General Question

Eggie's avatar

Was the princess privacy invaded?

Asked by Eggie (4660 points ) September 22nd, 2012

I am reffering to the pictures that were taken of the princess topless in her private place while she was on vacation. The paparazzi king ( I forgot his name), said that she was not in private but she was in public since the camera could have caught a picture of her from the road and that if she did not want her picture taken then she should not have been topless. Was her privacy invaded or was she wrong for going topless.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

15 Answers

wilma's avatar

I believe that her privacy was invaded. Long lenses and ladders cross boundaries and invade privacy.

serenade's avatar

I could give a s—-. Great Britain has a bazillion cameras watching its citizens.

Pied_Pfeffer's avatar

Yes. She was on vacation at a private residence. Permission to take photos was not given.

On the other hand, anyone in the limelight needs to consider what an action might cause to their reputation. And maybe she did.

WestRiverrat's avatar

Yes her privacy was invaded, but it would have all blown over by now if the Royal Family hadn’t made a federal case out of it by suing the publisher.

Pied_Pfeffer's avatar

@WestRiverrat That might be true. On the other hand, Prince William’s mother was killed during a paparazzi-related incident, and he has made it clear that their private time was off-limits to the media. Even if he didn’t feel that way, I doubt it would have blown over. My guess is that it is not only emotional for him, but that he is trying to make a point by filing a lawsuit.

wundayatta's avatar

Her privacy was invaded. She was not wrong for going topless. No laws were broken.

She earns some sympathy. The photographer gets a payday. The public can be outraged is they want.

Who cares? It is a risky business being rich and famous. If you can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Certainly don’t go showing off your culinary skills in the kitchen.

filmfann's avatar

First, let me say how much I hate the paparazzi. They are leeches. They constantly position themselves to get that up-the-skirt shot while the famous are trying to get out of a car. They block the walkway/road the famous travel on so that they can get their photos. They use the long lenses to get pictures while they are inside buildings, or closed facilities. They are scum.
And that isn’t mentioning what they did to Diana.
But the Royals seem to think the world belongs to them. They are constantly “outraged” by being photographed naked while playing pool, or swimming in a lake, or whatever.
If you are going to be concerned about your privacy, and about your body, try not to go naked outdoors, or in groups.

Kardamom's avatar

Yes, her privacy was violated. Just because they are royals, does not mean that they do not deserve what is an expected amount of privacy. They were in a private residence, not out on the street, not at a public venue, not giving a speech or anything else that has to do with their obligations as “The Royals.” They should not have to expect to be clothed 100% of the time. Like someone else said in another thread, would you expect them to take a shower in their own home with their clothes on, or attempt to go to the bathroom without taking down their underwear? Should there be paparazzi cameras allowed at Kate’s gynocologist examinations? I don’t think so! There are certain things that everyone in the world should be able to do, with regards to assumed privacy.

If this had happened to a non-royal person or a non-famous person, but you or me, the photographer would possibly be in trouble for stalking. I think most paparazzi’s are stalkers and it makes me sick. There should be stiffer laws and penalties for paparazzi photographers. I think Prince William was correct in filing a lawsuit, considering what happened to his mother, who died, in part, due to the vicious stalking of Diana by paparazzi.

Response moderated (Unhelpful)
LostInParadise's avatar

Her privacy was invaded, but she should have been more careful. The notion of privacy is unfortunately largely disappearing., Our keystrokes can be monitored. The U.S. has authorized the use of drones for commercial use. I shudder to think of the use that the paparazzi will be able to make of them.

Espiritus_Corvus's avatar

I hate paparazzi, but no laws were broken. Like the Muhammad film of late, this is just bad taste and should be treated as such. It is beyond me why there is a market for such things..

Response moderated (Spam)
dabbler's avatar

Of course their privacy was invaded, but it’s not clear any laws were broken.
I think it’s a mistake to make as big a fuss as the royals are making only because it makes thos pictures and future pictures all that more valuable.
If they had said to the world, “Royal titties, so what, grow up. Move along.” it would have blown over by now.
We all need to devalue the work of the paparazzi by ignoring them, and let the publications know you think it’s a waste of time, and paper.

Earthgirl's avatar

Yes, her privacy was certainly invaded although she should have expected such a thing and if she cared not to be photographed she could have taken precautions. I’m not saying she should have to, it’s unfair, but it is what it is. The paparazzi are invasive like some insidious virus infiltrating that will never givie up feeding off the public’s insatiable hunger for celebrity news. What he did amounted to spying.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther