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

[Daria_S]

Another great post! I wish the gutter press knew the difference, but they're called the gutter press for a reason; they just want to print a bunch of trash, without caring for anyone's dignity or feelings. I agree; the Cambridges are NOT celebrities, and therefore, should not be treated as such by ANY press. They don't go out of their way to get attention (be it positive or negative), and I bet my last penny that if they had a choice, they'd do their charity work without any press present.

 

[cepe]

Daria - thank you. It drives me mad when this happens.

I have seen a range of opinions but another point is that the taking and distribution of these photos was illegal so I woul question those who think that no action should have been taken.

 

[Daria_S]

The only forum I usually comment is the Monaco, and not exactly because I admire of respect anyone there, but out of curiosity. My admitration and respect go for other people who deserve praise for their hark work and achievements in life. Caroline has made the same silly mistake of sunbathing topless. Did she care? I don´t think so, why should I? On the other hand, William and Kate seem to take the matter more seriously than it is, why? because they think they are untouchable? What do they think? that they can sunbathe naked in front of a road and no one will dare take a picture because they are what they are? It looks like the press is not afraid of them. They are publishing anyway, so William can go on with the suing, he´s only making things worse.

I don´t know if I understand your point, are you glad because some journalists are being threatened because Kate does not still get what her position in life is and continues to behave like a trashy celebrity? That is some way of showing support!!

As some are comparing to Harry, at least he was naive, and believed on strangers who were in his room, but he was not showing his jewels on a balcony so that anyone with a lense could photograph him naked. He was betrayed! I thought he was very stupid when it happened, but he was most probably drunk and knew he was going to war!

Let's get something straight; Kim Kardashian, and her entire family are trashy celebrities, while the Duchess of Cambridge actually has something called class and integrity. And to clarify my point; I'm glad that the public is outraged at the press for invading the privacy of two people who were on a holiday, and not a public engagement. If the press is getting threatened over it, that's too bad, but maybe it'll get the point across. William's suing is a step in the right direction too, because he's letting these vultures know he's taking a stand and will not let the walk all over him and his wife (and later on children). Does that help you understand me better? Quite frankly, I don't know how else to break it down for you, because no matter what anyone says, you'll just continue to write biting comments about this couple, and show glee over their misfortunes (and believing that Henry was betrayed is preposterous, because he should have taken better care as to whom he allowed in his hotel room; William and Catherine, as far as I know, didn't let any stranger into the house that they were using when their privacy was invaded).

Daria - thank you. It drives me mad when this happens.

I have seen a range of opinions but another point is that the taking and distribution of these photos was illegal so I woul question those who think that no action should have been taken.

No problem . I agree with your point here too. If no action was to be taken, then things like that will continue to happen again and again, and that's unacceptable.

 

[cdngirl]

Well I have not read this whole thread. Here is my two cents. While I applaud them for sueing, if that is what they are doing, I also have to say they should have known better.

Yes they deserve privacy, who doesn't? however, they are very very high profile, and in today's world unfortunetely there is really no such thing. Lenses have a long reach (why don't they know these things?) While the Duchess may want to do these things, she simply cannot anymore. Yes it's not fair, but life isn't fair.

This genie isn't going back into the bottle, as much as they may want to try.

 

[NGalitzine]

Why do people still have such a hard time understanding that French law was broken? Do they not get the simple concept that if a law is broken people should be prosecuted and that the injured person has the right to sue?

 

[Osipi]

...'Kate Middleton' stopped existing on the morning of 29 April, 2011, when she married His Royal Highness, Prince William of Wales.

Catherine Elizabeth Middleton became HRH The Duchess of Cambridge on her wedding day. You can also throw Princess William in there too but I don't see that there'll ever be any reason for that to be used. One of the first things I learned about the wive's titles is that the given name (in this case Catherine) is only used in a case of divorce. Then she'd be Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge like Diana and Sarah did.

No matter what the press calls her, or we call her or Aunt Flossie down the road calls her with her teeth out, she is a member of the British Royal Family and in that capacity alone, I think she merits respect. One does not have to worship the ground she walks on or even find her an asset to the world around them but to jump into a conversation and purposely over and over denigrate anyone to me is a mark of someone throwing gasoline on a fire in hopes of inflaming all the area around it. What we have here is for the most part, intelligent debate and discussion that is done without making off the wall derogatory statements against any person. I believe that there are other places and forums where one can go and deride a person till the cows come home but this is not one of those places.

I suggest that those that do find posters that seem to be negative about anyone as a regular habit and find them annoying to make use of the "Ignore" function on these forums. If you don't feed into them, they eventually will go away.

Now... back to our regular scheduled debate and discussion and thank you for letting me say my piece here.

 

[Catherine J]

Trolls bore me. Trolls masquerading as people with something legitimate to add to the conversation make me laugh. I have moments when I *swear* they are taking themselves seriously. Which makes it more funny, in that perverse way that such things do.

I've had a good laugh here tonight.

Oh pitter patter ... you can't win reasonable fights with unreasonable people. Best thing to do is give them the thing they hate the most. A little dry chuckle into your sleeve and then ... nothing.

What was it that Emily Dickinson said? Oh yes, The soul selects her own society, Then shuts the door ...

That all said, I admire the defense of the Duchess ... you guys rock

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Yes the French law was broken because there was a lucrative opportunity. What I dont get is the mindset of William & Kate - do they think they get a pass because of who they are, seriously, with all the history and recent Harry-Gate, how can one assume that paparazzi will not use their chance when spotting Kate topless, breaking the law or not.

I seriously doubt her understanding of her role if Kate thinks she can in private continue to behave like Jane Average and pull the "law breaking" card. Its delusional, sorry. If you want to go topless, just do it and stand by it, like other royals. But please dont think you can do it unnoticed as William's wife & future Queen.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Kate's topless pictures prove we need to start respecting privacy - Comment - Voices - The Independent Quote: Of course it’s a matter of supply meeting demand. There seems to be an insatiable desire for celebrity images, and the more humiliating the better. But morally, because demand is there, does that validate the supply? I think a re-evaluation into the realms of what we find acceptable is needed when it comes to prying unabated, before it’s a case of vultures feeding on other people’s shame. There should be no justification for selling images of someone else’s intimate moments without permission.

I agree, just because there are those who like something thats wrong doesn't mean people need to give it to them. There is so much that people want but it is not given to them.

 

[Osipi]

TBH, if it was me and I was that far off of a distance that the only way I'd be photographed with my top off was by someone blatantly invading my privacy (regardless if I was Queen of the World or just Mrs. Joe Schmoe), I would assume that I had absolute privacy from prying eyes. I cannot in any way blame either Will or Kate for assuming that they had total privacy and that it wouldn't be breached. As it stands, it was not only a breach of privacy by law but also by common decency of the photographer. I do hope that they do prosecute to the full extent of the law on criminal charges in this matter.

When we really think about it, anyone can get a picture of anyone anywhere if they really wanted to and had the means. If a license plate can be photographed by a satellite, the technology is out there to grab a photo of bare breast from space. As our technology advances, perhaps its time to really draw the line of just what will be tolerated and what will not.

 

[awcblue]

Why is there outrage and criticism railed at the Duchess of Cambridge and yet no one objects to the women on Solomon Island...skin is skin...isn't it?

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Yes the French law was broken because there was a lucrative opportunity. What I dont get is the mindset of William & Kate - do they think they get a pass because of who they are, seriously, with all the history and recent Harry-Gate, how can one assume that paparazzi will not use their chance when spotting Kate topless, breaking the law or not.

I seriously doubt her understanding of her role if Kate thinks she can in private continue to behave like Jane Average and pull the "law breaking" card. Its delusional, sorry. If you want to go topless, just do it and stand by it, like other royals. But please dont think you can do it unnoticed as William's wife & future Queen.

I'm sorry it doesn't matter if it was Kate, Kim Kardashian or Helen the librarian, spying on someone and taking pix of them in a private moment is wrong. Your flippancy about law breaking is rather astonishing. I know some on here hate it, but thiese excuses made for the people who did this to Kate really remind me of excuses given when a woman is raped.
If a woman is walking down a dark alley at night in a shirt skirt and she gets attacked, no matter what she was doing wearing or whatever a law was still broken and the criminal is the one in the wrong.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

I'm sorry it doesn't matter if it was Kate, Kim Kardashian or Helen the librarian, spying on someone and taking pix of them in a private moment is wrong. Your flippancy about law breaking is rather astonishing. I know some on here hate it, but thiese excuses made for the people who did this to Kate really remind me of excuses given when a woman is raped.
If a woman is walking down a dark alley at night in a shirt skirt and she gets attacked, no matter what she was doing wearing or whatever a law was still broken and the criminal is the one in the wrong.

No doubt it is WRONG and should be CONDEMNED and there are laws in place to regulate but unfortunately reality is different. Although it is wrong and there are laws in place to prevent people from doing wrong it does happen. We do not live in an ideal world.

Each individual, to prevent him or herself from getting harmed, should use common sense eg do not walk at night in a short skirt or do not go topless on a terrace if you dont want to take the risk something happens to you that you dont want to happen to you. In the end the damage is done, eg topless pictures circulating forever, and it will only be of little comfort that there were bad people out there who broke the law. One should expect every individual to look after themselves in that sense.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

Each individual, to prevent him or herself from getting harmed, should use common sense eg do not walk at night in a short skirt or do not go topless on a terrace if you dont want to take the risk something happens to you that you dont want to happen to you. In the end the damage is done, eg topless pictures circulating forever, and it will only be of little comfort that there were bad people out there who broke the law. One should expect every individual to look after themselves in that sense.

"Do not walk at night in a short skirt" Wow really?? Why because you must be 'asking for it' if you wear a short skirt at night?

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge did take all reasonable precautions IMO.
They were on a large private estate belonging to a family member and not on the beach in Ibiza
They were NOT visible from any public area except for with at least an 800 mm super-telephoto lens (google it to see what we're dealing with) which cost around 6000 US dollars, not exactly something your 'average' passer-by would have handy.
This was a grotesque violation of the law and really the people who keep on this track of 'what were they thinking' are saying that ANY crime of opportunity should never be prosecuted because there will always be more the victim should have done to prevent it.

 

[Catherine J]

Why is there outrage and criticism railed at the Duchess of Cambridge and yet no one objects to the women on Solomon Island...skin is skin...isn't it?

Yes, interesting, isn't it?

And, WWOTS, the irony of having that/those moment(s) in the days immediately following the incident was ... strange.

What was truly ironic was that the coverage of those moments was very carefully and discretely filmed so we didn't actually see any breasts (or I didn't in the footage I watched). So, we have women who are clearly comfortable within their social mileau who have visible breasts who are NOT filmed and we have a woman who lives in a society where this would make her uncomfortable and she IS filmed. It certainly speaks to the "public interest" issue and makes it all the more disturbing - from this evidence one presumes the intent was not to show the breasts but to embarrass and make uncomfortable the woman.

When you break it down like that, it should give everyone a little shiver of discomfort.

 

[Elenath]

No doubt it is WRONG and should be CONDEMNED and there are laws in place to regulate but unfortunately reality is different. Although it is wrong and there are laws in place to prevent people from doing wrong it does happen. We do not live in an ideal world.

Each individual, to prevent him or herself from getting harmed, should use common sense eg do not walk at night in a short skirt or do not go topless on a terrace if you dont want to take the risk something happens to you that you dont want to happen to you. In the end the damage is done, eg topless pictures circulating forever, and it will only be of little comfort that there were bad people out there who broke the law. One should expect every individual to look after themselves in that sense.

I'm afraid your logic is a bit off... You can't compare what happened to Will and Kate to being raped in a public area. If what had happened had happened on a public beach (or anywhere else public) you would have been right. But this is more like wearing a short skirt in your own garden, getting raped and then having people tell you it's your own fault since you wore a short skirt..

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

I'm afraid your logic is a bit off... You can't compare what happened to Will and Kate to being raped in a public area. If what had happened had happened on a public beach (or anywhere else public) you would have been right. But this is more like wearing a short skirt in your own garden, getting raped and then having people tell you it's your own fault since you wore a short skirt..

I only picked up the skirt example from another post ... what I wanted to say is, dont bring yourself in a situation you dont want to see happen to yourself because you cannot count on people playing by rules ... in an ideal world you could but this is reality.

If you dont want to be pictured topless, dont go outside topless because you cannot count on people respecting your privacy - what is wrong but still is happening - as many examples show.

The pictures will remain forever, and who will ask many years ahead if a law was broken or not.

 

[Catherine J]

Why is everyone repeating the obvious as a means of ... what? making themselves feel better - because if blame can be deflected then their consciences are clear - no further action needed? If you can mitigate the outrage with a little reasonable doubt by using a straw man deflection, it's okay?

Cripes, thank goodness many of the major revolutions for some of the really big issues have already taken place - I'd hate to have this lot of society being responsible for social change or civil disobedience or anything approaching a "movement".

Yes, let's just concede it. If she had not taken her top off there would be no pictures. Hard to argue the fact. There it is. Self evident truth.

By this logic, no child would climb a tree because all mothers know children can fall from them and be hurt or killed - so no tree climbing ever again - just to be safe. Because this logic would make the mother liable and guilty if something did happen. I can just hear it, "Well, if she'd kept him from climbing that tree..."

Just stop it. It's just a way of mitigating one's unwillingness to take a stand against something wrong. It's a form of blame the victim that says *volumes* about the moral and ethical slide of our society. It's an excuse to sit back, open another beer and shake one's head in a "well they should have known" self congratulatory crapfest of moral laziness.

Well, as long as you people are tossing blame on the Duchess, I will be here with a mirror, throwing it back on you.

I have become Picard. (just the Trekkies will get this) I can't do much, I can't change the world, but I can sure as hell not let it change me. And that, as history proves, is quite enough if enough people choose that path.

/steps off soapbox but keeps it under the chair in case I need it later

 

[Lumutqueen]

I don't see how this topic is still active, it's just posters repeating their opinions from 10 or so pages back. Moaning isn't going to make a difference people.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

I don't see how this topic is still active, it's just posters repeating their opinions from 10 or so pages back. Moaning isn't going to make a difference people.

Until someone closes the thread, people are going to post their opinions, even repeating their opinions if necessary. From what I've been reading, its not the first thread for this to happen and I personally feel very strong about this disgusting matter and I apologise to all for ranting and raving.

 

[Zonk]

I don't see how this topic is still active, it's just posters repeating their opinions from 10 or so pages back. Moaning isn't going to make a difference people.

I didn't realize that there is a time limit on how long things could be of interest to a person? If that is the case, surely my personal interest in the Abdication of 1936 as well as the martial history of Henry VIII is well PAST its shelf life.

Nonetheless the worlds press seemed to have moved on, I don't imagine there will be any new information regarding this scandal unless they find the photographer who took the pictures.

And I would also disagree with you assessment on people moaning, rather I think we are having a spirited debate with different opinions being expressed. Isn't that the purpose of a forum?

 

[Catherine J]

And I would also disagree with you assessment on people moaning, rather I think we are having a spirited debate with different opinions being expressed. Isn't that the purpose of a forum?

Thank you

 

[Lumutqueen]

I didn't realize that there is a time limit on how long things could be of interest to a person? If that is the case, surely my personal interest in the Abdication of 1936 as well as the martial history of Henry VIII is well PAST its shelf life.

Nonetheless the worlds press seemed to have moved on, I don't imagine there will be any new information regarding this scandal unless they find the photographer who took the pictures.

The Abdication, Henry VIII's wives are part of history. If topless photos of Catherine make it in to the history books I'll eat my socks. When people talk about the abdication or Henry's marital issues, they're usually adding new opinions on the matter. Rather than repeating the same things over and over.

I'll agree that until this thread closes, or people get bored and this thread gets pushed further down the date line, people will go on repeating. I think the photographers been known to the right people for a long time, but I doubt we'll get to know who it is. What's the point?

 

[soapstar]

No doubt it is WRONG and should be CONDEMNED and there are laws in place to regulate but unfortunately reality is different. Although it is wrong and there are laws in place to prevent people from doing wrong it does happen. We do not live in an ideal world.

Each individual, to prevent him or herself from getting harmed, should use common sense eg do not walk at night in a short skirt or do not go topless on a terrace if you dont want to take the risk something happens to you that you dont want to happen to you. In the end the damage is done, eg topless pictures circulating forever, and it will only be of little comfort that there were bad people out there who broke the law. One should expect every individual to look after themselves in that sense.

What does wearing short skirts at night have to do with anything? Rape is about power and violence, it's not about the clothes one is wearing.

 

[Catherine J]

... they're usually adding new opinions on the matter. Rather than repeating the same things over and over.

...What's the point?

I will assume that is not rhetorical.

I rephrase my argument approximately the same number of times as the opposing argument is framed by a different person or framed differently by the same person. This is how I believe a good discussion works - each "side", so to speak, attempts to change the other side's mind by way of reasoned argument. Haven't you ever sat with a group of friends well into the night discussing some issue or another? I have and it is my experience that arguments get repeated, reframed, altered, etc. It stops when one or the other parties withdraws or changes their mind (or gets tired and goes to bed, of course).

If someone becomes tired of listening to it, *they* go to bed. Then the people who want to continue the discussion, do so. The person who doesn't ... well, doesn't.

To answer the question, "What's the point?": The point is to change people's minds in a polite and reasoned manner.

I have one in return. As it adds nothing to the discussion and has the effect of casting a pejorative shade on those who do want to continue, what's the point in pointing out you don't see the point?

 

[awcblue]

Apparently, some seem to spend several hours daily on this forum and they post their strident opinions on many topics but when others dispute and disprove them, they claim the topic has lost interest and should be closed. I agree that they should go to bed more often. Smile.

 

[Mystiblue]

And I would also disagree with you assessment on people moaning, rather I think we are having a spirited debate with different opinions being expressed. Isn't that the purpose of a forum?

And thank you from me

 

[Polly]

I suggest that those who are bored by this discussion do the obvious - simply don't read these pages.

The UK newspapers might well have seemingly abandoned their coverage, but it's not forgotten. Ignoring the person of the victims, the issue remains one of general importance, not least because of the soon to be released report of the Leveson Inquiry into the role and behaviour of the press in the UK is imminent. Privately, individual British press attitudes to the publication of these illegal photos is one of barely suppressed anger, which remains reluctantly suppressed to not further inflame a volatile, domestic situation.

At a more critical level, if we can believe statistics, they reveal that 1 in 4 women experience sexual violence at some point in their lives and that 1 in 5 girls and 1 in 10 boys suffer sexual abuse during their childhood. It is estimated that there are between 6 - 13% rapists in the general community. That's a significant target market, given that it's claimed that 5% of the population are declared LGBT which enables corporations and business to speak openly about 'the pink pound/dollar', which they actively pursue. But we hear little about another, larger group of comsumers who are knowingly targeted - sexual abusers. A significant amount of products and advertisements are overtly targeting what is commercially, if somewhat furtively, referred to as 'the rape pound/dollar'.

A not too subtle example of this was Closure's commercial imperatives in publishing those photos, knowing that large numbers of people would buy a magazine that they usually wouldn't touch, for the pleasure of participating in the sexual humiliation of an attractive, famous woman. These readers were all aware that the photos were taken without Catherine's knowledge or consent, and that she did not want them published, but that only added to the titillation and fleeting sense of power they got from looking at them. That, in short, is the power of what commercial interests call the 'rape pound/dollar', in full flight.

It is dispiriting that so many cannot, or will not see, that they are being so blantantly manipulated. Instead, we read comments castigating the Duchess for her carelessness, that she should have known that society has unwritten rules about what part of the body it's acceptable to display! I've never heard of such 'rules' myself, particulary in relation to moments of intimacy between husband and wife, and generally, when hundreds of thousands of women find it perfectly unremarkable to sunbake topless on countless beaches. To claim that photos of the Duchess were not sexually exploitative or disciminatory because if they were, one would 'just know it', is tantamount, in my mind, to the apologists who say 'I am not racist, but.....'; 'I am not anti-gay, but......' Self-deluded at best, they are.

Taking photos of someone without their knowledge or permission on private property, 1.6 kms from a road, is the photographic equivalent of breaking and entering. Despite any other considerations, using the profound principle of freedom of the press (to inform, free from political intereference) to defend such criminal behavior and commercially-inspired invasions of privacy is inappropriate. The best testament to genuine freedom of the press would be to punish those who use the camera as a weapon to destroy, to inflict pain and harm —as well as those who profit from it

 

[Catherine J]

Taking photos of someone without their knowledge or permission on private property, 1.6 kms from a road, is the photographic equivalent of breaking and entering. Despite any other considerations, using the profound principle of freedom of the press (to inform, free from political intereference) to defend such criminal behavior and commercially-inspired invasions of privacy is inappropriate. The best testament to genuine freedom of the press would be to punish those who use the camera as a weapon to destroy, to inflict pain and harm —as well as those who profit from it

Although you are undoubtedly the better spoken, we're sisters from different mothers, Polly. Thank you very much for your continued participation.

Yes. Our global sense of Freedom of the Press, important as it is, has become very much like the handy discourse over right to bear arms in the United States. An important *idea*, limited as it was from the start with ineffectual language, is used to justify any number of acts, the spirit of which utterly and completely opposes the intent of the idea. The founding fathers never intended, one imagines, the right to bear arms to be used as a defense for one citizen killing another. Likewise, freedom of the press was initiated to protect the public from GOVERNMENT interference - not to allow the press to freely do anything they please. These are critical and important distinctions.

The more we wash it aside, the more immune we become to the dangerous level it has reached. Acts of violation travelling under the cloak of freedom. It is the most disgusting of things to look around you and realize not enough people are angry at or even aware of the slippery slope we are all sliding down.

The longer the institution (we the people, in this case) tolerate the wrongness, the more insidious the rot within becomes.

Simply, she said "no". Even the most poorly educated of us understands the meaning of this. She said no and not enough people listened. She yelled no from the highest rooftops and not enough people listened. How many times does a girl (or a boy, but a girl in this case) have to say no? And why the hell are not every single one of us enraged? Did you not hear her say no?

 

[AdmirerUS]

It is dispiriting that so many cannot, or will not see, that they are being so blatantly manipulated.

Polly - first let me say again, I find your ability to approach a subject with clear logic very refreshing. That you can communicate that logic so that I can understand the nuance is a delight.

Re: the manipulation for gain, and in the interest of taking responsibility for one's own actions, we should note the advertisers above, below and to the side of Forum posts for all our 900 plus posts on this subject.