Dutches tries to squash boob shots.

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Dutches tries to squash boob shots.

I am sorry, but if she took her top off in public, too fucking bad. Or if she knew that someone was taking a picture, also, too fucking bad.

If there was no invasion of privacy she is shit out of luck, if I were a judge or juror. This smacks of buyers remorse on her part. But damn, she playes into that stupid taboo about sex. Women have tits, so what? Maybe it would go away quicker if you'd simply say "that was then, this is now, lets move on", instead of acting like you should have special rights the rest of us don't have.

Maybe if we all walked around naked in public no one could be blackmailed. But unless she can prove that it was a hidden camera and her privacy was invaded, I'd simply shut the fuck up and move on. Boobs existed long before you miss priss and the fact that the public saw yours is no different. No one is calling you a slut or a whore, but I would say your boobs are not special just because of your title.

The only one making this a needles scandle is you.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3390
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: The only one

Brian37 wrote:

 

The only one making this a needles scandle is you.

you've never read a murdoch tabloid, have you?  i lived in london for a while, and trust me, if they want to, they can take a shot of you chewing gum at a crosswalk and turn it into a debacle so life-shattering you'll want to crawl into a hole in the mojave desert.  i personally don't blame the young lady for trying as hard as she can to fight to stay out of them, or at least bite back, especially given her new family's history.

you're always all about rights.  as long as it's legal, sure the tabloids are within their rights to print shit about people, but kate is also within her rights to give them hell in the courts for it if she has a case.  i say go for it.  sting those fuckers, ma'am. 

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4565
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 I'm with iwbiek on this

 I'm with iwbiek on this one, she wasn't waking around in public topless, she was sunbathing at a private secluded mansion. I think tabloids that thrive on this sort of privacy invasion are despicable and so are the people who read them. Although, as a practical matter, there is nothing she can do about the pictures. They will be spread all over the internet forever and various sites will make a ton of money on them. It is sad that people get so obsessive over celebrities like this, there are plenty of very attractive women willing to pose naked, it is absurd that people get so excited over pictures of some celebrity taken by someone skulking in the bushes with a telescoping camera from a mile away. I hope she gets enough money from the newspapers that they don't profit from the pictures at all. Of course, I doubt that will stop similar pictures from being taken in the future.

If your neighbor was taking paparazzi style photos of you they could be going to jail for stalking charges- when the paparazzi does it to celebrities they usually face no consequences because they are "public figures". I think that is bullshit.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
iwbiek wrote:Brian37

iwbiek wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

 

The only one making this a needles scandle is you.

you've never read a murdoch tabloid, have you?  i lived in london for a while, and trust me, if they want to, they can take a shot of you chewing gum at a crosswalk and turn it into a debacle so life-shattering you'll want to crawl into a hole in the mojave desert.  i personally don't blame the young lady for trying as hard as she can to fight to stay out of them, or at least bite back, especially given her new family's history.

you're always all about rights.  as long as it's legal, sure the tabloids are within their rights to print shit about people, but kate is also within her rights to give them hell in the courts for it if she has a case.  i say go for it.  sting those fuckers, ma'am. 

I am for rights which is why I said if it was not an invasion of privacy she is fucked. If it was, then she SHOULD sue. But the way it is being reported it seems she has buyers remorse.

If someone poked a keyhole in her bedroom without telling her, then I would agree. But if she was on a nude beach out in the open, or agreed to take her top off for a camera, SORRY.

She is not special because of her title. And she demeans sex workers who do show their body for a living by making her boobs more special than the rest of women.

One of two cases.

1. Some asshole took the picture without her permission. (Doesn't seem to be the way the media is reporting it)

2. She took her top off in public and or agreed to be photographed with her top off.

EVEN a stripper has the right to sue a peeping tom if they stick a toilet cam in without telling her. But that is not the way media seems to be telling the story right now.

Everything I am seeing solely based on the motifs of the stories makes it seem like buyers remorse.

She could make this go away very quickly either way, by saying

1. "Yea I took my top off, that was then, this is now, lets move on"

2. "I didn't give them permission to take that picture, but I was in public and should have thought better of it, and now is now, so lets move on".

I hate tabloids, but the ability to question authority and public figures is the only way you can maintain prevention of a monopoly of power. The burdon of proof for liable and slander between a no name and a celebrity is different. There is a much bigger burdon on the famous than there is on a no name.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Quote:I'm with iwbiek on

Quote:
I'm with iwbiek on this one, she wasn't waking around in public topless, she was sunbathing at a private secluded mansion.

Well admitidly I only had 30 second stories and none of them mentiond mansion lawns. This certainly is a grey area.

If it is about private property, what if someone is fucking a kid and not simply taking their top off and it is not a mansion, but someone's front lawn? If it is private property why would flying above the fence be any different than walking in front of someone's lawn with no fence? You still in both cases have no obstruction, and even above your own house is considered public air space.

Now mind you, now that I have a bit more information, this is a bit assholish. But agian, what if it was not Kate exposing her boobs, but a news helicpoter cought a no name fucking a kid in a back yard pool with a wall? You are still talking about media breaking a private berrior in both cases.

Maybe she has a case. But I really do think either way she really is allowing that to define her, rather than just say "those dicks shouldn't have done that, but I have tits and so do all women".

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Pictures were taken from so

Pictures were taken from so far away that binoculars would have been required to see the photographer. That is in no way a public setting. It is equivalent to someone pointing a camera at your house without your authorisation or knowledge, and all parties that participate in such tasteless activities should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. And there are laws against such activities.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4565
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote:I'm with

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
I'm with iwbiek on this one, she wasn't waking around in public topless, she was sunbathing at a private secluded mansion.

Well admitidly I only had 30 second stories and none of them mentiond mansion lawns. This certainly is a grey area.

If it is about private property, what if someone is fucking a kid and not simply taking their top off and it is not a mansion, but someone's front lawn? If it is private property why would flying above the fence be any different than walking in front of someone's lawn with no fence? You still in both cases have no obstruction, and even above your own house is considered public air space.

Now mind you, now that I have a bit more information, this is a bit assholish. But agian, what if it was not Kate exposing her boobs, but a news helicpoter cought a no name fucking a kid in a back yard pool with a wall? You are still talking about media breaking a private berrior in both cases.

Maybe she has a case. But I really do think either way she really is allowing that to define her, rather than just say "those dicks shouldn't have done that, but I have tits and so do all women".

I don't see a grey area, there is a large difference between incidentally seeing your neighbor sitting naked at their fenced in pool and taking a picture of it then publishing that picture in a newspaper. Even if you see illegal activity and take a picture of it for purposes of recording the incident for police, I would think that is rather different than recording legal activity and publishing it against their objections.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
I'm with iwbiek on this one, she wasn't waking around in public topless, she was sunbathing at a private secluded mansion.

Well admitidly I only had 30 second stories and none of them mentiond mansion lawns. This certainly is a grey area.

If it is about private property, what if someone is fucking a kid and not simply taking their top off and it is not a mansion, but someone's front lawn? If it is private property why would flying above the fence be any different than walking in front of someone's lawn with no fence? You still in both cases have no obstruction, and even above your own house is considered public air space.

Now mind you, now that I have a bit more information, this is a bit assholish. But agian, what if it was not Kate exposing her boobs, but a news helicpoter cought a no name fucking a kid in a back yard pool with a wall? You are still talking about media breaking a private berrior in both cases.

Maybe she has a case. But I really do think either way she really is allowing that to define her, rather than just say "those dicks shouldn't have done that, but I have tits and so do all women".

I don't see a grey area, there is a large difference between incidentally seeing your neighbor sitting naked at their fenced in pool and taking a picture of it then publishing that picture in a newspaper. Even if you see illegal activity and take a picture of it for purposes of recording the incident for police, I would think that is rather different than recording legal activity and publishing it against their objections.

Ok, then by that logic I have the right to tell private airlines EVEN WITHOUT taking pictures, not to fly over  my house.

I will give you some slack here. You cannot privitize air space. I would be against media even putting their camera over a private fence and taking a picture. But again what if someone has their curtain open in a highrise and you are in a building next to them and they strip with the shades open. Are you not in that case invading their privacy going beyond their bacony beyond a fence through a window into their private property?

You are making more of a case for her, but I am still not going to allow power of celebrity but moreso politics rule the rest of us. I agree with privacy rights, but I would rather this happen than to have a political or religious party squash all scrutiny and dissent.

If she can prove it then she has a case. But I don't want scrutiny of the famous, expecially politicians thrown out the window because money can squash dissent.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Usually such photo's aren't

Usually such photo's aren't admissible as evidence anyway, and good prosecutors won't even bother looking at them.

The digital age may have sped things up a bit, but the basic concept of capturing images has been around for centuries, and it is one of the few 'new technological toy' areas which has had centuries of legal discussion and precedent to work with.

Neither photo nor video of someone can be published unless it can be demonstrated that said person had no reasonable expectation of privacy. Such is quite cleary not the case here, and any nation who's laws correspond with those I'm familiar with will have no problem delivering victory to Kate in court.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Ok, then by that logic I

"Ok, then by that logic I have the right to tell private airlines EVEN WITHOUT taking pictures, not to fly over  my house."

Nope. You don't own airspace. Your country does, or, usually the municipality. Yet another law.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4565
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Ok, then by

Brian37 wrote:

Ok, then by that logic I have the right to tell private airlines EVEN WITHOUT taking pictures, not to fly over  my house.

No, I said there is a difference between incidentally seeing you at your private pool doing whatever because you are passing somewhere legally and taking a picture of it for publishing. If a private company was flying a spy drone over your house and taking pictures of you sunbathing at your pool for purposes of publishing them I think they could and should face a lawsuit. I also believe that Google should have faced lawsuits for publishing pictures of people taken by their "street view" cameras. I think they paid a few people off and blurred or removed certain images but only after lawsuits were threatened- there is no excuse for not doing so before publishing the photos. Television shows and such have to obtain permission to televise anyone happening to even walk through the background without blurring out faces, I don't see why Google should be treated differently.  

 

Brian37 wrote:

I will give you some slack here. You cannot privitize air space. I would be against media even putting their camera over a private fence and taking a picture. But again what if someone has their curtain open in a highrise and you are in a building next to them and they strip with the shades open. Are you not in that case invading their privacy going beyond their bacony beyond a fence through a window into their private property?

No, you are not. You can sit and check out your neighbor changing clothes every day if they have the shades open, it is a little creepy but legal. If you take a picture of it and publish it you can and should face legal action.

 

Brian37 wrote:
 

You are making more of a case for her, but I am still not going to allow power of celebrity but moreso politics rule the rest of us. I agree with privacy rights, but I would rather this happen than to have a political or religious party squash all scrutiny and dissent.

If she can prove it then she has a case. But I don't want scrutiny of the famous, expecially politicians thrown out the window because money can squash dissent.

I agree, it is an area that has to be tread on very carefully. I would hate, for example, for such laws to be used by politicians to prevent cameras from taking pictures of what they are doing when traveling on our public dime. (If only the media gave a shit, I have seen what our congressmen do while on "diplomatic" trips and it is far more scandalous and more pertinent that Kate tanning her tits). However, if Kate was your next door neighbor and you were taking pictures of her with a zoom lense and posting them on the internet you would be facing a civil lawsuit and potentially even jail time. I don't think such laws should be suspended simply because a person is a celebrity. Celebrities should get the same legal protections everyone else does.

Now being a pseudo political figure, I think there is an argument that she doesn't quite have the same expectation of privacy everyone else has, however, it is very clear that when the pictures were taken she was not performing any official duties nor doing anything that would be considered politically newsworthy.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
If some perv used a

If some perv used a telescopic lens from far away to take a picture of my boobs, I would rip his balls off.

 

I hope she puts the photographer out of business.

 

 

 

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Vastet wrote:Usually such

Vastet wrote:
Usually such photo's aren't admissible as evidence anyway, and good prosecutors won't even bother looking at them. The digital age may have sped things up a bit, but the basic concept of capturing images has been around for centuries, and it is one of the few 'new technological toy' areas which has had centuries of legal discussion and precedent to work with. Neither photo nor video of someone can be published unless it can be demonstrated that said person had no reasonable expectation of privacy. Such is quite cleary not the case here, and any nation who's laws correspond with those I'm familiar with will have no problem delivering victory to Kate in court.

Here is where I do see it as a grey area.

 

While airspace should not be privatized I do see it as intrusive for someone to lean over your fence with a camera and take a picture in your yard no matter what you are doing.

I do however think that the more famous you are, politician or celebrity, you have less of an expectation of privacy than the average no name. I lean towards that because it is better to maintain puplic scrutiny of power than it is to allow monopolies of politics or money.

In her case if this pic was taken before she became royalty then I would agree with her. But now that she is, it seems more about protecting name than private property.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:If some

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

If some perv used a telescopic lens from far away to take a picture of my boobs, I would rip his balls off.

 

I hope she puts the photographer out of business.

 

 

 

 

 

I would agree if you had a resonable expectaition that no one would do that. The famous have far less an expectation to privacy than the no name do. Again how do you maintain her privacy and protect public air space as being publically owned?

The more famous one becomes the more scrutiny you have, the less expectation to privacy you have.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4565
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:The more

Brian37 wrote:

The more famous one becomes the more scrutiny you have, the less expectation to privacy you have.

Why? Is it because she is royalty a semi political title or would you say that any famous person like an actress has less of a right to privacy than you?

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:The more

Brian37 wrote:
The more famous one becomes the more scrutiny you have, the less expectation to privacy you have.

This makes zero sense to me, so because people think I'm worth paying attention to, I now have less rights? What?


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
So people should be free to

So people should be free to follow her into the bathroom and take pictures of her just became she's royalty? If you can't expect privacy on private property, you can't expect it anywhere.
If she'd pulled a Spears, she wouldn't have a case. But she didn't. And noone should have to be on the lookout for the paparazzi 24/7 just because they are famous.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:Brian37

Manageri wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
The more famous one becomes the more scrutiny you have, the less expectation to privacy you have.

This makes zero sense to me, so because people think I'm worth paying attention to, I now have less rights? What?

I'm with Manageri on this.

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Vastet wrote:So people

Vastet wrote:
So people should be free to follow her into the bathroom and take pictures of her just became she's royalty? If you can't expect privacy on private property, you can't expect it anywhere. If she'd pulled a Spears, she wouldn't have a case. But she didn't. And noone should have to be on the lookout for the paparazzi 24/7 just because they are famous.

Where the hell did I say that. I never said famous people don't have any rights to any privacy at all.  You are taking what I said to an extreme. I admited based on very initial reports(if if if) there was an invasion of privacy(which now I have the details, is the case), then she should sue and the perpitrator charged.

But if for example she was on a nude beach long ago before she got married and then complained, then  she would have no case. Or if she went to one now, she would have no case.

What I mean by "famous people have less of an expectation to privacy" deals with when they are IN PUBLIC. Laws are already in place that ban things like touching someone without their permission(can be considered assault), or impeding their motion, or disturbing the peace, or harrassment or stalking.

However, merely taking pictures from a arms distance is not, nor should it ever be illegal.

If Princes Dianna, for example, had simply called police knowing she would be mobbed, the police could have given those assholes a warning. They could have been arrested for anything from disturbing the peace to reckless driving.  And if her driver hadn't been drunk and speeding, she would be alive today.

But not even non famous people can have an expectation of privacy in public. If I am on a public sidewalk, it is not illegal for someone to take a picture of me. When you get to the level of fame of a rock star, or actor, or politician on a national or global level, it is absurd to expect media to always leave you alone. I limit the media only to the same safty issues such as distance and harrasment as I would any non famous person.

Is it rude to desturb someone say at a food joint? Sure, but not illegal. Most of the time the owner of the joint will stave off mobs of people, but in even in a private business if one person is rude, it is still not illegal. Thats what I mean by less of an expectation.

Ok, let me give you an example outside the Royals. I knew this guy who was into the DC music scene, and used to hang out at a rock bar called "The Bayou".  In it's history many famous rock stars would hang out there after doing a show, either their or after an Arena. An aside, that is where I got to meet the Ramones.

 

In any case, a former friend of mine saw James Hetfield there in the bathroom, HE didn't say anything to him because Hetfield was in mid pee. BUT some asshole came in after him and saw James and asked for his autograph while he was taking a piss. Rude, yes, I certainly wouldn't have done it. But even that rude asshole was not touching him or taking pictures, just being rude.

However, if that same guy had merely seen him at the bar, and not the bathroom, then asking for his autograph would not be out of line. THAT is what I mean by less of an expectation.

Where it would cross the line is if James had said(if they were at the bar in my example) "Hey dude, I just want to relax, try to catch me some other time." Then if the guy had continued pestering him, then it would be disturbing the peace and or the bouncers would most certainly throw him out.

Many of the responses here are blowing my statement out of context.

A free press is vital to to keeping abuse of power at bay. But the laws that apply, like I said before, such as no touching, no impeding, and no harrasment, which would apply to a non famous person, also applies to media too.

But like I said, ESPECIALLY when one choses a carreer path that puts them in the spotlight,  it is unreasonable to expect media to never take pictures or ask questions ever. When you are at that level, there is always going to be media looking at you, I never said they had the right to violate laws to do it.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Where the hell did I say

"Where the hell did I say that. I never said famous people don't have any rights to any privacy at all. "

So they can expect privacy only when in the bathroom or have all the curtains closed in their own home. That's not reassuring.

"But if for example she was on a nude beach long ago before she got married and then complained, then  she would have no case. Or if she went to one now, she would have no case."

If it were a private beach, she'd still have a case.

"If Princes Dianna, for example, had simply called police knowing she would be mobbed"

Uh uh, wouldn't have done anything. People don't tend to drive recklessly so much when cops are around. Other than that noone broke the law. And noone should need a police escort just to leave their home. I sure as hell don't want MY tax dollars wasted following celebrities around just because a bunch of people are fucking brainless twatwaffles and a bunch of other people pander to them.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
 I think she was trying to

 I think she was trying to quash them not squash them..

 

Just sayin' Eye-wink