with the publication of the illegally obtained photos of Catherine, the press attitude toward privacy and consent is standing in the way of adolescents understanding the effect that their actions might have. After all, why is it that young Johnny would be excluded from school for publishing a topless photo of his ex-girlfriend online, but Closer magazine gets to watch its coffers swell for doing something not dissimilar? Or that a person who takes sneaky long-lens photos of a naked woman in her own home is charged with a criminal offence and placed on a sex offenders register, but if the woman is famous, he gets a hefty fee and a slap on the back from the press, the pervs and voyeurs amongst us Surely we can expect the press to meet at least some of the same standards we require from the rest of society.

Unfortunately, we note that the claw-clasping trolls of ignorance and self-important critics that lurk beneath the bridge of stupidity and venality, won't be silenced. Despite the Duchess' protestations, her privacy and her integrity have been traduced, with some still relishing the opportunity to remind all women that if they don't want anything untoward to happen to them, they should be more careful about relaxing/drinking/sunbathing/canoodling/breathing while being female.....

 

[Muhler]

Polly, you are truly a voice of sanity.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

I have never understood this attitude some have that because you are famous those o us who aren't can do whatever we want to you. It does reek of wanting to punish those who have more than us; and to absolve ourselves of guilt we say, that's what the signed up for. I for one don't think anyone signs up to have their lives destroyed be chased to their death by photographers or have their naked body splashed all over the world. I think there is a line between watching someone who is royal performing their duties and sneaking around trying to her intimate private shots of them. Taking it ou of the royal realm, there is s difference between a celebrity being on stage or tv or web tweeting and a photographer stalking them hoping to get a shot up their skirt. Why these disgusting acts are legal is beyond me. Since when are famous people not allowed the same rights as the rest of us? Earlier in the thread I did not feel this was an issue about women vs men, but I am starting to see it that way. Photographing a woman naked w/o her consent and showing the pix to everyone reeks of a sex crime, as does taking pix up her skirt!
And not that I want to see them, but if there are naked pix of William why haven't they been published? Is it sexual harassment of a woman?

 

[Carminha Stalker]

This is the first time I visit this particular thread.
I can´t believe that there are still people discussing this subject.
Boring.

 

[bethaliz6894]

Rosana, you bring up a good point. In France, there are laws against taking a picture of a bare chested person. What is the law about being bare chested out in public? Granted she wasnt on a sidewalk or public beach, but she was outside. My back yard is private but if someone sees me topless, then I will be arrested for public indecency, at least I would be ticketed.

 

[Catherine J]

Rosana, you bring up a good point. In France, there are laws against taking a picture of a bare chested person. What is the law about being bare chested out in public? Granted she wasnt on a sidewalk or public beach, but she was outside. My back yard is private but if someone sees me topless, then I will be arrested for public indecency, at least I would be ticketed.

That is so offensive and ridiculous that it must be designed simply to arouse and inflame.

In case it's not and you are so deluded that you believe you made a reasonable statement: The Duke and Duchess were on private property that was NOT visible to passersby (unless they found the exact right spot and possessed a professional grade very long telephoto lens).

In this specific situation they most assuredly meet the legal standard of "reasonable expectation" of privacy.

The taking of the photographs and the subsequent publication of them is a prima facie infringement of their rights and an indefensible violation of the law.

It's a whole new facet of blame the victim that is *painfully* embarrassing to witness. Gads but sometimes it is a genuine shame to belong to the human race.

 

[Catherine J]

My previous point exactly. Few people would have been interested in these photos had they not been of the Duchess of Cambridge, who is perhaps one of the most--if not THE--most photographically pursued woman in the world today. And why? Because she was courted by and married a famous man and is a beautiful young woman. It's as though those who view the pictures are saying in effect, "So you think you're so great? You're not so great after all. Look at what we've managed to do to you." It's a despicable form of bullying, whether the paps/publishers/consumers realize it or not.

Yes, there you have it. As you and Polly, most recently, and others further back in the thread have said, there is a very unsavory underbelly being exposed here.

I have a nearly pathological inability to tolerate the sort of pervasive meanness of spirit that finds a tripping fall and the subsequent skinned knee to be a source of humor in either the laugh out loud, tickle my funny bone mode or the gleeful, sucks to be you mode. The sort of human that follows that laugh with a commentary on why the fall was deserved or inevitable is, frankly, one of the leading poster children for what's wrong with the world today.

The sort of mind that then wants to sue the person who fell down for the damage done to the sidewalk is the type of person who ought not be breeding and should, probably, for the good of us all, stop talking.

That was probably too snarky. But, meh, sometimes you just have to call 'em like you see 'em. Let's call that one an omnidirectional cry of frustration aimed at the aether.

 

[bethaliz6894]

That is so offensive and ridiculous that it must be designed simply to arouse and inflame.

In case it's not and you are so deluded that you believe you made a reasonable statement: The Duke and Duchess were on private property that was NOT visible to passersby (unless they found the exact right spot and possessed a professional grade very long telephoto lens).

In this specific situation they most assuredly meet the legal standard of "reasonable expectation" of privacy.

The taking of the photographs and the subsequent publication of them is a prima facie infringement of their rights and an indefensible violation of the law.

It's a whole new facet of blame the victim that is *painfully* embarrassing to witness. Gads but sometimes it is a genuine shame to belong to the human race.

Sorry you found my question offensive, however, I do not feel it is ridiculous. What I do find ridiculous is you taking a whole paragraph to not answer my question. My question was, what is the law aboout going naked in France?

 

[Catherine J]

Sorry you found my question offensive, however, I do not feel it is ridiculous. What I do find ridiculous is you taking a whole paragraph to not answer my question. My question was, what is the law aboout going naked in France?

Yep, I tend to use five words when one will do on first drafts. So my posts to boards can be long and convoluted. True enough. Sorry about that.

My apologies also for the offensive manner in which I responded. I should probably step back from this discussion as I have overstepped, at the least, the boundaries of polite discourse.

They were not naked in public. As no country has laws, to the best of my knowledge, about the legality of being naked in private the question is moot. On moot issues, I tend to not address the question itself but the idea being expressed by the question. Which I did.



Edited to add:


From a naturist source: "French law does make nudism technically illegal but modern interpretation of the law which is really aimed at exhibitionism with indecent intent, practically rules out the chances of a successful prosecution resulting against a genuine naturist."

Transcript of a related issue:

Since 1993, the concept of "Indecent Exposure" was replaced in the new penal code, by the concept "of sexual exhibition". Article 222-32 states a maximum sentence of one year of prison and 15.000 euros fine for a "sexual exhibition imposed on the sight of others", without going into any other detail.

What led the Minister of Justice of the time Mr. Henri Nallet, to specify that "only the sexual behaviors presenting the character of an exhibition imposed on a third party will fall under the jurisdiction of criminal law, and thus only the attitudes deemed obscene or provocative will be incriminating".

Definition of sexual exhibition: Execution in a public place or in a place accessible to the sight of all, of sexual acts, on oneself or onto another person, and susceptible to offend another person's decency by their public nature. Nudity in itself, without the will of only emphasising a body part with sexual connotations, is not constitutive of the criminal fact.

[ sexual violences, pr. M. Gueut-Develay, CHU of Rennes, Service of Forensic medicine. ].

In 2003, the Natitude association sent to the members of Parliment a manifest demanding the explicit de-criminalization of nudity. A few weeks later, a member of Parliment submitted the question to the Minister of Justice:

Question No.: 16460 of Mr. François Liberti (Appointed MP and Rep. - Herault)

Department Questioned: Justice

Department Assigned: Justice

Question published in the Official Journal of Parliment: 14/04/2003 page: 2861.

Response published in the OJ: 30/06/2003 page: 5244 Heading: Criminal law. Sub-heading: Attacks to the human person Further sub-heading: Sexual exhibition.

Text of the QUESTION: Form Mr. François Liberti, to the attention of Mr. the Minister of Justice, Department of Justice, on the need for de-criminalizing the explicit act of public nudity.

The French law penalizes according to terms' of article 222-32 of the Penal Code "sexual exhibition imposed on others".

The qualification of "sexual exhibition" supposes the meeting of three elements: the material act of sexual exhibition itself, the fact that it was made in public (in a public place or a private place but within the sight of others) and the conscious will to voluntarily offend or by negligence, public decency. This does not correspond at all to the act of practicing naturism. The strict application of this article involves certain pernicious effects. It is unequally (unevenly) applied to the whole of the jurisdiction (comment: France). It does not correspond any more to the evolution of customs and current mentalities, and is lagging compared to the legislations of the neighboring countries.

This is why it is proposed to [the Minister and the Department of Justice] that article 222-32 of the penal code should be specified so as to put an end to the legal blur.

It is asked [the Minister and the Department of Justice] that the penal code be specified so that in any place which can lend itself to outdoor activities, nautical or of relaxation, simple nudity does not constitute sexual exhibition.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

^Which bullying? She took the bikini off in front of a road for god sake! Not the top, but the bikini. It´s not that the guys walked miles on private ground to reach the position. It´s a contradiction in itself. If she is one or the most photographed women in the world (I believe some A list celebrities are much more famous worldwide than her) where did she expect paparazzi to be? Any photographer who would found out they were there would have kept watching from that road, unless to see them pass by. They happened to see much more than they expected. I believe neither the papz saw this coming or thought she would be so little cautious.
It is a question of common sense, not so much about law. Because laws are strict in France I can make topless in a balcony then? If I walked at 2 am around a marginal and dangerous neighbourhood with jewlery and an expensive watch, well, it is aganist the law to steal me. It is highly probable that it happenes anyway.

Agree 100%, thanks for pointing out.

 

[Polly]

Rosanna, when you say 'They happened to see much more than they expected' I have to disagree. Armed with high-powered telephoto lenses attached to video recorders 'they' saw precisely what was hoped and planned for and recorded what was intended - compromising photos. 'They' couldn't possibly have hoped to see anything from such a distance without sophisticated technology.

The point you made about visiting dangerous neighbourhoods wearing expensive jewellry and subsequently being robbed is irrelevant, as you would have made the decision to go there knowing the risk. Catherine, on the other hand, had every reason to assume that she was safe from prying eyes.

 

[Roslyn]

Catherine, on the other hand, had every reason to assume that she was safe from prying eyes.

This where some of us disagree, I think. The house was in hilly territory and visible from the surrounding land and the road. If they could see the hills, it's feasible that someone on a road in the hills armed with high powered telephoto lens and a video recorder could see them. I don't think it was safe for her to assume she was safe from prying eyes.

 

[COUNTESS]

This where some of us disagree, I think. The house was in hilly territory and visible from the surrounding land and the road. If they could see the hills, it's feasible that someone on a road in the hills armed with high powered telephoto lens and a video recorder could see them. I don't think it was safe for her to assume she was safe from prying eyes.

Quite a sensible response. They let their guard down. And, other than here, I think the hoo-ha has passed. They will be smarter and I think, depending where they are, the paparazzi will have a more difficult time and that is good.

 

[Polly]

This where some of us disagree, I think. The house was in hilly territory and visible from the surrounding land and the road. If they could see the hills, it's feasible that someone on a road in the hills armed with high powered telephoto lens and a video recorder could see them. I don't think it was safe for her to assume she was safe from prying eyes.

And that's precisely why the British taxpayer spends a great deal of money providing security and protection for William and Catherine.

I repeat: she had every reason to assume that she was safe from prying eyes.

I cannot understand those who are defending the press and sheeting home blame to Catherine (not William, as I've noted) nor her protection unit. That the matter has mushroomed to an international consideration and re-evaluation of the gutter press seems to have passed by so many critics.

It's really not easy being rich, intelligent and very attractive, as Catherine has discovered. Nonetheless, it's pleasing to see her continue to carry herself with aplomb and dignity.

 

[Roslyn]

And that's precisely why the British taxpayer spends a great deal of money providing security and protection for William and Catherine.

Well they need to employ more or different people, or extra training, if she plans on taking her clothes off outside, since the ones who checked out the place they were staying were not thorough.

I repeat: she had every reason to assume that she was safe from prying eyes.

This is your opinion, to which you are entitled. I happen to disagree, for reasons I have already stated.

I cannot understand those who are defending the press and sheeting home blame to Catherine (not William, as I've noted)

William is her husband, not her keeper. Unless he told her to take off her bikini against her wishes and against her protestations that there could be people watching, he cannot be responsible for her actions.

nor her protection unit.

I consider her protection unit has some responsibility in this, or security, or whoever it is who should have "cased the joint" thoroughly.

That the matter has mushroomed to an international consideration and re-evaluation of the gutter press seems to have passed by so many critics.

The gutter press thrives because people buy what they publish. I am not condoning or excusing what they do, but I accept them as a fact of life, like ticks. I wear tick repellant when I am working in the garden, and heavy boots and two pairs of jeans because I know there are far more Eastern Brown snakes out there than I ever see.

It's really not easy being rich, intelligent and very attractive, as Catherine has discovered. Nonetheless, it's pleasing to see her continue to carry herself with aplomb and dignity.

Kate has been rich, intelligent and very attractive all her adult life. What she has now amounts to celebrity status. And yes, she has great aplomb and dignity, as she continues to demonstrate.

 

[Mermaid1962]

She was NOT "in front of a road." She was in a private location far from the road. Sophisticated long-distance cameras were needed to get the pictures. Apparently there are hundreds of pictures and a video. A decent/moral photographer wouldn't have used long-range photography equipment to begin with; but having seen a lady in the "all-together" would have put the camera down.

Personally, I believe that people should take their clothes off only within their own four walls; but I realize that others view such things differently.

The law was broken in any case. Full stop.

^Which bullying? She took the bikini off in front of a road for god sake! .

 

[Queen Penelope]

She was NOT "in front of a road." She was in a private location far from the road. Sophisticated long-distance cameras were needed to get the pictures. Apparently there are hundreds of pictures and a video. A decent/moral photographer wouldn't have used long-range photography equipment to begin with; but having seen a lady in the "all-together" would have put the camera down.

Personally, I believe that people should take their clothes off only within their own four walls; but I realize that others view such things differently.

Yes, long lenses, all the more reason to err on the side of caution when dealing with paparazzi scum. It's not right, but until legislation is brought in to stop this, just take reasonable precautions.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

McInnes: Old notions of privacy slipping away in the digital age

Nude duchess photos that reach new lows
.

 

[Muhler]

An update on the Se & Hør part of the whole affair: Se og Hør-boss: Kates bryster var millioner værd - Danmark | www.bt.dk

The magazine sold 8.000 extra copies the week they showed W&K, which amounts to 250.000 DKK more that week or roughly 27.000 £.
As the mag sells about 121.000 Issues a week, that extra sale counts.
However, as the prize for the photos are estimated to have cost at the very least 100.000 DKK, the surplus may have been limited after all. - Even with the added income from adverts.

Kate's breasts are not the only ones exposed. Two local celebs have also had their attributes shown in the magazine very recently, in a similar manner, but that's just a coincidence reassures the editor, Kim Henningsen.
One of the two other women has sued. The other, well, I think she will sue as well.

The Danish media watchdog, Pressenævnet, will not interfere in the matter of Kate on their own. The watchdog rarely intervene unless someone file a complaint. - So no one from the BRF have filed a complaint.

 

[Warren]

What I do find ridiculous is you taking a whole paragraph to not answer my question. My question was, what is the law about going naked in France?

No, that wasn't your question.

To set the record straight, this is what you asked (#1157):
"What is the law about being bare chested out in public?"

to which Catherine J responded (#1158):
"The Duke and Duchess were on private property that was NOT visible to passersby (unless they found the exact right spot and possessed a professional grade very long telephoto lens).
In this specific situation they most assuredly meet the legal standard of "reasonable expectation" of privacy.
The taking of the photographs and the subsequent publication of them is a prima facie infringement of their rights and an indefensible violation of the law."

I agree that Catherine J did not answer you precisely but as the Duchess was not "bare chested out in public" the question hardly seems relevant.

 

[sophie25]

If I was in Kate's position I wouldn't have taken my clothes off outside full stop. I wouldn't even do it indoors without making sure every blind was shut because I would be working on the premise that you simply can't always know when there is a lens pointing at you. I don't blame her as such but I am VERY surprised she wasn't more aware. BTW I am not saying this in hindsight as I can assure you that my very first instinct if I had ever joined a royal family would be a healthy paranoia of the paps.

 

[casualfan]

Why is this thread still open? The Ds of C have moved on...