Ship of Fools: "Nothing to hide from her husband"

Thread: "Nothing to hide from her husband" Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023871

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

This is apparently a quote from the French magazine that published photos of the Duchess of Cambridge, explaining why there was nothing wrong with publishing.

They just don't get it, do they? "It's okay, we didn't breach your privacy because you weren't doing anything wrong when we photographed you."

What a way to spectacularly miss the point.

Can the media genuinely not see the difference between letting your husband see you topless, and letting thousands of people see you topless? Or do they just not care about the difference?

Who is BUYING this stuff? Seriously, they wouldn't do it if it didn't work and if it didn't generate sales. They called them the pictures the world's been waiting to see. I really want to know: who's actually been waiting to see this? Who actually buys magazines and newspapers for the opportunity to intrude into the personal lives of royalty, musicians and actors?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Just plain sleazy - or very sleazy; or extremely sleazy.

Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on :

Sleaze sells. Unfortunately. I could suggest who it sells to, but it would probably be very not PC if I did.

But I think there is a cross-Channel cultural difference here. The French genuinely did not see anything wrong in publishing a picture of a beautiful woman, topless.

I could be wrong though.

Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :

Of course they knew it's wrong. She was in a private residence. She does not want the world to see her undressed. The magazine knows this and happily bought photos taken secretly, with the intention of capturing a private moment and putting it up for maximum embarrassment.

It's gutter press.

I wonder how the editor would feel about someone secretly photographing her on the bog taking a dump and publishing it. It's natural. Her husband has probably seen her on the loo, so no problem there. I'd love to see what she looks like in that pose.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I see Berlusconi gets a less than honourable mention here. Mind you, the Italian Connection illustrates some of the difficulties of taking legal action these days.

The defence by the editor of "Closer" was pretty emetic. Frankly, I'd have more respect if she'd just said "well, actually, we're basically making money out of prurience. The notoriety is also good for business. Well, at least in the short term."

It seems like the French courts do have the means under French law to bring the French publishers to account, and award a shedload of damages. But I guess it would just perpetuate the story, intensify the attempted intrusions, increase the fees for paparazzi and "private investigators". Particularly if a "second front" gets opened in Italy.

My sympathies to the Cambridges. The reminders of Diana's hounding must have been very painful. But in the current goldfish bowl world, it's by no means clear what if anything can be done to protect some reasonable level of privacy for those in the public eye.

I suspect that technology may come up in due course with some kind of screening protection of privacy against distant photographing (or sound recording). Until then, the famous will continue to be at this sort of risk of invasion of privacy. And there is always "the enemy within" factor.

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :

The editor of the Sun says the circumstances are very different from the scenes in the Las Vegas hotel.

How!

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

TBH, they do get it. They get that topless pictures of Kate will sell, and that is all they care about.

And before Leverson, the UK papers would have been just as anxious to have these pictures.

As someone said on twitter, many people would like to see Kate unclothed, but not like this. She is a stunning lady, but she is also a person who deserves privacy, because she lives and will continue to live a significant portion of her life in the public eye.

A proper discussion of this magazine and the people who buy these pictures would have to be in hell. They have clearly learned nothing from Dianas death, and given the amount of analysis of this, it does stink of deliberate disregard.

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :

Actually I take back my earlier comment. The interview with Sir Christopher Meyer does clearly say why this is different from the Prince Harry case.

In the case of Prince Harry the photo illustrated a story and the Prince invited strangers into his private space. In the case of the Duchess of Cambridge there is no story.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But in the current goldfish bowl world, it's by no means clear what if anything can be done to protect some reasonable level of privacy for those in the public eye.

Enforcement of the law seems like an excellent start. Hopefully, it gets to the point where the money it costs to lose a legal action is more than the money gained by publishing.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
In the case of Prince Harry the photo illustrated a story

What story?

I think you're complete wrong. I think it is yet another classic case of "the story" only existing because of the pictures. The media is absolutely RIFE with things that only become stories because there's footage. Visual interest. Time and again, the only reason one car crash or one house fire makes the news and one doesn't is because someone was present taking shaky video with their iPhone in one case and not the other.

Posted by cross eyed bear (# 13977) on :

Maybe one of the Francophiles on the board can confirm this, but aside from the significant breach of privacy aspect, it was my understanding of French law that if someone's face was shown on a photo, a photographer needed this person's express permission to publish.

We had to adhere to this when creating publicity for a business in France ten years ago.

Posted by passer (# 13329) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The media is absolutely RIFE with things that only become stories because there's footage. Visual interest. Time and again, the only reason one car crash or one house fire makes the news and one doesn't is because someone was present taking shaky video with their iPhone in one case and not the other.

Exactly.

It's beginning to look as though we are on the cusp of a societal change. With the ubiquity of the unregulated and unregulatable internet, perhaps we are seeing the beginning of the end for privacy. If privacy becomes unattainable, what will have to change is our attitude towards it. Most religions include the premise that we can hide nothing from God and He is aware of everything. Soon we may all be God, and there will be no secrets. Instead of basing my behaviour on the assumption that it's between me and my maker maybe I should assume it's between me and everyone else. Should that come to pass, the concepts of anger, embarrassment, hurt, and so on may need to evolve.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
TBH, they do get it. They get that topless pictures of Kate will sell, and that is all they care about.

Yep - that and the massive publicity.

I feel very sorry for this poor girl, her life is going the way of Diana's and there is little the Royal family can do about it.
I wouldn't step into her shoes for all her money and privileges.

Camera lenses these days have incredible zoom capacity - even the best security can't keep them away completely.

Anyone should be able to sunbathe topless with no fear of published photos - but I know that's cloud cuckoo land.

Posted by chive (# 208) on :

My concern, bearing in mind that I don't really care a lot about the royal family, is that if you can get a zoom lens taking a photo, you can get a rifle taking a shot which is a really big problem for her security.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

Camera lenses these days have incredible zoom capacity - even the best security can't keep them away completely.

Quite right Boogie . So it does leave the question open as to why The Princess of Cambridge deemed it wise to remove her top and take a stroll on the balcony .

This coming so soon after the nude Prince Harry fiasco. Are we talking coincidence or what ?

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

When would you wish to permit her the privilege of being naked ?

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chive:
My concern, bearing in mind that I don't really care a lot about the royal family, is that if you can get a zoom lens taking a photo, you can get a rifle taking a shot which is a really big problem for her security.

This was the point - though rather hypocritcally, I thought - of the Irish editor of Ireland's Sun newspaper who will print the photos. According to him, the Duchess of Cambridge shouldn't stand naked in 'full view of a public road' if she doesn't want to be snapped like that. He didn't seem to think that the point of them being at a private residence at the centre of a 600 acre wooded estate(?) indicated enough of a serious desire for either privacy or security.

Of course it's about money. As someone else once said, just because the public are interested in a thing, doesn't make it in the public interest.

Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

Camera lenses these days have incredible zoom capacity - even the best security can't keep them away completely.
Quite right Boogie . So it does leave the question open as to why The Princess of Cambridge deemed it wise to remove her top and take a stroll on the balcony .

This coming so soon after the nude Prince Harry fiasco. Are we talking coincidence or what ?

No, it's clearly a conspiracy.

I understand she contacted a photographer and said, "Listen, I'll get my tits out and parade on the balcony and I want you to get a whole lot of photos of me and flog them to the press. I'm tired of Harry stealing the limelight. It's my turn to feign indignity".

[Disappointed]

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
"It's okay, we didn't breach your privacy because you weren't doing anything wrong when we photographed you."

THIS, apparently, is the new operational definition of privacy: seclusion for the express purpose of performing acts deemed to be outside of legal or moral boundaries. Everything else is for public consumption.

Personally, I try hard to avoid viewing images of horrific violence, and likewise avoid images I suspect are likely none of my business.

When did it become up to the viewer to protect the viewee's privacy?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

A third front. Never mind about Italy, here comes the Irish Daily Star.

And that's the problem with the application of the law. Which law, which country, which privacy protections exist? And just how many lawyers do you need if you want to take them all on?

[ 15. September 2012, 13:12: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Originally posted by Barnabas62

quote:
we're basically making money out of prurience. The notoriety is also good for business. Well, at least in the short term."

This.
The only way to end such is for people to stop paying for it.

BTW, the pics of Prince Harry were different in that he had a lower expectation of privacy, given the circumstances. And the same as both were driven by the cult of celebrity.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
When would you wish to permit her the privilege of being naked ?

She should get to do it at LEAST once a day, I'd say. For showers.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
... Who is BUYING this stuff? ...

Gossips. Or should we call them people who have chosen a gossipy lifestyle?

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

People who have been "trained" by popular culture to devalue the point(s) and purpose(s) of their own lives to such an extreme that only the lives of celebrated people are worth examining or mean anything.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Being devil's advocate for a moment....

Where do you draw the line? She is a public figure in the public eye, every dress choice is critiqued, every hairstyle dissected, every painted eyelash magnified and scrutinised, each aspect of her life ploughed over repeatedly and every move plotted and known. That's the deal she went into, unless she is profoundly stupid.

So where do you draw the line? Should you stop tweeting when you see her, be denied the opportunity to take a photo of her when she's out and about, not be able to post anything about her on facebook? Personally, I don't care what she does. She could cartwheel naked down to Piccadilly and I doubt it would make me buy the sort of newspapers that publish this trash. But she is a public figure and she knows that whatever she does it will, sooner or later, be in the public eye. It may well be a 'gross invasion of privacy', but she chose to give that privacy up. It's part of the deal. Even as a common old joe soap, if I went into my garden naked and a journalist took a funny pick on me by the compost heap and printed it, I might be embarrassed, but I know it would be my own bloody fault for straying outside in the nip. The woman is not a tit - despite what the papers might say - she cannot for one moment have thought that straying out onto a balcony while naked might not result in an incident in the press she would rather hadn't happened.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
It may well be a 'gross invasion of privacy', but she chose to give that privacy up. It's part of the deal. Even as a common old joe soap, if I went into my garden naked and a journalist took a funny pick on me by the compost heap and printed it, I might be embarrassed, but I know it would be my own bloody fault for straying outside in the nip. The woman is not a tit - despite what the papers might say - she cannot for one moment have thought that straying out onto a balcony while naked might not result in an incident in the press she would rather hadn't happened.

First, what is this "deal" of which you speak?

In what universe does anyone forfeit ALL rights to privacy? When did the press acquire rights to follow people into bedrooms and bathrooms and distant balconies and record things that are no one's business?

Granted, I wouldn't wander outside in the buff. But then, neither do I take pains to vacation on a relative's remote and densely-wooded estate (having no such relative with any such estate) in actual pursuit of privacy. Had I such a relative with such an estate, I might well assume there was a reasonable expectation that the privacy I had gone there to seek might actually be available to me.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cross eyed bear:
Maybe one of the Francophiles on the board can confirm this, but aside from the significant breach of privacy aspect, it was my understanding of French law that if someone's face was shown on a photo, a photographer needed this person's express permission to publish.

We had to adhere to this when creating publicity for a business in France ten years ago.

I'm not sure. What I am fairly sure about is that the magazine has a big enough war chest to pay off any fine, has done the math and has decided revenue from publication will exceed the compensation payment and costs.

As an aside, I wonder how much advertising revenue the BBC (and other websites that have suddenly developed scruples) generate by posting lots of tut-tut stories about how other evil people are publishing the immoral photos?

[ 15. September 2012, 21:01: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

The BBC doesn't run commercial advertising [Confused]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:

But I think there is a cross-Channel cultural difference here. The French genuinely did not see anything wrong in publishing a picture of a beautiful woman, topless.

As the best-selling newspaper in Britain has pictures of unclothed women in it almost every single day, I suspect that's not really the case.

Also what the photographer and the magazine did might well be illegal in France, but certainly isn't in Britain. There is no law saying you can't take photographs of people wherever they happen to be. (There are some special laws about pictures of courts, the military, and police, but even then its not generally illegal) Nor is there any law about publishing your photographs (again there are specific ones about child pornography and a few other things, but those are irrelevant here).

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
The BBC doesn't run commercial advertising

Where I live at least, they carry adverts on their embedded videos. And generating traffic is all, in any case.

Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
People who have been "trained" by popular culture to devalue the point(s) and purpose(s) of their own lives to such an extreme that only the lives of celebrated people are worth examining or mean anything.

I'd say they've also been trained to devalue the lives and privacy of others and view the embarrassment and humiliation of others as entertainment.

It ranges from the nuff nuffs who put themselves up for shaming on "reality TV" (think Big Brother, Ladette to Lady, Come Dine With Me and so on) to those who just happen to be famous and can be shamed because they are essentially stalked and caught unawares.

It stems from a basic lack of respect for people (that's all people) by the media and the public paying for that lack of respect.

It's all a bit depressing.

[ 15. September 2012, 23:44: Message edited by: Left at the Altar ]

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:

But I think there is a cross-Channel cultural difference here. The French genuinely did not see anything wrong in publishing a picture of a beautiful woman, topless.
As the best-selling newspaper in Britain has pictures of unclothed women in it almost every single day, I suspect that's not really the case.

Also what the photographer and the magazine did might well be illegal in France, but certainly isn't in Britain. There is no law saying you can't take photographs of people wherever they happen to be. (There are some special laws about pictures of courts, the military, and police, but even then its not generally illegal) Nor is there any law about publishing your photographs (again there are specific ones about child pornography and a few other things, but those are irrelevant here).

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
First, what is this "deal" of which you speak?

If one gains some sort of fame or notoriety, one will receive attention from the press. This is a given, always has been.

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

In what universe does anyone forfeit ALL rights to privacy? When did the press acquire rights to follow people into bedrooms and bathrooms and distant balconies and record things that are no one's business?

No one forfeits all rights. Given the circumstances here, IMO the press overstepped the line. Though there will always be arguments as to where that line is drawn. In very few places are the lines as clear as one might think.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

As I understood it some years ago the law in Britain regarding the ownership of copyright in photographs was that the photographer held all rights provided that

a) the photograph was taken from public property and/or
b) the subject of the photograph was on public property.

If neither applies copyright resides with the land owner(s?). [/QUOTE]

IANAL but I'm pretty sure that is not the case. A photographer has the copyright of their own pictures in the same way as a painter does. Where you are standing at the time has nothing to do with it. The copyright holder is the creator of the work, unless someone employs them to make pictures, when it would depend on the contract.

The only relevance private property might have is that the owner could make conditions about entry. So if an office or shop or church has a sign saying "no photographs" and you take pictures then you no longer have permission to be there. But their rights allow them to make you leave their land. They don't own your pictures. Any more than they would own the notes you made in your diary on their land.

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

If this/these photo(s) was/were taken from a public road ISTM that the real story should be about the failure of the protection team to do their job effectively.

If someone can see you they can take a picture of you. Though they might need a camera the size of a van if they were tens of miles away. So the only way to be invisible is to stay indoors. Never go anywhere with a view of the landscape.

I know even less about guns than I do about cameras, but as far as I know there are rifles with a decent chance of hiotting a target from a few miles. So either you never go outside or else you keep changing your velocity...

[ 16. September 2012, 09:08: Message edited by: ken ]

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:

I understand she contacted a photographer and said, "Listen, I'll get my tits out and parade on the balcony and I want you to get a whole lot of photos of me and flog them to the press. I'm tired of Harry stealing the limelight.

Well yeah, if you want to put it like that, (although I wouldn't have thought there'd be any need to contact a photographer).
It is Diana all over again . No one person can withstand the sheer intensity of media attention these people get.

BTW. Did anyone notice William, Kate and Harry at the Olympic opening ceremony ? I had the distinct impression of William being the gooseberry in that trio.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
First, what is this "deal" of which you speak?
If one gains some sort of fame or notoriety, one will receive attention from the press. This is a given, always has been.

Of course, you're right; it's a given that public persons will receive public attention, especially when in public. My complaint or quibble, though, is that the word "deal" implies some sort of mutually-agreed-upon bargain being struck.

The post to which I originally responded seems to propose that the bargain consists of "In exchange for my becoming a royal, the press is entitled to photograph my every move throughout every minute of every day for the rest of my life, however intimate or personal the circumstances, or however invasive such photography may be."

While I'm hardly in the Duchess's confidence, I somehow doubt that's what Kate actually signed up for. When she goes to considerable lengths and expense to achieve actual privacy, perhaps she should be granted a little.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I'd better declare my own bias before I comment on this. I detest the press. I think the perpetual whittling about press freedom has completely lost sight of what press freedom was originally for. I also lived for several years in a country which was a tyranny. It also had no press freedom, but that had next to no bearing on why it was a tyranny. More press freedom there would have had no practical effect on the absense of any other freedoms.

So having declared my bias, I'll carry on.

Freedom of the press originally was about newspapers not being closed and journalists not being locked up for expressing political opinions the government of the day did not agree with.

It has no bearing on an alleged right to infringe peoples' privacy. The fact that the prurient might be interested in seeing pictures of a famous person's nipples, or being told that some actress is sleeping with a man who is not her husband does not mean that there is any public interest, or need, for this to be published.

I can't see why our politicians have never had the guts to grasp this particular nettle and introduce legislation on privacy which would make the French equivalent look tame. If it was acceptable without infringing the European Convention to brand the faces of infringers with an S. on one cheek and an L. on the other, as used to be the case, that would be a degree of excess I could live with.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

If this/these photo(s) was/were taken from a public road ISTM that the real story should be about the failure of the protection team to do their job effectively.

One cannot be a public figure and also be 100% safe. Try this experiment though. Take a football and a rock out to a football pitch, place the football at one end then walk to the other. Turn around, now:
1. Look at the football
2. Hit it with the rock.
Difference bewteen photographing something and shooting it.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Freedom of the press originally was about newspapers not being closed and journalists not being locked up for expressing political opinions the government of the day did not agree with.

You do realize this statement contradicts your previous? There may be exceptions, but there is good reason many governments do not appreciate freedom of the press.

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It has no bearing on an alleged right to infringe peoples' privacy.

ISTM, it is not as clear an argument as many would like. But then little is.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

What one does in public is "public," what one does in private should not be, within some limits -- Mom taught us to lower the shades before undressing because a passerby might easily see in. And we sunbathed in the back yard because the front yard was easily visible from the road, while the back and was screened with fences and bushes.

One ought to be aware of where the public road is before doing things one doesn't want witnessed.

But long range lenses change the game somewhat. That's not really the same as a neighbor passing by close enough to say "hi" to you in your yard. The extra equipment is for seeking to see that which really can't be seen by a casual passerby.

The problem grows when we add a privacy fence (was there one?) and a photographer climbs a tree to see over it, or hires a helicopter to get the photograph. There should be a privacy right recognized and enforced when it takes unusual measures -- physical or electronic, to see and record someone.

Privacy issues are going to get even more interesting with cameras that take pictures of clothed people as if naked. Here's one story. I've heard talk of electronics that can penetrate house walls, record your private conversations from across the street.

We have (various) laws against making recordings of telephone conversations, doing it against the law and releasing the recordings in public can get a person in big trouble. The same could be done for photography. Ability to get a photo doesn't legally have to equal right to publish or distribute it.

All it takes is a criminal law forbidding recording private behavior, for photos like for wiretapping, and define private as, say, behind a wall or other physical non-opaque obstruction (clothes), or more than 500 yards from the nearest place a public viewer can stand. Then enforce it.

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

If this/these photo(s) was/were taken from a public road ISTM that the real story should be about the failure of the protection team to do their job effectively.
One cannot be a public figure and also be 100% safe. Try this experiment though. Take a football and a rock out to a football pitch, place the football at one end then walk to the other. Turn around, now:
1. Look at the football
2. Hit it with the rock.
Difference bewteen photographing something and shooting it.

You and I might use a rock - others might be a little more determined

Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

BTW. Did anyone notice William, Kate and Harry at the Olympic opening ceremony ? I had the distinct impression of William being the gooseberry in that trio.

Now you are just being silly

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

BTW. Did anyone notice William, Kate and Harry at the Olympic opening ceremony ? I had the distinct impression of William being the gooseberry in that trio.
Now you are just being silly

Or prophetic [Biased]

Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :

I recall sitting in my doctor's waiting room in about 2007, reading a women's gossip mag from 1984 which had an article about Charles and Diana.

The headline was, "Pssst. Don't tell Charles, but it's a girl!"

I don't care much for prophecy.

ETA: This says as much about my doctor's magazine collection as it does about the veracity of what you read in gossip rags.

[ 17. September 2012, 09:59: Message edited by: Left at the Altar ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Since this appeared in a French magazine, shouldn't a crowd of yobs emulate the Libyans by attacking the French embassy, and murdering the French ambassador?

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
I can't see why our politicians have never had the guts to grasp this particular nettle and introduce legislation on privacy which would make the French equivalent look tame.

These would be the same politicians who would do absolutely anything to gain the imprimatur of Mr Murdoch, presumably.

The reason the press are ghastly is because there are enough revolting and prurient people out there to buy their wretched rag. Some years ago someone took a photograph of the Duchess of Wessex, as she then wasn't, flashing her boobs at a drunken party. On the run up to her wedding she flogged the photo to the Sun who duly printed it. Sales of the Sun soared which is, of course, why they did it. The only occasions on which popular indignation have dented a newspapers circulation were Kelvin MacKenzie's infamous headline about Hillsborough - sales on Merseyside have never recovered - and the fate of the News of the World.

Apparently hacking into the mobile phone of a murdered teenager is unacceptable as is defaming your friends and neighbours when they've died in an accident. It appears that it is fairly difficult to lose money by underestimating the decency of the British people.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Freedom of the press originally was about newspapers not being closed and journalists not being locked up for expressing political opinions the government of the day did not agree with.

And we've got better than that since then. And now most of us don't see why there should be any different freedoms for the press or anyone else. Our governments have already taken away far too much legal freedom recently by using terrorism as an excuse. There is no need to add another one.

quote:

It has no bearing on an alleged right to infringe peoples' privacy. The fact that the prurient might be interested in seeing pictures of a famous person's nipples, or being told that some actress is sleeping with a man who is not her husband does not mean that there is any public interest, or need, for this to be published.

Of course there is no need for it. Did anyone here say there was? That is completely irrelevant to the real point.

People going around taking nude photos of other people without their permission and then publishing them is a bad thing.

But government censoring newpapers is a worse thing.

And policemen standing on street corners and telling us what we can or cannot look at or photograph is an even worse thing.

Simple.

quote:

If it was acceptable without infringing the European Convention to brand the faces of infringers with an S. on one cheek and an L. on the other, as used to be the case, that would be a degree of excess I could live with.

Really? You really think that? You really have so much vile hatred for journalists that you think they should be tortured, enslaved (which is what an S brand used to mean of course), and maimed for life? Or are you trying to reinvent that old so-called crime of "seditious libel" whose main use in England was to imprison anyone who dared to talk openly and honestly about those murderers Archbishop Laud and Charles the First. Its a non-crime, an excuse for persecution. The charge boils down to "saying things the men in power don't like". It has no place in any decent society. You might get away with your plan in Afghanistan if the Taliban get back in when the Americans leave, but I doubt if it would fly anywere else. Thank God you will never get elected to public office then.

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Since this appeared in a French magazine, shouldn't a crowd of yobs emulate the Libyans by attacking the French embassy, and murdering the French ambassador?

If we had the draconian censorship laws you seem to long for then there would be far more of that sort of thing. At the moment a British diplomat in a country thyat thinks someone in Britain has insulted its rulers or religion can just-about-honestly say "that wasn't us, that was a private citizen, they weren't acting on our instructions or with our permission" . If we had the kind of censorship you want that would not be possible any more. Every criticism of anyune would be blamed on everyone, for allowing it.

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
All it takes is a criminal law forbidding recording private behavior, for photos like for wiretapping, and define private as, say, behind a wall or other physical non-opaque obstruction (clothes), or more than 500 yards from the nearest place a public viewer can stand. Then enforce it.

And ten to one the first time a law gets used it will be against someone trying to expose government corruption. And the police will use it as an excuse to stop and search anyone near any demonstration or protest and confiscate cameras and mobile phones.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Ken, I don't think you've picked up when I'm actually saying what I think, and when I'm being sarcastic. To explain:-

1. I do think freedom of the press is overrated, that privacy should be ferociously protected and that the gutter press should be hammered when they infringe that.

2. The S. has nothing to do with slavery. S.L. was branded on the cheeks of John Prynne in 1636 and stood for Seditious Libeller. Prynne wore them with pride and claimed they stood for stigmata laudis 'stigmata of Laud'. I do think that under modern conditions, branding is over the top. Also, he hadn't infringed anyone's privacy. He'd merely expressed opinions the Archbishop and others disapproved of. Bearing in mind the fondness some shipmates have for the Archbishop (not shared by me), they ought to approve of that.

3. I do not think that stopping the press infringing peoples' privacy is a form of censorship. The press would say that, wouldn't they? But lurid stories about peoples' private lives and photos of nipples sell papers.

4. I also don't accept the argument that the press has to be free to publish lurid stories about peoples' private lives and photos of nipples, because otherwise they couldn't once in a while blow the gaffe on something like the expenses scandal. Again, they would say that, wouldn't they?

5. I was not suggesting yobs should attack the French embassy. I was suggesting by example that there was no excuse for foreign yobs attacking US and other embassies.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

A bit "silly" I admit, L at the A
And I certainly wish no ill on Royal couple William and Kate.

We the public have though learnt to be more than just a little cynical where Royal going-on's are concerned.

Seriously, when I first Kate had been caught on film with her top off I really did think [Confused]

WTF ? . And the first thing that came to mind was Prince Harry in the nud .

Now we've got Royal lawyers running around on the Continent with injunctions . I mean give us a break, this thing's going to go Global.
Princess Kate might just as well hold her hands up and say "OK , you've seen my tits, now just grow up".

[ 17. September 2012, 18:46: Message edited by: rolyn ]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I do think freedom of the press is overrated, that privacy should be ferociously protected and that the gutter press should be hammered when they infringe that.

From where I'm sitting I think all our freedom needs protecting, Doesn't really matter whether its thre press or not. Over the last few years the political tide in Britain and the USA has been turning against personal freedom and that needs to be stopped. I don't want the press to have any legally protected freedom of speech that you and me don't.

quote:

S.L. was branded on the cheeks of John Prynne in 1636 and stood for Seditious Libeller. Prynne wore them with pride and claimed they stood for stigmata laudis 'stigmata of Laud'.

Gosh! I wonder if that was why I mentioned Laud in my reply?

quote:

I do think that under modern conditions, branding is over the top.

Jolly good! Lets just hope we can preserve these modern conditions then!

quote:

I do not think that stopping the press infringing peoples' privacy is a form of censorship.

Well it obviously is, because someone would be telling someone else what they are or are not allowed to publish.

This specific instance is about someone publishing a photograph. The picture was taken quite legally - and if you think it should have been illegal to take such photos then presumably you want to see police patrols grabbing cameras off us? Our police already tell people not to take photos, on the flimsiest of pretexts. They don't need any more encouragement.

Once the picture exists, what do you think should be done to stop it being published? Should they seek permission to publish it? Who from? The police? A court? The government? The Lord Chamberlain? The people in the picture? What about a picture of a crowd on a beach? Do you have to approach all of them for permission? Or just the Very Important Ones? Is there a list of those too royal and important to be photographed without permission? Who is on it? The Queen? Bernie Ecclestone? Rupert Murdoch? Max Mosley? Rihanna? Tony Blair? Who makes the list?

quote:

I also don't accept the argument that the press has to be free to publish lurid stories about peoples' private lives and photos of nipples, because otherwise they couldn't once in a while blow the gaffe on something like the expenses scandal.

I don't accept it either. I don't think they should publish things like that. But neither do I think it is the place of the government or the law to stop them doing it.

Yes, its unsavoury. But the picture breaks no English law. Its not pornographic or demeaning, no-one's reputation is damaged (except maybe the phoptographer's, now eveyone knows he spends his time looking at naked women from a distance through telescopes, woudl you want your sister to marry him?), no-one is insulted, it tells no lies as far as we know. Our libel laws are so strict here that people come from Russia and Argentine to sue each other in English courts. If the pictures did the dirty on anyone the lawyers would have them for lunch.

But if, as seems to be the case here, no-one is actually harmed, then I do not think the police or the courts should be involved. Even if that means that nasty people get away with publishing nasty pictures. I don't have to look at them.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Ken wrote:

quote:
This specific instance is about someone publishing a photograph. The picture was taken quite legally - and if you think it should have been illegal to take such photos then presumably you want to see police patrols grabbing cameras off us? Our police already tell people not to take photos, on the flimsiest of pretexts. They don't need any more encouragement.

Actually, isn't she supposed to have just been topless?

But just to say that there are in fact protections in English law against people observing/ taking photographs of you undertaking a "private act". It's primarily to catch voyeurs under the Sexual Offences Act, but a reasonable expectation of privacy is all that is required. Whether a powerful lens used from 200m away to merely photograph someone sunbathing topless would be considered unreasonable I've no idea, but the provision does exist.

Best not to try this one - if found guilty you would likely have to sign the sexual offenders register.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

But is it the taking of the photos, or the publishing of them?

If somebody snapped the Duchess topless and developed them himself for his own, er, delectation (now that would be creepy), there'd be no issue, no lawsuit, no fuss-&-bother.

What has actually invaded the woman's privacy (if there's a case to be made for same, and IANAL), is the publication of those photos, surely?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

What pisses me off on this is that the assholes don't seem to give a crap that this is a real person they're shaming. Royal, not, whoop-ti-do. No young woman (nor man, neither) should have to have naked photos published without consent. No person, period--but it's worse for the young, who haven't had the time to grow a rhinoceros hide over their feelings.

It reminds me of a conversation I had a day or so ago with a PR person for my work. She's about Catherine's age (she doesn't like "Kate," does she?) and she gets all kind of shit from people on social media who say the nastiest things to what they imagine is the company leadership. As if those people ever did their own PR work! I know taking crap from the public goes with the territory, but damn it hurts when you're that young--and she at least doesn't have her physical image splashed all over the web for sickoes to drool over.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
First, what is this "deal" of which you speak?
If one gains some sort of fame or notoriety, one will receive attention from the press. This is a given, always has been.

Of course, you're right; it's a given that public persons will receive public attention, especially when in public.

Exactly. WHEN IN PUBLIC.

This is what I can't understand about the attitude of the media (and it seems many of the media's consumers) to our celebrities - whether it's royalty, actors, musicians or sportspeople.

Everybody else gets to sign on for their job and sign off at the end of the day. Well, actually, it seems as if some photographers may not have private lives in any normal sense, and spend their entire life camped out in vans, which may explain why they can't fathom the difference between working and not working.

But for everyone else, we spend time working and then we spend private time where we're not at work, we're not in our role and we don't expect to be required to perform our role.

Why the hell does anyone think that 'celebrities' are different from this? Because they don't keep standard 9-5 hours, with movie premieres and concerts and matches occurring at some other time?

An actor performs their duties, including promotional duties, at certain times and makes themselves available for the media in the performance of those duties. Same with a musician. Same with a sportsperson. Same with a royal.

And THAT'S IT. We have no more right to investigate the rest of their lives than your boss has to come to your house in between your shifts.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

I agree with you, orfeo, that us the way it should be.

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

This specific instance is about someone publishing a photograph. The picture was taken quite legally

FWIW, invasion of privacy is not legal* in France. The Cambridges are going to sue and they will almost certainly win.

The toilet paper that is Closer decided that it was worth paying the fine that they would inevitably get because of the number of magazines they would sell.

*Granted we're talking about a civil, not a penal offence.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

The newspapers here report that the complaint the Cambridges are making in France is of criminal conduct by the photographer and/or the publisher. Are you able to shed any lift on that and if such a complaint is possible, the consequences? For example, if a criminal complaint be possible, can a gaol sentence be given? Th e possibility of that sort of penalty might well make these sleazebags i think more than twice.

Posted by Beethoven (# 114) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
But is it the taking of the photos, or the publishing of them?

If somebody snapped the Duchess topless and developed them himself for his own, er, delectation (now that would be creepy), there'd be no issue, no lawsuit, no fuss-&-bother.

What has actually invaded the woman's privacy (if there's a case to be made for same, and IANAL), is the publication of those photos, surely?

Well, sure there'd be no fuss and bother if noone knew that some eejit had taken the photos - but that's still invaded her privacy. Selling them to a magazine just takes the whole thing to another level of gutter-ness.

Look at it the other way round. If I get a stepladder and some good binoculars, and peer into my neighbour's window, I am invading their privacy whether they know about it or not. Telling the world that I've invaded their privacy merely shows the world what kind of person I am...

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Actually, voyerism itself is a criminal offense in the UK - regardless of whether you sell the pictures or not.

quote:

In all cases the observation, or intended observation, must be for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification and must take place, or be intended to take place, without the consent of the person observed.

The SOA 2003 defines a 'private act', in the context of this offence, as an act carried out in a place which, in the circumstances, would reasonably be expected to provide privacy, and where the victim's genitals, buttocks or breasts are exposed or covered only in underwear; or the victim is using a lavatory; or the person is 'doing a sexual act that is not of a kind ordinarily done in public'.

I would assume that a journalist would claim they are not doing it for sexual gratification - but if you weren't publishing then it would be difficult to mount that defense.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Interesting point. Perhaps one could argue it would still be for 'sexual gratification' even if it wasn't the voyeur's own gratification but for the gratification of others, i.e. those who bought the newspaper?

I like the thought of a grubby paparazzi finding himself on the sexual offenders' register.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

That would be lovely.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

To correct ken, in the UK you are allowed to take photographs without permission of the people who are the subject in public in public places. However, the underground and shopping malls are private places, as is Canary Wharf, and security guards regularly tell photographers to stop taking pictures in Canary Wharf, on the Underground and in Trafalgar Square. You are allowed to take pictures on the Tube using a small camera if you do not use flash or a tripod, you may well be told to get a licence to take pictures at all.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

This one should be one for gov't intervention. Consideration of laws, diplomatic inconveniences, and disruption of the lives of people who do such things. Are there criminal harassment laws over there? Charge the relevant people in the UK and then demand extradition from the countries of origin. They can hide out in the Ecuadorian embassy if they don't want to be extradited, at least they won't be taking photos from there.

This is not about the photos being porno or not. It is about privacy and harassment.

[ 19. September 2012, 00:34: Message edited by: no prophet ]

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
First, what is this "deal" of which you speak?
If one gains some sort of fame or notoriety, one will receive attention from the press. This is a given, always has been.

Of course, you're right; it's a given that public persons will receive public attention, especially when in public.
Exactly. WHEN IN PUBLIC.

This is what I can't understand about the attitude of the media (and it seems many of the media's consumers) to our celebrities - whether it's royalty, actors, musicians or sportspeople.

Nothing about this is hard to understand. Enough people will buy celeb magazines and enjoy the five minutes of titillation they provide.

The attitude of the media is "it's just a job", and a lucrative one at that.

Why should the media care about legal or moral scuples when their consumers don't?

What I find hard to understand is how many people find their own lives so boring that they just have to read about a film star's bottom.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
This one should be one for gov't intervention. Consideration of laws, diplomatic inconveniences, and disruption of the lives of people who do such things. Are there criminal harassment laws over there? Charge the relevant people in the UK and then demand extradition from the countries of origin. They can hide out in the Ecuadorian embassy if they don't want to be extradited, at least they won't be taking photos from there.

This is not about the photos being porno or not. It is about privacy and harassment.

No prophet, unlike the US which seems to regard the whole earth as subject to its criminal jurisdiction, the normal principle in the UK and other civilised countries, is that whether what you are doing is criminal or not, depends on the law of the place where you do it. So whatever the law of England and Wales may be on privacy, taking photographs etc, our unnamed paparazzi could not be prosecuted in England and Wales. He or she either has, or has not, broken the law in France, and can only be charged under French law.

There are a few exceptions to this. Piracy on the high seas is an offence against the law of nations and is triable anywhere. I seem to remember there's something odd on this about murder, which can follow citizenship and not just place. And I think it is generally assumed that if an offence takes place across a border, either country can prosecute if they can get their hands on the perpetrator. An example would be if I am in Dublin , telephone someone in Belfast and swindle them.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
... in the UK you are allowed to take photographs without permission of the people who are the subject in public in public places. However, the underground and shopping malls are private places, as is Canary Wharf, and security guards regularly tell photographers to stop taking pictures in Canary Wharf, on the Underground [...]

Yes but their remedy is to ask the photographer to stop and then eject them from their land if they don't. They don't get to confiscate any photograhs that were taken and you can still publish them if you want.

quote:

[...] and in Trafalgar Square. Y

Trafalgar Square has special laws about it. Bascially whatever you do there the police are in charge. That's what it was originally designed for 150 years ago and that's what it's still used for.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Trafalgar Square has special laws about it. Bascially whatever you do there the police are in charge. That's what it was originally designed for 150 years ago and that's what it's still used for.

What was the purpose of its design which should forbid new photographs of one of the most photographed places in London?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I'm not sure I completely understand, I thought extradition was always an option. Certainly an application for that would inconvenience the photographers and publishers? -- has to be heard in a court, lawyers hired, arguments made etc.

In the civilised world, extradition is designed to recover fugitive offenders. I do something in France that is illegal there. I then flee to England. I haven't committed my crime in England. The French then extradite me to face trial in France.

If I do something in France that is not illegal there, and then go to England where what I did would have been illegal if done in England, I can't usually be tried for committing a crime in England, because I haven't done so.

If I do something in France that would be illegal in both countries, I should be tried in France under French law, because that is where I committed the crime.

Unfortunately, the UK government has badly sold the pass on this one by lying on its back and waving its paws in the air to the US which doesn't seem to recognise this basic and rather obvious principle.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Trafalgar Square has special laws about it. Bascially whatever you do there the police are in charge. That's what it was originally designed for 150 years ago and that's what it's still used for.
What was the purpose of its design which should forbid new photographs of one of the most photographed places in London?

It was designed for crowd control right from the begining - to facilitate what we now call "kettling". They even had secret lookouts for policemen to watch what was going on!

The photography thing is a half-hearted response to technological changes - the idea is that police ought not to be photographed when accidentally beating up demonstrators. Or passers-by like Ian Toimlinson. The US-led terrorism scares of the last ten years have been used by the Home Office as an excuse to do lots of things they wanted to anyway. (Like the way they bamboozled the last government into almost intoducing ID cards) They would dearly love to ban photography, or at lest pass laws letting them confiscate cameras and pictures opr censoe publications of pictures of police and other officials. W ought not to let them.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0