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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFifthElement
Printable View
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFifthElement
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by prendrelemick
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emil Miller
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.
Which just what I have indicated in post #35.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calidore
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...
Jackie Kennedy's faded from imagination, so will these, Jacqueline Kennedy was at least super-good looking.
I pretty much said it in post #15 - lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
To be honest this forum resembles more August's daughter...Quote:
Originally Posted by Emil Miller
Jackie O. pics are not hazy, a bit bushy though......Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Will *ANYONE* have the decency to post a link to the actual image? I can't find it on Google.
Apparently exactly the breasts you'd expect on someone of her age and build. Go figure.
Uh . . . Google?Quote:
Originally Posted by DocHeart
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 . . .
Scuba divers got Jackie O-I'm sure they made a bundle for those pics.
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.
Jackie O. wasn't that great looking. Had a goony looking face.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by qimissung
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.
Uhhhhh, qimissung was thanking the person for posting the link.
lol.
Love the irony in this picture.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...lugin_activity
You don't say. I know where I am spending my summer. South of France, I'm on my way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emil Miller
A man was arrested in Sydney yesterday for taking upskirt photos of women without their knowledge. How does this differ?
Not all of them you want to see naked.Quote:
Originally Posted by E.A Rumfield
Other than Kate is famous and those women weren't, I don't see any differenceQuote:
Originally Posted by Sydneysider
It does not differ only one does it for a living and the other I guess is because they can.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydneysider
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.
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.
My remarks were purely tongue and cheek.
My remarks, while not all that funny (or even funny at all :D), are still germane to the issue.
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 ;) )