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

[Catherine J]

Legal experts say the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge can easily win an injunction in Denmark. Denmark has tough laws but it seems TRH have already made their 'point' and are not pursuing court action in Denmark. I don't know this for certain but just my opinion.

While I understand why they won't pursue this "to the ends of the earth" themselves, it makes perfect sense in a pragmatic way, I think some our big thinkers and people of action need to get on it

 

[KittyAtlanta]

You've read 980 or so posts in a topic that doesn't interest you?

Yep, I read 'em all! Interest has nothing at all to do with being informed.

 

[Catherine J]

The CBC has a very good article on freedom of the press/free speech in relation to the Google executive who was recently arrested over failing to remove/censor a piece of film which had been deemed illegal in that country.

At some point it was inevitable that the great bastion of free speech and individual access to information (the internet) was going to have to be "tamed" - one hopes this step is a positive, careful one.

It's the first thing that needs to happen, imo, to get a grip on the ongoing privacy invasion issues the Cambridges are facing. Still, it makes me a little ... nervous.

Anyhooo - thought it might be interesting to those following this issue with the bigger picture in mind.

Yep, I read 'em all! Interest has nothing at all to do with being informed.

Sure it does. One follows from the other. Interest is the catalyst that leads to an informed state. Now, it might be true that you are not positively interested, or interested in a way that has anything to do with anything except being informed of current events - but the two things are not divisible.

YMMV of course.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

'Free speech' comes with responsibility IMO and there has always been limits to it, at least in North America and although it has taken many years, the law appears to be finally catching up with the internet.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Legal experts say the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge can easily win an injunction in Denmark. Denmark has tough laws but it seems TRH have already made their 'point' and are not pursuing court action in Denmark. I don't know this for certain but just my opinion.

Oh I think they should raise he double hockey stix! I don't feel their point has been made and they need to do more to insist that their rights were violated. I also feel they need to keep bringing it up so the %*%€h who took the photos will be caught.

 

[Catherine J]

Oh I think they should raise he double hockey stix! I don't feel their point has been made and they need to do more to insist that their rights were violated. I also feel they need to keep bringing it up so the %*%€h who took the photos will be caught.

Made me smile

 

[Princess of Durham]

Definitely this person needs to be caught. As long as the person is let go he/she will just keep offering up more pictures. Honestly, I wish that William would hire his own private investigators and find out who this person is. At the moment the person is hiding behind "protected source" status and apparently he/she will not be ratted on. Given that, I would wish that William would set out to find out who this is and bring them to court and sue their a** off. The person may not have much money but they can sure as hell spend some jail time. If the paps realize that it may not be all that worth it if they realize he is serious and they may have to spend some jail time they may cool it a bit. After all, William can certainly afford it.

 

[Catherine J]

Definitely this person needs to be caught. As long as the person is let go he/she will just keep offering up more pictures. Honestly, I wish that William would hire his own private investigators and find out who this person is. At the moment the person is hiding behind "protected source" status and apparently he/she will not be ratted on. Given that, I would wish that William would set out to find out who this is and bring them to court and sue their a** off. The person may not have much money but they can sure as hell spend some jail time. If the paps realize that it may not be all that worth it if they realize he is serious and they may have to spend some jail time they may cool it a bit. After all, William can certainly afford it.

Yes. I have to admit, there's a base part of me, that in the bone thing, that really wants the Cambridges to pull a Picard ("The line must be drawn here. This far. No farther!")`and, to quote Gandhi, "Be the change".

Wow, Star Trek and Gandhi in one sentence. There must be some sort of bad writing award for a thing like that, eh?

Thing is ... who better? Other thing is ... who better able? And another thing is ... who else?

And just because I am on a roll, let's add some Burke ..."When good men do nothing, evil triumphs."

(Because a pinch of passive aggressive-ish sophistry is always good). Seriously, I do wish they'd just stand up and say "No." Really, really loudly.

 

[Roslyn]

Ah! Quotes. Goody. Let me add one:

Howard Beale (Peter Finch) in "Network": "Things have got to change. But first, you've gotta get mad!... You've got to say, 'I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!"

I am a little disappointed that William and Kate are going to leave it now they've "made their point". They are in a position to do more than just make their point. I'd like to see them both follow this through and try and do something more about the issue since it is something that affects everyone. By leaving it lie now, they give the appearance of only being concerned about the issue so far as it affects themselves personally.

 

[zembla]

The Danish pics are really the worst ones. That's way, way over the line.

It's interesting that so many photos exist over--what appears to be--multiple days. There were always threats that there were more pics of Harry's Vegas trip, but it turns out William and Kate have more to be worried about.

 

[PrincessDianafan]

Kim Henningsen is the right editor for Og Se Hoer, like his magazine he is a piece of trash. He, Laurence Pieau and all the other editors who have published the photos along with the low life paparazzi who took the photos have no respect for Catherine's or anyone else's privacy. I hope they throw the book at them. Seriously, no one has a right to see a lady in a state of undress except her husband or significant other. The lack of conscience here on the part of the prepretartors whose intention is just for the 'almighty' $$$. Well now that these editors and the pap are in the public eye, perhaps they should get a dose of their own medicine. Perhaps they should be photographed just as the Duchess was in their most intimate and private moments. They're actions are despicable. But like all of us, they will be judged one day.

 

[COUNTESS]

Their actions only exist, because they are paid greatly for them. Stop the pay and you stop the abuse. The over hysteria, probably only on this site, is just that. Privacy for celebrities is a fleeting image. But those who pay exploit that image.

 

[PrincessDianafan]

I am sorry if i am being over hysterical, countess. But this is something I feel strongly about. And no I do not buy smut explotative smut magazines. You are right, it is the reader who pays for this and spurs on these paps and editors to do what they do.

 

[Catherine J]

Their actions only exist, because they are paid greatly for them. Stop the pay and you stop the abuse.

Yes, this is true.

The over hysteria, probably only on this site, is just that.

Over hysteria?

I don't see *any* hysteria, let alone "over hysteria". No slight intended, but the comment begs the question: Do you know what hysteria means?

I see anger, frustration, concern, interest, intellectual analysis, discussion amongst interested parties and a slew of other healthy things. Perhaps I have a different understanding of the word "hysteria".

Privacy for celebrities is a fleeting image.

And this is the problem. You state it with a "get over it" shrug. You are therefore a pretty good poster girl for the problem. As we'd have to first baseline a discussion with the meaning, in this context, of "celebrity" and then define "privacy" - and I am fairly certain you're not up for that sort of discussion - it seems doomed to be a permanent position for you. Poster girl, I mean.

But those who pay exploit that image.

What? Lost me on that one. Do you mean those who pay for the exploitive materials? Sorry, it won't parse into anything meaningful. Please feel free to enlighten me.

What we have here is people who see a really large social problem and are attempting an understanding through discussion - or are attempting to express an opinion as a precursor to discussion.

If that is hysterical, then I am *proud* to be hysterical.

 

[COUNTESS]

If all the hyterical converstaion, I suspect, mostly here, because, most of the "real" world has far greater problems than this, is long past this. As I said, no money, no pictures. Sure, it is a social problem, but it is the consumer, to a great degree who is the promulagter, should there be such a word. Should they have sued. That is their prerogative. Did they win? A pyrrhic victory. Those who wanted to see them have, the rest don't care. William is very sensative to the abuses of the press and rightly so. I think they, also feel like fools, because they thought they were safe. If nothing else, this will tell them, they are, probably never safe, unless they use the very stringent precautions.

 

[Catherine J]

...most of the "real" world has far greater problems than this...

Is this a fake world? Gods, I hate being the last one to know these things

Seriously, we will just have to agree to disagree as it relates to the snipped bit above. I think this is, or is part of, a very large and very important social problem - one that gets worse and worse each day we don't solve it.

To each his own dogfight, eh?

 

[Daria_S]

If all the hyterical converstaion, I suspect, mostly here, because, most of the "real" world has far greater problems than this, is long past this. As I said, no money, no pictures. Sure, it is a social problem, but it is the consumer, to a great degree who is the promulagter, should there be such a word. Should they have sued. That is their prerogative. Did they win? A pyrrhic victory. Those who wanted to see them have, the rest don't care. William is very sensative to the abuses of the press and rightly so. I think they, also feel like fools, because they thought they were safe. If nothing else, this will tell them, they are, probably never safe, unless they use the very stringent precautions.

For someone who wants everyone to believe that she doesn't care about this 'issue', you're certainly not afraid to waste your own time and leave a comment. The 'issue' must have some relevance to you then.

 

[Princess of Durham]

For someone who wants everyone to believe that she doesn't care about this 'issue', you're certainly not afraid to waste your own time and leave a comment. The 'issue' must have some relevance to you then.

Yes ... it almost seems to border on hysteria.

 

[Daria_S]

Yes ... it almost seems to border on hysteria.

Yes, yes, indeed .

 

[Catherine J]

I was thinking earlier today that a quick and efficient way to tackle this issue would be through rather simple copyright law changes. Virtually all countries adhere to International Copyright conventions, with minor deviations, additions and subtractions here and there. For most the underlying principle remains constant: creative output and likenesses have inherent value and are the sole, sovereign possession of their creator/possessor unless specifically permitted otherwise.

If stricter likeness copyright laws were enforced, publications would have to pay for the use of anyone's likeness on demand. Some international agency, with which anyone could register, would act as demand agent in some pro forma manner established under the copyright law amendment. So, if you were the Cambridges, you could register with the agency which could act, according to your specific instructions, as demand agent. So, say, selected news agencies, certain public domain transactions, etc. could have unfettered access to images but rag mags could not without paying. And paying appropriate to gain. It would not only immediately help the Cambridges but it would have an economic ripple effect which would solve a great majority of the problem.

The rest could be solved with attack dogs

What we keep hearing and saying on this thread is that there is a streak of economic steel that runs under the thing and that it is less a privacy issue than an economic one - in terms of weak place. One could try and change 6 billion heavily conditioned people or one could just hit the bad guys where it hurts and work out the PC wording on the privacy issue later. Just make it a copyright issue - not nearly as socially and morally contentious and we are, after all, coded to understand the phrase "it's just business". No need for endless human rights and right to freedom of the press stuff. Sure, you can do it, but it will become not viable to do. They rely upon a cheap product because their target audience is, by and large, the "unwashed masses" with a lower than average disposable income. So, you take away their ability to make a profit and they will find other businesses to be in, mark me.

So. Yeah. Just pondering out loud.

YMMV

 

[Artemisia]

New intrusion of Kate's privacy as bottomless pictures of Duchess are published by Danish magazine

Photographs of Kate Middleton changing her bikini bottom have been published in a Danish magazine, reigniting the privacy scandal surrounding the Royal couple. Celebrity magazine Se Og Hor (See And Hear) has gone further than any other publication and printed a 16-page special of photographs, including three of the Duchess of Cambridge changing her bikini bottoms – taken from the front. The photos appear to be from the same set of shots originally taken while Prince William and his wife were holidaying in the South of France.

While there was previously an overwhelming support for the Duchess, the top-rated comments on this article suggest a slight shift in public opinion.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

New intrusion of Kate's privacy as bottomless pictures of Duchess are published by Danish magazine

While there was previously an overwhelming support for the Duchess, the top-rated comments on this article suggest a slight shift in public opinion.

Never mistake the comments section of the DM as 'public opinion'
The DM itself is just a glorified gossip rag and the comments section is proof of how prevalent mental illness is with its readership.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

If another YouGov poll was conducted today, there would still be overwhelming support for the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. None of the facts have changed. The photographer committed a crime and the gutter press published the photos. End of story

 

[Catherine J]

... While there was previously an overwhelming support for the Duchess, the top-rated comments on this article suggest a slight shift in public opinion.

Hmmm.

As Duke of Earl says, it's hard to trust the DM in terms of public opinion.

That said, if it were the case, one wonders at why it would be the case.

I mean, if you think you're private, then you think you're private. What you do after that, whether it's sip iced tea and pick your nose, read War and Peace in the original Russian or change your bathing suit ...

My only response to this is sympathy for the couple. Other than that, and a slightly exacerbated sense of outrage at the ongoing violation (it must be a little like being held captive), it doesn't change the core issue for me.

Bah. All through history societies have failed to recognize the biggest threats to them until it was too late. Things creep up. This might just seem to be about an unfortunate incident involving someone in whom this community is interested, but it's really a kind of 11th hour chime. If the basic human right to privacy is no longer held in esteem for the British Royal Family, and in particular those who will be its future King and Queen, then it's a little like the last man standing is wobbling, don't you think?

I guess when we see pictures of the Pope in his shower, we'll really know, eh?

 

[Sonjapearl]

Catherine must feel so embarrassed knowing her whole body is available online and in trashy magazines. She's really brave to step out in public and act like nothing is wrong, when she is likely hurting inside. I know I would feel very uncomfortable even going to the store knowing that the cashier might've checked out those photos.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

Catherine must feel so embarrassed knowing her whole body is available online and in trashy magazines. She's really brave to step out in public and act like nothing is wrong, when she is likely hurting inside. I know I would feel very uncomfortable even going to the store knowing that the cashier might've checked out those photos.

Tad dramatic aren't we? This 'scandal' doesn't even make it into the top 10 as far as the Windsors are concerned.

 

[Catherine J]

Catherine must feel so embarrassed knowing her whole body is available online and in trashy magazines. She's really brave to step out in public and act like nothing is wrong, when she is likely hurting inside. I know I would feel very uncomfortable even going to the store knowing that the cashier might've checked out those photos.

Yeah. She has my complete sympathy. And respect. But she wins, and I am sure she knows this, when she doesn't let it change the way she meets the world. Good on her. I always liked her in that vague way one does, but I have an actual bona fide respect for her now, and if nothing else, she has shown us that she is not meek or weak. Good things to know about the future Queen.

 

[Catherine J]

Tad dramatic aren't we? This 'scandal' doesn't even make it into the top 10 as far as the Windsors are concerned.

True enough. But I am pretty sure that it's the worst one that Catherine has ever had.

 

[Al_bina]

Kate Middleton Bottomless Photos: Danish Magazine Denies Publishing New Naked Pics (UPDATED)

 

[COUNTESS]

True enough. But I am pretty sure that it's the worst one that Catherine has ever had.

She will have worse. Life is just that way.So, don't let the small stuff freak you out. To those who commented on my comment before, 1. It was a cogent argument, not hysteria. 2. You are right I had nothing to do at that moment and was amused by the hullabaloo about this non-event.