So, wait...are we actually discussing whether the hot royal chick with her tits out SHOULDN'T have them babies photographed? OF COURSE they should be! And not grainy, long distance crap, either. I want up close, perfect and preferably with my tongue on one of the nipples.

FirstNationalBastard:Trump was a well known figure in the Republican party show this year. Republicans love blaming victims. The train of thought is fairly clear.

Really? Victims?

If people are photographing you naked because they snuck into your bedroom and hid in the closet, sure. If the photographed you topless because you took of your shirt outside in an area that's not a private residence and clearly visible from the highway I'm going to have to live with the weird feeling of saying I'm pretty much with Trump on this one.

SockMonkeyHolocaust:Well it is. She's a celebrity and she went to a topless beach. Then instead of saying "It's a set of titties that happen to be royal. Deal with it." the Royal Family went all 9/11 about THE SCANDAL!

The days of Queen Victoria going swimming by backing a special coach into a lake and parking a regiment of blind grenadiers around the perimeter is long gone.

For once, he may actually have a point. When you don't want a certain type of photo to be taken of you, but you know that every step you take outside your home is followed by a gaggle of paparazzi who will be paid tens of thousands of dollars (or whatever currency is appropriate) if they can manage to take that exact type of photo -perhaps [i]hundreds[/i] of thousands, in this particular case- and will act accordingly, does this not put the onus on you to likewise act accordingly? This is not something most people have to deal with, but it is part of the price of celebrity.

He's a dick but he kind of has a point. Now there is nothing against sunbathing nude on a private boat, but when you're now married to a prince you should know that people are following you everywhere. Don't be surprised when this happens.

redheededstepchild:So, what I am hearing is it would be ok to put cameras in bathrooms of places famous people go because they shouldn't expect privacy.

Reductio ad absurdum. Next?

We don't live in the world of My Little Pony. These people exist, and there is no way to stop them from existing, especially if we are to continue to have a free press. Given this, it is far better to act accordingly and plan in a way that sidesteps the problem, rather than continue to bemoan a thing that is not going to go away. Don't curse the darkness; light a candle.

Which is a diffrent way of saying "don't hate the player, hate the game." She was on her back porch, at least a half mile from the road. She has every right to legal action. And, if we have any respect for privacy, we should realize the way to get these guys to stop is to make sure no one profits from it.

ChrisDe:SockMonkeyHolocaust: Well it is. She's a celebrity and she went to a topless beach. Then instead of saying "It's a set of titties that happen to be royal. Deal with it." the Royal Family went all 9/11 about THE SCANDAL!

The days of Queen Victoria going swimming by backing a special coach into a lake and parking a regiment of blind grenadiers around the perimeter is long gone.

redheededstepchild:Which is a diffrent way of saying "don't hate the player, hate the game." She was on her back porch, at least a half mile from the road. She has every right to legal action. And, if we have any respect for privacy, we should realize the way to get these guys to stop is to make sure no one profits from it.

Depends where you are.

"any respect for privacy" is not allowing shiat like this through windows, while the photographer is on public property, etc

Once you start saying you can't take pictures from public areas with a telephoto lense (which is what you are arguing now) you are opening up a legal can of worms. How exactly are you going to define "to far"?

If you have "any respect for freedom of press" you aren't going to muddy the water by adding more criteria by which pictures taken from the public of people outside are illegal.

SineSwiper:ChrisDe: SockMonkeyHolocaust: Well it is. She's a celebrity and she went to a topless beach. Then instead of saying "It's a set of titties that happen to be royal. Deal with it." the Royal Family went all 9/11 about THE SCANDAL!

The days of Queen Victoria going swimming by backing a special coach into a lake and parking a regiment of blind grenadiers around the perimeter is long gone.

You're absolutly right. And in france, the laws are written and the courts have desided. Any other country where this photo is printed will also have a chance to deside. And people will continue to be sued. Eventually it becomes a cost/benfit situation. Do I want to pay huge legal fees, and take the risk that I might be breaking the law, or do not print and lose the chance to publish something that would be a huge seller.

redheededstepchild:You're absolutly right. And in france, the laws are written and the courts have desided. Any other country where this photo is printed will also have a chance to deside. And people will continue to be sued. Eventually it becomes a cost/benfit situation. Do I want to pay huge legal fees, and take the risk that I might be breaking the law, or do not print and lose the chance to publish something that would be a huge seller.

liam76:redheededstepchild: You're absolutly right. And in france, the laws are written and the courts have desided. Any other country where this photo is printed will also have a chance to deside. And people will continue to be sued. Eventually it becomes a cost/benfit situation. Do I want to pay huge legal fees, and take the risk that I might be breaking the law, or do not print and lose the chance to publish something that would be a huge seller.

Which is bad for freedom of press.

No, it keeps people from sneaking into mortuaries to take photos of dead celebs.

redheededstepchild:liam76: redheededstepchild: You're absolutly right. And in france, the laws are written and the courts have desided. Any other country where this photo is printed will also have a chance to deside. And people will continue to be sued. Eventually it becomes a cost/benfit situation. Do I want to pay huge legal fees, and take the risk that I might be breaking the law, or do not print and lose the chance to publish something that would be a huge seller.

Which is bad for freedom of press.

No, it keeps people from sneaking into mortuaries to take photos of dead celebs.

I'm not trying to defend the paparazzi here but if you are the Princess, you are topless and not indoors, then you may have to deal with the consequences... She should have known better.

Lots of women (hot ones too) go topless in Miami's South Beach but they are not photographed by the paparazzi left and right. If Kate was just Kate, then this would have never happened... but she is the Princess and she should expect very little privacy from now on.

I never thought I'd find myself agreeing with Trump on anything but he's right on this one. She was topless outdoors. Whether it was a private home or a public beach is irrelevant. The Fark headlines are full of stories where someone did something in their backyards or, indeed, in their house but within view of a window, got arrested and claimed "but...my privacy" only to be smacked-down by the courts.

Kate's incident is no different. If she doesn't understand by now that anything she does, especially outdoors, will potentially be photographed, then perhaps she shouldn't be royalty.

FirstNationalBastard:garron: Who is so obsessed with politics that they would take something as stupid as this and turn it into a blank political statement about members of either party?

// o_0 at subby

Trump was a well known figure in the Republican party show this year. Republicans love blaming victims. The train of thought is fairly clear.

As I said yesterday, the Fark OWS crowd loves to shiat on anyone who's rich and/or a celebrity (referring to Ms. Middleton in this case). Trump notwithstanding, it is the far left who are blaming the victim here. If Trump had stood up for Middleton, the lefties here would be going, "Typical Republican, making rich people out to be victims and demanding they have special privileges!!!" But he loves shiatting on anyone if it gives him attention, so in his case it's not about politics but about being a media whore.

Where they consistently take normal, common sense quotes, and verbally destroy the person who said them all because of their religious or political views.

Freedom of speech...indeed

But this is all part of free speech, and is just as important as freedom of the press. It's good to argue about this because a growing understanding of those rights leads to positive changes on how we understand other people. Aren't there enough free boobies in the world that we don't have to pay for pictures taken without consent?

redheededstepchild:But this is all part of free speech, and is just as important as freedom of the press. It's good to argue about this because a growing understanding of those rights leads to positive changes on how we understand other people. Aren't there enough free boobies in the world that we don't have to pay for pictures taken without consent

So if I can see you from a public area, and not inside, you think I need your consent to take your picture?

liam76:redheededstepchild: Which is a diffrent way of saying "don't hate the player, hate the game." She was on her back porch, at least a half mile from the road. She has every right to legal action. And, if we have any respect for privacy, we should realize the way to get these guys to stop is to make sure no one profits from it.

Depends where you are.

"any respect for privacy" is not allowing shiat like this through windows, while the photographer is on public property, etc

Once you start saying you can't take pictures from public areas with a telephoto lense (which is what you are arguing now) you are opening up a legal can of worms. How exactly are you going to define "to far"?

If you have "any respect for freedom of press" you aren't going to muddy the water by adding more criteria by which pictures taken from the public of people outside are illegal.

Yea that is sort of where I have a problem with how the royal family are handling this. I mean if I am running around naked in my front yard, or even infront of the window in the front of my house, I would expect there to be consequences based on people walking by. When the cops show up I doubt that me saying I am on private property is going to be a defense for anything. If I didn't want someone to do something, or potentially take a picture, I shouldn't go outside naked.

liam76:So if I can see you from a public area, and not inside, you think I need your consent to take your picture?

Nope. But according to French law you need my consent to publish it. Plus I question whether she could be seen with the naked eye.

There is no doubting she was daft for taking her top off. The pictures should not have been published though. It's nothing to do with freedom of speach - there is no way this is in the public interest.

If you are peeking thru a window from the sidewalk, or a half mile away from a road, or even clinbing a tree to a shot over a wall or fence, or flying a helicopter over, or spying with a satellite, it's still an invasion of privacy. But my opinion or yours won't matter. It's up to the legal system.

Swiss Colony:liam76:So if I can see you from a public area, and not inside, you think I need your consent to take your picture?

Nope. But according to French law you need my consent to publish it. Plus I question whether she could be seen with the naked eye.

There is no doubting she was daft for taking her top off. The pictures should not have been published though. It's nothing to do with freedom of speach - there is no way this is in the public interest.

I didn't say "seen with naked eye". Telephoto lenses and binoculars are pretty common nowadays. I choose to err on the side of free press ont his one and not limit distance to soem arbitrary standard.

Public interest is determined by the public. I may not care, you may not care, but if it sells, it has public interest. When you set some arbitrary line where you can't say or publish X it is a free speech issue.

liam76:Swiss Colony: liam76:So if I can see you from a public area, and not inside, you think I need your consent to take your picture?

Nope. But according to French law you need my consent to publish it. Plus I question whether she could be seen with the naked eye.

There is no doubting she was daft for taking her top off. The pictures should not have been published though. It's nothing to do with freedom of speach - there is no way this is in the public interest.

I didn't say "seen with naked eye". Telephoto lenses and binoculars are pretty common nowadays. I choose to err on the side of free press ont his one and not limit distance to soem arbitrary standard.

Public interest is determined by the public. I may not care, you may not care, but if it sells, it has public interest. When you set some arbitrary line where you can't say or publish X it is a free speech issue.

It may be in the public interest to put X-ray lenses on every camera and stare at naked chicks 24 hours a day and post them all to the Nightly News without their consent.. that does not mean it is in the public interest. Her public persona has little to nothing to do with her boobs.

Swiss Colony:liam76:So if I can see you from a public area, and not inside, you think I need your consent to take your picture?

Nope. But according to French law you need my consent to publish it. Plus I question whether she could be seen with the naked eye.

There is no doubting she was daft for taking her top off. The pictures should not have been published though. It's nothing to do with freedom of speach - there is no way this is in the public interest.

These are my thoughts as well. If you're going to make money off someone's picture, then you should have to get their consent. Stock photography websites ask you for a talent release if you submit a picture with any random person in it, But for some reason if they're famous, I can just hide in their bushes and sell the pictures to anyone without their permission.