The Royal Bum

[blue22]

honestly its a bum. We all got one. hers happens to be considered a nice one. I still am of the belief that this is a much bigger deal to us and the royal press handlers than it is for either Will or Kate. They are busily going about their lives enjoying their little one.

Taking my cue from them and just letting all this bum debate die down.

It REALLY bothers me, that it shouldn't be a big deal because her bum is "nice."

That's so freaking backwards, I can't stand it.

 

[TrackerSam]

Nope. I didn't miss that. And it's not "faux" indignation. It's real indignation.

I think harassing celebrities by stalking them and photographing them in uncomprimsing moments, or photographing their private parts when the wind blows up or they have a problem with their wardrobe, is a disgusting invasion of their privacy. This kind of stuff led to the death of Diana.

And I don't appreciate the sly inferences that Kate us purposefully showing off her private parts and thus is some kind of fallen woman or whatever. If someone followed most of us around with a camera 24/7, they would catch all kinds of things we would be mortified to have plastered on the news.

We have lost a sense of decency in society today. That's what is shameful - not the fact that Kate didn't have minders or didn't wear underwear or "should have known" because the wind blew before or because nasty paparazzi hid in bushes and photographed her topless in the yard in a private home.

I kind of think that the fact that Kate is a very beautiful young woman is what bothers some people the most.

She was neither stalked nor harrassed. You're entitled to your own opinions but you're not entitled to your own facts.
If someone followed most of us around, no one would be interested in any pictures. :facepalm:
From the article-

it will be unlikely to provoke any attempt at legal action as the picture was taken on an official engagement during Kate’s recent tour of Australia when a gust of wind briefly caught her dress as she boarded a helicopter.

If people inadvertantly flash photographers on public engagements, well, that’s their lookout."

There wasn't anyone hiding in the bushes. :floorlaugh:

There are cameras everywhere and more are coming.

 

[jjenny]

She was neither stalked nor harrassed. You're entitled to your own opinions but you're not entitled to your own facts.
If someone followed most of us around, no one would be interested in any pictures. :facepalm:
From the article-

it will be unlikely to provoke any attempt at legal action as the picture was taken on an official engagement during Kate’s recent tour of Australia when a gust of wind briefly caught her dress as she boarded a helicopter.

If people inadvertantly flash photographers on public engagements, well, that’s their lookout."

There wasn't anyone hiding in the bushes. :floorlaugh:

There are cameras everywhere and more are coming.

Exactly. She was out in public. She knows she is being photographed. That's not an invasion of privacy because she has no reasonable expectations of privacy being in a public place.

 

[jjenny]

Nope. I didn't miss that. And it's not "faux" indignation. It's real indignation.

I think harassing celebrities by stalking them and photographing them in uncomprimsing moments, or photographing their private parts when the wind blows up or they have a problem with their wardrobe, is a disgusting invasion of their privacy. This kind of stuff led to the death of Diana.

And I don't appreciate the sly inferences that Kate us purposefully showing off her private parts and thus is some kind of fallen woman or whatever. If someone followed most of us around with a camera 24/7, they would catch all kinds of things we would be mortified to have plastered on the news.

We have lost a sense of decency in society today. That's what is shameful - not the fact that Kate didn't have minders or didn't wear underwear or "should have known" because the wind blew before or because nasty paparazzi hid in bushes and photographed her topless in the yard in a private home.

I kind of think that the fact that Kate is a very beautiful young woman is what bothers some people the most.

Photographers might not follow us with cameras 24/7, because no one is interested in our photos. But we are most likely on camera somewhere when we go out in public, because of numerous security cameras. As for Kate, paparazzi were not hiding in bushes. She was out in public, on official business.
As such, I don't think it's too much to expect that someone wearing a skirt should wear proper undergarments, if that someone doesn't want their naked bum showing on the cover of newspapers. It's not even the first time she was getting in or out the helicopter and her skirt blew up.

 

[gitana1]

She was neither stalked nor harrassed. You're entitled to your own opinions but you're not entitled to your own facts.
If someone followed most of us around, no one would be interested in any pictures. :facepalm:
From the article-

it will be unlikely to provoke any attempt at legal action as the picture was taken on an official engagement during Kate’s recent tour of Australia when a gust of wind briefly caught her dress as she boarded a helicopter.

If people inadvertantly flash photographers on public engagements, well, that’s their lookout."

There wasn't anyone hiding in the bushes. :floorlaugh:

There are cameras everywhere and more are coming.

I think it is stalking and harassment when a cameraman (or two) follows a person around constantly when they are in public. I think it is harassment to publish photos like the one discussed here, as it is part of a larger pattern of humiliating, following, photographing and trying to get shots like this. Just because it happens in public doesn't mean it isn't stalking or harassment or an invasion of privacy.

BTW, I'm not the one who came up with those terms in the context of paparazzi. You know, I'm not a fan of celebrities. But I am against anyone being harassed. I feel these people are harassed and stalked by cameraman:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhByqJeXNag

If someone followed you like this and took photos of you and put them on the internet, you would call the cops. And it doesn't matter that no one would be interested, in your mind. You'd be freaked out. Is that the problem? Is it okay because she's attractive or wealthy and thus deserves it? Does society think this kind of activity is what celebrities deserve? That they have lost their rights to be treated decently?

Perhaps Kate and company are not that bothered by this one incident. But the problem is greater than this one incident. It is the constant following and photographing and screaming out questions and blocking, etc., that is the problem. It is the lack of decency in general in society that causes us to think this behavior is okay or that the publication of such photos is okay or that causes us to click on such a photo.

It is shameful to think that because she didn't wear a weighted dress, it's okay for a news agency to publish a photo of her naked rear end.

 

[Peliman]

I think it is stalking and harassment when a cameraman (or two) follows a person around constantly when they are in public. I think it is harassment to publish photos like the one discussed here, as it is part of a larger pattern of humiliating, following, photographing and trying to get shots like this. Just because it happens in public doesn't mean it isn't stalking or harassment or an invasion of privacy.

BTW, I'm not the one who came up with those terms in the context of paparazzi. You know, I'm not a fan of celebrities. But I am against anyone being harassed. I feel these people are harassed and stalked by cameraman:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhByqJeXNag

If someone followed you like this and took photos of you and put them on the internet, you would call the cops. And it doesn't matter that no one would be interested, in your mind. You'd be freaked out. Is that the problem? Is it okay because she's attractive or wealthy and thus deserves it? Does society think this kind of activity is what celebrities deserve? That they have lost their rights to be treated decently?

Perhaps Kate and company are not that bothered by this one incident. But the problem is greater than this one incident. It is the constant following and photographing and screaming out questions and blocking, etc., that is the problem. It is the lack of decency in general in society that causes us to think this behavior is okay or that the publication of such photos is okay or that causes us to click on such a photo.

It is shameful to think that because she didn't wear a weighted dress, it's okay for a news agency to publish a photo of her naked rear end.

Until the law changes, it's called the "money shot"

 

[jjenny]

I think it is stalking and harassment when a cameraman (or two) follows a person around constantly when they are in public. I think it is harassment to publish photos like the one discussed here, as it is part of a larger pattern of humiliating, following, photographing and trying to get shots like this. Just because it happens in public doesn't mean it isn't stalking or harassment or an invasion of privacy.

BTW, I'm not the one who came up with those terms in the context of paparazzi. You know, I'm not a fan of celebrities. But I am against anyone being harassed. I feel these people are harassed and stalked by cameraman:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhByqJeXNag

If someone followed you like this and took photos of you and put them on the internet, you would call the cops. And it doesn't matter that no one would be interested, in your mind. You'd be freaked out. Is that the problem? Is it okay because she's attractive or wealthy and thus deserves it? Does society think this kind of activity is what celebrities deserve? That they have lost their rights to be treated decently?

Perhaps Kate and company are not that bothered by this one incident. But the problem is greater than this one incident. It is the constant following and photographing and screaming out questions and blocking, etc., that is the problem. It is the lack of decency in general in society that causes us to think this behavior is okay or that the publication of such photos is okay or that causes us to click on such a photo.

It is shameful to think that because she didn't wear a weighted dress, it's okay for a news agency to publish a photo of her naked rear end.

What do you think the cops are going to tell someone who calls them in such situation? Too bad. Being out in public, there is no expectation of privacy.
So somebody who doesn't want their rear end to show up on the internet (or in a newspaper) should cover it up while in public.

 

[gitana1]

Until the law changes, it's called the "money shot"

Yes and no. It is a money shot but it is also illegal behavior. Celebrities can and have obtained restraining orders against one or two paparazzi. The problem is that there are so many. So it's hard to track one individual person for a restraining order and if you do, there's another to take his or her place.

LONDON (AP) - A British High Court judge has ordered paparazzi to stay away from One Direction member Harry Styles.
The order from Justice Nicola Davies bars several photographers from pursuing the singer by car or motorcycle, placing him under surveillance and loitering or waiting within 164 feet of his home.
Styles' lawyer, David Sherborne, said the singer had gone to court after failing to persuade the photographers to stop their behavior voluntarily.
http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/1...estraining-order-against-paparazzi-98177.html

Two photographers have been temporarily ordered to stay 100 yards away from Nicole Richie, a Los Angeles judge ruled Friday. The order also protects her two children, Harlow, 21 months, and Sparrow, 6 weeks.

In her filing, Richie states that photographers Eduardo Arrivebene and Ivon Miguel daily "stalk" Richie and her family, and that they "sit outside my house, waiting for me to leave." She alleges that they "scream at me in an attempt to get my reaction, scare me, follow me, chase me in [their] vehicle," causing her "severe emotional distress." http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20316761,00.html

 

[jjenny]

Yes and no. It is a money shot but it is also illegal behavior. Celebrities can and have obtained restraining orders against one paparazzi. The problem is that there are so many. So it's hard to track one individual person for a restraining order and if you do, there's another to take his or her place.

Was this shot even taken by a paparazzi? She was on an official business with official photographers present. Which she knew.

 

[gitana1]

What do you think the cops are going to tell someone who calls them in such situation? Too bad. Being out in public, there is no expectation of privacy.
So somebody who doesn't want their rear end to show up on the internet (or in a newspaper) should cover it up while in public.

If someone called the police and stated that someone keeps following them, in public, taking photos of them, and putting those photos on the internet, the police would likely tell them to go and get a civil harassment restraining order. And guess what? The court would very likely grant one.

Would the person taking the photos and doing the following be arrested? Unlikely. But they could still be subject to a restraining order.

 

[gitana1]

Was this shot even taken by a paparazzi? She was on an official business with official photographers present. Which she knew.

Well, I hardly believe that official photographers published that photo or released it to a third party to be published. That's silly.

 

[jjenny]

Well, I hardly believe that official photographers published that photo or released it to a third party to be published. That's silly.

You never know.

 

[redheadedgal]

You never know.

a quick google search will tell you the person who took it was an independent photographer who feels quite guilty she a) didn't delete the image immediately when she realized she had it and b) chose to sell it.

 

[jjenny]

a quick google search will tell you the person who took it was an independent photographer who feels quite guilty she a) didn't delete the image immediately when she realized she had it and b) chose to sell it.

Isn't that nice?
I mean, seriously, if someone feels guilty about not deleting the image, I fail to see why this someone would sell it.

 

[AnjL]

It's unethical to publish the photo. Period.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Everything above is JMO!

 

[TrackerSam]

I think it is stalking and harassment when a cameraman (or two) follows a person around constantly when they are in public. I think it is harassment to publish photos like the one discussed here, as it is part of a larger pattern of humiliating, following, photographing and trying to get shots like this. Just because it happens in public doesn't mean it isn't stalking or harassment or an invasion of privacy.

BTW, I'm not the one who came up with those terms in the context of paparazzi. You know, I'm not a fan of celebrities. But I am against anyone being harassed. I feel these people are harassed and stalked by cameraman:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhByqJeXNag

If someone followed you like this and took photos of you and put them on the internet, you would call the cops. And it doesn't matter that no one would be interested, in your mind. You'd be freaked out. Is that the problem? Is it okay because she's attractive or wealthy and thus deserves it? Does society think this kind of activity is what celebrities deserve? That they have lost their rights to be treated decently?

Perhaps Kate and company are not that bothered by this one incident. But the problem is greater than this one incident. It is the constant following and photographing and screaming out questions and blocking, etc., that is the problem. It is the lack of decency in general in society that causes us to think this behavior is okay or that the publication of such photos is okay or that causes us to click on such a photo.

It is shameful to think that because she didn't wear a weighted dress, it's okay for a news agency to publish a photo of her naked rear end.

No I wouldn't call the cops and it's presumptuous of you to say that I would. First it wouldn't happen because I'm not a celebrity. You can have fame and fortune and papparazzi or you can work a regular job and be anonymous. You can't have celebrity without photographers wanting to take your picture.
And yes it is OK and legal to publish such a picture. What I find nutty is people who think they can be out in public like Lady Godiva and no one's supposed to look. The photographers didn't strip her of her underwear.
Like they say in the Boy Scouts "Be Prepared".

 

[TrackerSam]

If someone called the police and stated that someone keeps following them, in public, taking photos of them, and putting those photos on the internet, the police would likely tell them to go and get a civil harassment restraining order. And guess what? The court would very likely grant one.

Would the person taking the photos and doing the following be arrested? Unlikely. But they could still be subject to a restraining order.

You presume alot. Your whole argument is made out of your presumptions.
This kind of thing will happen again and again and again, without your permission.