The Duchess of Cambridge's Breasts

[Emil Miller]

Does anyone know why all the fuss about Kate Middleton wearing a topless bikini and it's subsequent exposure through photographs printed in a French magazine? It appears that one of Signor Berlusconi's publications is going to show them in Italy and they have just been published in Ireland by an affiliate of the Daily Express group.

[Alexander III]

What next, paparazzi's taking pictures of Michele Obama while in the shower?

[Emil Miller]

If you were to go to Cannes during the Summer, you would see plenty of topless women stretched out in the sun and nobody taking any notice.
What makes Kate Middleton any different except that she happens to be married to arch hooray William Windsor?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I can't wait to see 'em. Going to Google now!

Edit: Not bad, but the pictures are so fuzzy they're near pointless. Don't get the big deal, but I never will when it comes to nudity. Just body parts that had the human population has.

[OrphanPip]

This would only be interesting if there was something scandalous about the pictures, like giant salami areola.

[Alexander III]

If you were to go to Cannes during the Summer, you would see plenty of topless women stretched out in the sun and nobody taking any notice.
What makes Kate Middleton any different except that she happens to be married to arch hooray William Windsor?

To be fair she was not out in public, she was in a private resort with only her and her husband - the paparazzi managed a picture from a mile away.

So the better analogy would be a man taking a picture of a naked woman while she is in the privacy of her own room and showing off the pictures.

Had she been in a public beach I would have seen nothing wrong with the situation, it would have been her bad judgment. But she was in private, that is where I take umbrage.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I don't think many would disagree with it was wrong to take the picture. I think the larger issue is why it's such a big deal that Kate was sunbathing topless and why it's so "scandalous."

[MANICHAEAN]

Which brings us to Prince Harry's glutus maximus.

[Alexander III]

I don't think many would disagree with it was wrong to take the picture. I think the larger issue is why it's such a big deal that Kate was sunbathing topless and why it's so "scandalous."

Because the (future) king and queen are political figures. They are not actors or entertainers, they are symbolic and political figure heads. I am quite sure it would be scandalous for such pictures of any politician to be published. As I said before, it would be like someone taking a picture of Michele Obama in the shower and publishing it. Sure she is a woman like anyone else BUT

1) It is a gross breach of privacy

2) As a political figure and representative of her nation, it is disrespectful to the nation itself.

[Alexander III]

Which brings us to Prince Harry's glutus maximus.

There the blame was on himself. But to be fair he is not the heir apparent, so he has far less influence and proportionately far more freedom.

[JuniperWoolf]

It sucks for her, now future generations will always have nudie pics of the queen. Imagine if we had topless pictures of when Queen Elizabeth was a young woman.

[stlukesguild]

It sucks for her, now future generations will always have nudie pics of the queen. Imagine if we had topless pictures of when Queen Elizabeth was a young woman.

That's an image that could haunt you.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Because the (future) king and queen are political figures. They are not actors or entertainers, they are symbolic and political figure heads. I am quite sure it would be scandalous for such pictures of any politician to be published. As I said before, it would be like someone taking a picture of Michele Obama in the shower and publishing it. Sure she is a woman like anyone else BUT

1) It is a gross breach of privacy

2) As a political figure and representative of her nation, it is disrespectful to the nation itself.

Why and how is it disrespectful to the nation? I get that taking the picture and breaching her privacy is disrespectful, but you, among others, seem to think her being "caught" is somehow disrespectful. That's what I don't get.

What I am trying to get it at is why it's such a big deal if you see a nude body. It's just a body. These pictures of Kate Middleton are not degrading, nor should they be embarrassing. There's nothing wrong with sunbathing topless, or even bottomless if a person wants to. It's not undignified. Having "nudie pictures" just shouldn't be that embarrassing--it's only our backwards society, which has made the human body into such a sinful object, that has made it embarrassing. The only legitimate criticism I can think of is her disregarding the danger of skin cancer.

[Volya]

I don't think the problem is that she was naked, the problem is that somebody took a photo of her, when she clearly did not want them to.

[Hawkman]

I think it's more depressing that prurience has a commercial value. Who wants to look at a fuzzy photograph anyway? The people who lap this stuff up would be better off paying their penny and peering into a "What the Butler Saw" machine on the pier. At least the pictures would be clearer. Perhaps they should try and get jobs as servants and peer through keyholes. That way they could probably steel her bra and pants too.

[Alexander III]

Why and how is it disrespectful to the nation? I get that taking the picture and breaching her privacy is disrespectful, but you, among others, seem to think her being "caught" is somehow disrespectful. That's what I don't get.

What I am trying to get it at is why it's such a big deal if you see a nude body. It's just a body. These pictures of Kate Middleton are not degrading, nor should they be embarrassing. There's nothing wrong with sunbathing topless, or even bottomless if a person wants to. It's not undignified. Having "nudie pictures" just shouldn't be that embarrassing--it's only our backwards society, which has made the human body into such a sinful object, that has made it embarrassing. The only legitimate criticism I can think of is her disregarding the danger of skin cancer.

It could just be personal opinion.

I as an Italian, if someone published a nude picture of the prime-minister wife which was taken by a gross breach of privacy, I would feel disrespected and offended.

Clearly if someone were to take nude pictures of Michelle Obama and publish them in a magazine you seem to express that you would be fine with that.

[Emil Miller]

It could just be personal opinion.

I as an Italian, if someone published a nude picture of the prime-minister wife which was taken by a gross breach of privacy, I would feel disrespected and offended.

Clearly if someone were to take nude pictures of Michelle Obama and publish them in a magazine you seem to express that you would be fine with that.

If you were a paparazzo you would presumably have a different opinion.

[Alexander III]

If you were a paparazzo you would presumably have a different opinion.

Were I a rapists I would most likely have a different opinion on rape too.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I don't think the problem is that she was naked, the problem is that somebody took a photo of her, when she clearly did not want them to.
Some people will see it that way, but I think a lot will also see it as the duchess not acting proper, which is stupid.

It could just be personal opinion.

I as an Italian, if someone published a nude picture of the prime-minister wife which was taken by a gross breach of privacy, I would feel disrespected and offended.

Clearly if someone were to take nude pictures of Michelle Obama and publish them in a magazine you seem to express that you would be fine with that.
Dear lord, Alex, has your reading comprehension just flown out a window or something? Of course it would be disrespectful for someone to take a picture of ANYONE in privacy and publish photos of them. That's not the point I've been TRYING (in vain, it seems) to make. Some people are going to see these pictures of the Duchess and judge her, not the photographer, and that's what I find stupid--you know, because I don't thnk nudity should be that big of a deal, LIKE I'VE BEEN ****ING SAYING!

Seriously, if anyone should be using that dumb ****ing Jackie Chan meme, it's me.

[Alexander III]

Dear lord, Alex, has your reading comprehension just flown out a window or something? Of course it would be disrespectful for someone to take a picture of ANYONE in privacy and publish photos of them. That's not the point I've been TRYING (in vain, it seems) to make. Some people are going to see these pictures of the Duchess and judge her, not the photographer, and that's what I find stupid--you know, because I don't thnk nudity should be that big of a deal, LIKE I'VE BEEN ****ING SAYING!

Seriously, if anyone should be using that dumb ****ing Jackie Chan meme, it's me.


But you are imposing your worldview on others here. You think nudity is not a big deal. Plenty of people don't. Personally I have been naked with plenty of friends and girls and that never bothered me. But if one time when I got naked someone took a picture of it and posted it online, I would be pissed off like Lucifer. If you don't think that there is anything wrong with strangers seeing you nude that is fine, but don't impose your morality upon others. Not everyone is ok with having nude pictures of them taken and showed to the world.

P.S In your first post you sounded totally fine with the fact that the magazine published these pictures, hence why I am having trouble understanding your position. To be frank you are really pulling a Romney in this thread.

[Volya]

I think you are misunderstanding what Mutatis is trying to say, Alex.......

[Alexander III]

Can someone please explain to me what Mutatis is trying to say. I feel like a Roman in Gaul here.

[Volya]

He is asking why some people think the Duchess should not have been nude sunbathing.
His question is nothing to do with the morality of taking a photo and publishing it.
(Do correct me if I'm wrong mutatis)

[Alexander III]

He is asking why some people think the Duchess should not have been nude sunbathing.


The Duchess was sunbathing in a private resort with only her and her husband as guests. Nothing wrong with that.

[Scheherazade]

This discussion reminds me Mutatis' "Professionalism" thread.

Certain people, by virtue of their positions/professions/status are not able to do (or expected to do) what anyone else might get away with in their society.

I can very easily imagine a 20-something man going in nude in their friends during night of partying (a la Harry) or a woman sunbathing topless (a la Kate); however, because of their place in the eyes of society (ironically, consisted of those who would be doing exactly those things they gasp at during their next holiday abroad), they will be talked about ceaselessly.

"Live and let live" is what I would like to say.*

*Disclaimer: This does not include any activities that are considered criminal or hurtful to other first/second/third parties.

[cacian]

To be totally honest both should have known better.
There is always going to be Papparazzi and one way or another there were going to photos especially where nudity is concerned.
What is most astonishing is that it happened just after the news about Prince Harry.
Now just because of this one would have thought more care would have been taken regarding anyone sunbathiung naked or topless especially if it is going to be done on foreign lands. Topless subathing was literally asking for trouble as far the couple were concerned. No such a thing as privacy laws as far as Royalty abroad is concerned.
Someone somewhere will always tip the press about the whereabouts of Royalty.
I thought that was the most obvious there was.
Wether it the uncle chateau or whatever it is still foreign soil. One need to up the games if anyone wants to be taken seriously.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

He is asking why some people think the Duchess should not have been nude sunbathing.
His question is nothing to do with the morality of taking a photo and publishing it.
(Do correct me if I'm wrong mutatis)
This.

The Duchess was sunbathing in a private resort with only her and her husband as guests. Nothing wrong with that.

Then we are in agreement.

[Alexander III]

Then we are in agreement.

No we are not, before you said there was nothing wrong with the pictures. I clearly believe there is something wrong withe them and I elucidated on the point. You have not yet said why you see nothing wrong with the fact that these pictures were published.

[Calidore]

No we are not, before you said there was nothing wrong with the pictures. I clearly believe there is something wrong withe them and I elucidated on the point. You have not yet said why you see nothing wrong with the fact that these pictures were published.

Actually, Mutatis has been saying pretty clearly that he thinks there's nothing wrong with the content of the pictures (i.e. boobies), but that they shouldn't have been published (which he agreed in post #19 was "disrespectful").

[Clopin]

If you were a paparazzo you would presumably have a different opinion.

Holy logic batman. Good God is it so hard for some people to think before they hit the submit button? What exactly are you trying to say here?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

No we are not, before you said there was nothing wrong with the pictures. I clearly believe there is something wrong withe them and I elucidated on the point. You have not yet said why you see nothing wrong with the fact that these pictures were published.
Now you're just being intentionally obtuse. I don't know why. Get a bad batch of weed or something?

Actually, Mutatis has been saying pretty clearly that he thinks there's nothing wrong with the content of the pictures (i.e. boobies), but that they shouldn't have been published (which he agreed in post #19 was "disrespectful").

Thank you. I have been more than clear in several posts as to my positioning the this of breaching her privacy:


I don't think many would disagree with it was wrong to take the picture. I think the larger issue is why it's such a big deal that Kate was sunbathing topless and why it's so "scandalous."


Why and how is it disrespectful to the nation? I get that taking the picture and breaching her privacy is disrespectful, but you, among others, seem to think her being "caught" is somehow disrespectful. That's what I don't get.

[TurquoiseSunset]

It would be a shame if people judged her for taking her top off in private. It's the same as taking your top off before taking a shower in my mind.

I was really irritated by the editor's comment that Kate has a nice body, so she shouldn't be upset about the pictures. What a stupid thing to say. Yes, she has a great body, but that doesn't mean she doesn't have the right to be upset about having her boobs exposed to world. She already has very little privacy as it is.

[kiki1982]

ooooo, missed this thread as I had too much work, but now I'm here, I'd like to say a few words :D.

I haven't read the whole thread, so it might be a little repetitive.

Two fusses: from their side and from the (initially) French magazine's side.

Indeed, the pictures are grainy. If you can see breasts in there it's pretty much your own imagination. And yes, Kate, like all women has breasts. Guess what William has down there... What's the point?
Even the French editor didn't see what the fuss from their side was about (would you like to stand naked on a magazine cover, woman?). That begs the question why she bought and published them in the pictures place, but that's me.
From the other side, these pictures are far worse in quality than that picture of Kate in a teensy weensy yellow bikini (without polka dots). That almost gave everything away, you just had to think the nipples with it. I don't know whether they complained about that.

Anyway: to me the fault lies on both sides.

A: what is so interesting about them being on holiday? They probably do what we do, no they do do what we do. They're people.

B: However, if the photographer could see them, they could see the road. Nothing made them think, 'Hmm, we better watch out.'

C: It is a gross breach of their privacy which they are entitled to as human creatures. And yes, they should pursue the magazine, but they'll have a hard time of doing it, because each country then has to have its own court battle. The magazines on the other hand sell millions of copies more, so do they care? The question is how much more expensive the court battle in their defence will be. If the balance does not strike a negative, it's very unlikely they will ever decide to leave people alone.

As to political figures. They should not be political figures and officially they are not either. They are however, people of interest (for some people). That's why they manage the press (giving interviews once in a while billed as 'unique insight into the prince's mind', photo opportunities for the press, etc.) so that they may be left alone when they need to unwind. Any human being needs some time he can relax without a camera lens being pointed at him/her. It would be great if they could just lie topless on the beach without anyone batting an eyelid. Sadly that's not the case. Although I do hear that the queen of Scandinavia go out cycling and shopping alone and no-one cares.
Indeed, the two of them will once be heads of state, but how does that role get affected by pictures of them on holiday?

So, I think, that there is a balance here: the press needs to respect anyone's privacy (be it celebrity or otherwise), but people in the public eye should also realise that there are people who will go to incredible lengths to get a good picture (which goes for a lot of money). If you don't want to get caught doing something embarrassing (or which could be embarrassing to you), you should not do it anywhere where it could become that. I'd say if you want to lie naked on the beach, do it in a protected resort for celebrities. Not in a castle in the South of France with a public road running next to it.

What gets me in all of this is that when Prince Harry plays strip billiards and these pictures are published (taken at a private party, I guess they are deemed private), we go, 'Ooooo, you dirty devil.' He gets told off by the Queen and that's about it. If someone takes a picture from a public road (admittedly the telelens doesn't plead in the photographer's favour, although I am not sure if these days you need a telelens and not just very high resolution), we go, 'Oooo, you nasty guy.' It must be because she's a woman and Harry is a man. Men voluntarily display their bits. Women don't.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

It would be a shame if people judged her for taking her top off in private.
They will, though.

[Emil Miller]

Holy logic batman. Good God is it so hard for some people to think before they hit the submit button? What exactly are you trying to say here?

It's pretty clear actually. The paparazzi have a job to do whether we like it or not. From their standpoint, they are providing the press with pictures of interest to the general public. The problem here is that it is the silliness of the public in wanting to follow up on everything that is written about celebrities that is the cause of such photos rather than its exploitation by photographers.
I haven't seen the photos and have no intention of doing so; not because I am offended but if I want to see them there are bigger and better boobs on display elsewhere than those belonging to the Duchess of Cambridge.

[Bluehound]

British women do not take their tops off on our beaches; we only do it when we go abroad. I my self have only done it once on my Honeymoon, guess I was felling a little daring. I must admit topless swimming was nice but my boobs are quite big and I tend to have Scammel wheel nut nips especially if I go in the sea.
So it kind of feels weird to me especially if kids are around.

Anyway the point being that seeing Kate topless is a big deal to us and who ever took the photos knew it would be. But the thing is she wasn’t on a beach or on a boat in the med, she was in a private area enjoying some private time with her husband. Those pics should never have been taken let alone printed. Else where does it stop? Will we get pics of them in their bedroom making the next heir in line to the throne (well there was a crack in the curtains – so they were asking for it – right?).

[cacian]

It's pretty clear actually. The paparazzi have a job to do whether we like it or not. From their standpoint, they are providing the press with pictures of interest to the general public. The problem here is that it is the silliness of the public in wanting to follow up on everything that is written about celebrities that is the cause of such photos rather than its exploitation by photographers.
I haven't seen the photos and have no intention of doing so; not because I am offended but if I want to see them there are bigger and better boobs on display elsewhere than those belonging to the Duchess of Cambridge.

I guess the whole thing is not so much boobs as you said but about the fact that foreing press on their own turff can do what they want.
The French are pretty 'serious' about their private lives means that their own press now can direct their frustrations at others non french visitors inclduind or especially royalty.
Britain is complaintt or suing is totally pointless.
If Britain were to be taken seriously about their royalty, the private life issue versus public life, then they should do the same as the French and take their private life in Britain and outside Britain seriously.
That is the only to stop the press enjoying its freedom to do as it pleases.
The French did it Britain must do the same too otherwise it is paparazzi all the way. There is no stopping them.

[kiki1982]

They will, though.

That is somthing I don't understand. I think no-one really thinks about that in Britain. Even if she were to go to an Italian beach and go topless there (I have seen that millions of times in my teens loooooong ago), I would think no-one would bat an eyelid, although they would raise questions whether it's for a future queen to do. They would get angry if someone were to publish pictures. I.e. the opinion of a lot of people is, 'She can do what she pleases in her free time (apart from dealing drugs and taking heroine), as long as she does her job properly', which they have obviously briefed her on.

Research has shown that women of my mother's generation were more inclined to take off their tops in a public place like on a beach, because they felt liberated. Younger women like me and Kate, don't do this in public places because they find their breasts are a private thing.

I personally haven't done this either. I just don't feel I should get them out for everyone to see, although they are small and they don't bother me (only running up and down the stairs is a problem :D). I guess I will have to wait for an exclusive swimmingpool for myself to see what topless/naked swimming is about.

So I don't think people will judge her like that. Maybe in more conservative places by people who are unable to see things in a different way.


It's pretty clear actually. The paparazzi have a job to do whether we like it or not. From their standpoint, they are providing the press with pictures of interest to the general public. The problem here is that it is the silliness of the public in wanting to follow up on everything that is written about celebrities that is the cause of such photos rather than its exploitation by photographers.
I haven't seen the photos and have no intention of doing so; not because I am offended but if I want to see them there are bigger and better boobs on display elsewhere than those belonging to the Duchess of Cambridge.

It's a bit sad, yes, that there would actually be people interested in these grainy boobies. And it's even more worrying that this would be 'of public interest' at all.


British women do not take their tops off on our beaches; we only do it when we go abroad. I my self have only done it once on my Honeymoon, guess I was felling a little daring. I must admit topless swimming was nice but my boobs are quite big and I tend to have Scammel wheel nut nips especially if I go in the sea.
So it kind of feels weird to me especially if kids are around.

Anyway the point being that seeing Kate topless is a big deal to us and who ever took the photos knew it would be. But the thing is she wasn’t on a beach or on a boat in the med, she was in a private area enjoying some private time with her husband. Those pics should never have been taken let alone printed. Else where does it stop? Will we get pics of them in their bedroom making the next heir in line to the throne (well there was a crack in the curtains – so they were asking for it – right?).

I think the big deal is indeed that someone would dare to print such pictures. That's obviously why hte paparazzo is there. If he couldn't get his pictures sold, he wouldn't take them. The English press, it seems, is reluctant (as they were with Harry) and the Irish newspaper who did publish them was closed down by its owner (probably temporarily I would say) because of it, my husband said this morning. Press in other countries have fewer scruples, it seems. But then they also have no mercy for their own celebrities and they don't hesitate to publish lies.

How many times have I seen 'Kate pregnant' on German magazine covers. It is amazing.


I am not sure that French people are actually so private in this business. Has France not got the biggest nudist community in Europe at least? Ok, it's not sex-related, but neither are these pictures. Still, everyone walks with their bits dangling. The south of France must be a very good place due to its weather, but nonetheless, there must have been an early feeding ground for nudism compared to, say, Italy or Spain.

[Scheherazade]

I am wondering if this debate that ensued did not sell more papers for the press.

[TheFifthElement]

I'm mystified why publishing an intimate photograph of someone without their express consent (male or female) isn't considered a sexual offence and punishable as a criminal act.

[Alexander III]

I'm mystified why publishing an intimate photograph of someone without their express consent (male or female) isn't considered a sexual offence and punishable as a criminal act.

Actually I have not thought of it that way, but you are right, for all intents and purposes it is a sexual offense and should be treated accordingly.

[Emil Miller]

It may be a criminal offence and that will presumably be decided by a court of law but there is a school of thought that says that if someone exposes themselves within sight of the public they are inviting an invasion of privacy.

[prendrelemick]

The Magazine will have done a calculation ie. We're going to intentionally break the law, so what is the fine going to be , and will the increased sales justify it. That is all they are bothered about. All this other stuff about freedom of the press and public/private places is just flim-flam. Its the money that counts.

Finally, I haven't seen the Dutchess' breasts but I bet they're lovely.

[Emil Miller]

The Magazine will have done a calculation ie. We're going to intentionally break the law, so what is the fine going to be , and will the increased sales justify it. That is all they are bothered about. All this other stuff about freedom of the press and public/private places is just flim-flam. Its the money that counts.

Finally, I haven't seen the Dutchess' breasts but I bet they're lovely.

Why don't you tweet her for a private viewing?

[Calidore]

It may be a criminal offence and that will presumably be decided by a court of law but there is a school of thought that says that if someone exposes themselves within sight of the public they are inviting an invasion of privacy.

Well, there's also a school of thought that says a woman in figure-hugging clothes is "inviting" lewd attention or worse. That's blaming the victim.

Anyway, one could also argue whether "within sight of the public" could reasonably be expected to include "on a particular spot in a private resort that just happens to be line-of-sight for a risk-taking paparazzi with an insane zoom lens."

In the end, it comes down to supply and demand. As long as people reward this behavior with their money, the rats will keep getting fed, and they'll multiply.

[Emil Miller]

In the end, it comes down to supply and demand. As long as people reward this behavior with their money, the rats will keep getting fed, and they'll multiply.

Which just what I have indicated in post #35.

[kiki1982]

Yes, what did the BBC say about the legal battle around this? That the compensation they were liable to get would be around £20,000... If that is true (I don't know how much boobies are worth :p), then it is clear that such a small amount doensn't weigh up against all the cash they earn from it. Although you still have to count the lawyer's fees, the Duke and Dutchess's fees, the court costs etc. If the magazine loses the case, that is. Could become quite a nice little sum for a magazine like that, plus the cost of the photos.

On the other hand, FifthElement does have a point there. I mean, if I leave the curtains of my bathroom open, believing that no-one can see me because I live in an area where no-one lives across the street, and I catch someone with binoculars looking at me, I believe I could prosecute, couldn't I? Then why shouldn't they? Although I think they were going to try and do that, but that requires the ID of the photographer, which the magazine(s) are not going to give them readily...

[JBI]

Jackie Kennedy's faded from imagination, so will these, Jacqueline Kennedy was at least super-good looking.

[Hawkman]

Which just what I have indicated in post #35.

I pretty much said it in post #15 - lol.

[cacian]

Emil I do like the post tiltle. Somehow using a title to a person rather then their name makes it almost sound like you were talking about a famous bust a sculpture of some description.:smilewinkgrin:

[Emil Miller]

Emil I do like the post tiltle. Somehow using a title to a person rather then their name makes it almost sound like you were talking about a famous bust a sculpture of some description.:smilewinkgrin:

Well I do not warm to the vernacular and a certain amount of decorum is required on these occasions. I don't think that 'Katy's Knockers' would have been appropriate for such an august institution as this forum.

[Alexander III]

Well I do not warm to the vernacular and a certain amount of decorum is required on these occasions. I don't think that 'Katy's Knockers' would have been appropriate for such an august institution as this forum.

To be honest this forum resembles more August's daughter...

[tonywalt]

Jackie Kennedy's faded from imagination, so will these, Jacqueline Kennedy was at least super-good looking.

Jackie O. pics are not hazy, a bit bushy though......

[DocHeart]

Will *ANYONE* have the decency to post a link to the actual image? I can't find it on Google.

[liza]

http://www.athensbars.gr/showbiz/skandalo-h-kate-middleton-topless

[Calidore]

Apparently exactly the breasts you'd expect on someone of her age and build. Go figure.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Will *ANYONE* have the decency to post a link to the actual image? I can't find it on Google.

Uh . . . Google?

[Shevek]

There are so many photoshopped pictures of nude celebrities across the Internet, some of them fairly convincing, that make these types of photos increasingly redundant.

Not that I've looked into them or anything . . .

[tonywalt]

Scuba divers got Jackie O-I'm sure they made a bundle for those pics.

[qimissung]

I would like to thank whoever posted the link so I could go look at them. I cannot even fathom what it would be like to have so little privacy.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Jackie Kennedy's faded from imagination, so will these, Jacqueline Kennedy was at least super-good looking.

Jackie O. wasn't that great looking. Had a goony looking face.

[cacian]

I would like to thank whoever posted the link so I could go look at them. I cannot even fathom what it would be like to have so little privacy.

Simply ignore it. This is the Internet even if it is there one has the power to stump it out by not clicking at it.
I once was working on a email and images of semi nude bodies were flashing as I typed I think it was an underwear company. It was distracting because I could not concentrate on my typing and so I picked up the phone and call the company making those adds.
They had them removed straight away. I never seen them again.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Uhhhhh, qimissung was thanking the person for posting the link.

[qimissung]

lol.

Love the irony in this picture.





http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/09/kate_middleton_topless_photos_when_did_bare_breast s_become_taboo_.html?fb_ref=sm_fb_plugin_activity

[E.A Rumfield]

If you were to go to Cannes during the Summer, you would see plenty of topless women stretched out in the sun and nobody taking any notice.
What makes Kate Middleton any different except that she happens to be married to arch hooray William Windsor?

You don't say. I know where I am spending my summer. South of France, I'm on my way.

[Sydneysider]

A man was arrested in Sydney yesterday for taking upskirt photos of women without their knowledge. How does this differ?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

You don't say. I know where I am spending my summer. South of France, I'm on my way.
Not all of them you want to see naked.

A man was arrested in Sydney yesterday for taking upskirt photos of women without their knowledge. How does this differ?
Other than Kate is famous and those women weren't, I don't see any difference

[cacian]

A man was arrested in Sydney yesterday for taking upskirt photos of women without their knowledge. How does this differ?

It does not differ only one does it for a living and the other I guess is because they can.
Also one gets arrested when one goes public doing such activity.
The culprit are quick to arrest.
Public to public is easy to deal with if the laws says that is inappropriate.
Royalty to paparassi is tricky especially if paparassi is foreign to the royalty they are involved with. Cases tend to drag and differ from country to country on the ground of cultural differences.
This is just an opinion.

[tonywalt]

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r21/eskimoman55/upskirt.jpg

[qimissung]

I don't know the various laws, but Kate Middleton, while famous, was on private property, so the photographers, I don't believe, had the right, legally, to take her picture and then make it public. If she'd been on a beach it would be a different matter.

The man in the pic above (lol) is clearly taking a picture of something, ahem, *private* and so is clearly in the wrong. If she was famous and he took a picture of her getting out of a car, then he's in the clear. There is a different standard for private and public citizens. This has probably already been discussed, so I'm sorry if it's redundant.

[tonywalt]

My remarks were purely tongue and cheek.

[qimissung]

My remarks, while not all that funny (or even funny at all :D), are still germane to the issue.

[RicMisc]

I don't care whether it's Kate's boobs being exposed to the world or my mum's but if the pictures were taken whilst the person in question was on private property and did not give any permission for the photos to be taken then the photographer is definitely in the wrong.

(Though I probably would have a problem with my mum's boobs being all over the internet ;) )