Kate Middleton - Nude Pics Circulating!

[pepper24]

Originally Posted by Mike F

IMO, this is a woman who voluntarily entered into a life of fame, privilege, and riches with full knowledge that, in doing so, she'd become one of the biggest focuses of public interest in the world.

This isn't Kate Middleton being victimized, it's her getting a taste of the cost of becoming a princess.

Don't want to be photographed topless? Don't go topless.

It's about boundaries. On private property away from the public anyone including celebrities should have the right to their own privacy. If she was in a public setting it's fair game but this wasn't the case. Boundaries were crossed.

[bigtmac19]

Originally Posted by Mike F

The cost of becoming wife of the future King of England is a loss of personal privacy. This has been a well known fact since well before Ms. Middleton was born, so if she wasn't prepared to accept that her private life was going to become public interest, she should have married a school teacher.


Oh, give me a F***ing break. Being photographed when you chose to go topless is equivalent to rape?

As for the short skirt analogy, I'd say that any attractive woman who chooses to wear a short skirt to a night club can expect to be hit on. Therefore, if you are a woman who doesn't feel like being hit on, don't go to a night club, or dress more modestly.

Edit: The line is, if the known and expected outcome of engaging in a given act is X, don't engage in that act and then become offended when X occurs.

No you give me an effing break. She is allowed to have a private life separate from her public life. She can take a GD vacation and should be able to without this gross intrusion

[T@T]

Meh, tits are for kids, show us the royal hole

[browna]

William must be absolutely livid.
First, the paparazzi basically directly kill his mother through a high speed chase in Paris, and now, while at a relative's private property, some creep, cut from a similar cloth, shoots naked photos of his wife.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by browna

William must be absolutely livid.
First, the paparazzi basically directly kill his mother through a high speed chase in Paris, and now, while at a relative's private property, some creep, cut from a similar cloth, shoots naked photos of his wife.

He was born into Royalty, he deserves it!!!!

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Mike F

IMO, this is a woman who voluntarily entered into a life of fame, privilege, and riches with full knowledge that, in doing so, she'd become one of the biggest focuses of public interest in the world.

This isn't Kate Middleton being victimized, it's her getting a taste of the cost of becoming a princess.

Don't want to be photographed topless? Don't go topless.

The cost of getting married to someone she presumably loves is having someone photograph her from a distance while she was topless at a private residence. How is this anything different than a peeping tom other than the fact she is famous.

If she doesn't want to have her breasts photographed for the whole world to see that is her choice and frankly I fail to see how she isn't the victim. Rich and famous people can be victims of perverts as well.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Mike F

As for the short skirt analogy, I'd say that any attractive woman who chooses to wear a short skirt to a night club can expect to be hit on. Therefore, if you are a woman who doesn't feel like being hit on, don't go to a night club, or dress more modestly.

Edit: The line is, if the known and expected outcome of engaging in a given act is X, don't engage in that act and then become offended when X occurs.

If there is a woman who wears a short skirt should people be able to take pictures up her skirt as well? I mean using the same logic, she should just dress more modestly.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by pepper24

It's about boundaries. On private property away from the public anyone including celebrities should have the right to their own privacy. If she was in a public setting it's fair game but this wasn't the case. Boundaries were crossed.

There's a difference between wanting privacy and expecting it.

As a nobody, I would never expect someone to use a long range telephoto lens to snap a picture of me, so could rightly claim to be shocked if it was done.

But if I were to become a famous movie star, I would know from history that celebrities are the targets of paparazzi, so I wouldn't go wandering out on my balcony with my c**k out expecting the world to change for my benefit.

Nothing happened here that was unprecedented or unexpected given the life she chose to live.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

If there is a woman who wears a short skirt should people be able to take pictures up her skirt as well? I mean using the same logic, she should just dress more modestly.

You've totally missed the point.

No one wearing a short skirt in public should reasonably expect people to take pictures up their skirt, therefore a women who had that done could reasonably claim to be shocked.

To restate my point: If the known and expected outcome of an act is X, don't engage in the act then complain when X occurs.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Mike F

You've totally missed the point.

No one wearing a short skirt in public should reasonably expect people to take pictures up their skirt, therefore a women who had that done could reasonably claim to be shocked.

To restate my point: If the known and expected outcome of an act is X, don't engage in the act then complain when X occurs.

I am going to guess that she didn't expect for someone to be parked a half mile away with what amount to a telescope on a camera ready to take a shot based upon the reaction of the royal family. At the end of the day you are holding someone to a completely different standard because she is famous. It isn't up to you to decide who should be shocked and at what occurrence, especially if someone was in a private residence at the time. This is just a story about sleezeball photographer being a sleezeball and an equally sleezy magazine publishing the photographs.

It was a situation where she has a reasonable expectation as a person not to be photographed, if she was in a public area, then snap away... on a balcony at a private estate from a half mile away... something doesn't sit right with me.

[ben voyonsdonc]

Originally Posted by fotze

Maybe this will help the world see that nudity is not a big deal......and more bobs for all.

Where can I sign up for one of these bobs?

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by fotze

Maybe this will help the world see that nudity is not a big deal......and more bobs for all.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

not even by the very subjects that paid for the vacation......

Perhaps it would be perfectly alright if your boss followed you into the washroom at work and took photos of you at the urinal and posted in,say, gay porn magazines? After all, that would be well within his rights if we follow your reasoning, wouldn't it? But it wasn't in your job description, you might argue back? I am pretty sure that it isn't in the list of duties that royal family perform, either.

[Flame Of Liberty]

The photographer wasn't trespassing on private property so not sure she could claim intrusion of privacy, if you can be seen from outside its your problem, two metres or half a mile it doesn't matter.

If she was sitting in a car, that would be intrusion of privacy as well? Car is a private property too, after all.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by browna

William must be absolutely livid.
First, the paparazzi basically directly kill his mother through a high speed chase in Paris, and now, while at a relative's private property, some creep, cut from a similar cloth, shoots naked photos of his wife.

You mean the paparazzi forced her into the car, sat behind the wheel and started racing like a mad-man through Paris at night?

[Erick Estrada]

I sympathize with celebrities and the royal family that don't get privacy but I simply have a hard time shedding tears for people that lead charmed lives. I don't understand with the advent of tanning beds why women in her position take the risk of tanning topless out in the open.

The pics are meh. She's got a great rear end but the most concerning thing to me is just how young guys like William's get horseshoe baldness so early in life. Reminded me of how strange Ryan Getzlaf looked at that NHLPA gathering with the head of a 50 year old man.

[Calgaryborn]

Should the press work within some moral boundaries?

I think the obvious answer is yes. We don't want the press hounding the bereaved for comments. We expect them to show some restraint when covering the families of politicians. We expect honesty. We expect decency.

Did the press cross a line taking partually nude pictures of someone from half a mile away?

Depends on where you want to set the boundaries; I think yes. Everyone is entitled to a certain amount of privacy. We should give them the same respect we would want ourselves.

[Rathji]

Maybe it is the prude in me, but I try not to be naked outside at all. If I am naked in the house I try and have the drapes drawn.

Of course I don't have the luxury of living on property where the closest someone can get to my house is a half mile away, so maybe my perception is skewed. I mean if my living room window is open, my neighbour's kid comes right up to the screen and starts talking to us, like less than a foot from where I am sitting.

[Ped]

Personally I think it's a rather sad indictment that the price of fame is this belief that your life is no longer yoru own.

I'm not talking about the fame-whores that go in for this kind of behaviour (Paris, Kardashian, etc) but at what point did it become okay to take pictures of someone naked just because they're famous?

There's a ton of actors and actresses and other celebrities that don't really do anything other than appear in public, and who don't engage in "tabloid behaviour" Why is it okay to hunt them down and stalk them and take pictures of their private moments?

Once you cross that "famous" line you become fair game? Why?

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Should the press work within some moral boundaries?

I think the obvious answer is yes. We don't want the press hounding the bereaved for comments. We expect them to show some restraint when covering the families of politicians. We expect honesty. We expect decency.

Did the press cross a line taking partually nude pictures of someone from half a mile away?

Depends on where you want to set the boundaries; I think yes. Everyone is entitled to a certain amount of privacy. We should give them the same respect we would want ourselves.

If you could live the life of a wealthy celebrity and the only price you had to pay was to not be able to sun bathe nude or walk down the street without getting photographed woult you take it? I would take it in a heartbeat and I don't think for a second William and Kate would trade their lives for ours to get anonymity.