Silkroad Online Forums

Swindler wrote:Was expecting fap material.


Dissapoint.

TheDrop wrote:and this is in the "free"

heroo wrote:^

well then don't get (half)naked in public, oui?

edit: TheDrop, where is your annual Champions League topic? football gotta stay represented yo.

BuDo wrote:So....Does the Royal family have the right to try and punish the magazine?...Should anybody's privacy be violated in this way?....Does the magazine have the right to publish what they want as long as they're not breaking any laws?....Should they be able to use your your image to boost advertising sales without your consent? Does the fact that you're a public figure void you of your rights in such cases?.....Lets get this ball rolling people...discuss...

heroo wrote:^

well then don't get (half)naked in public, oui?

edit: TheDrop, where is your annual Champions League topic? football gotta stay represented yo.

CrimsonNuker wrote:

BuDo wrote:So....Does the Royal family have the right to try and punish the magazine?...Should anybody's privacy be violated in this way?....Does the magazine have the right to publish what they want as long as they're not breaking any laws?....Should they be able to use your your image to boost advertising sales without your consent? Does the fact that you're a public figure void you of your rights in such cases?.....Lets get this ball rolling people...discuss...

Yes they should have the right to punish, it's disgusting that somebody actually went out of their way just to take snap shots of her naked.
Nobody's privacy should have been invaded like this. They were on a private island, clearly trying to get away from the papperazzi.

It's absolutely disgusting that somebody did this. I get it if they were at the beach or something, but they were at a private resort/island afaik.

IMO this is at the same level of the papperazzi climbing up to your washroom window and taking pictures of you showering and publishing them, absolutely wrong.

CrimsonNuker wrote:Even if they did take it from public property, it's still wrong. I mean like the line has to be drawn somewhere. It's more than right or wrong, it's a matter of respect too, and this is just straight up disrespectful. The fact that the papperazzi followed them all the way there, and then literally stalked them from a far, with cameras in their hands just waiting to take some obscure picture, that's just fucked up.

It's like that incident where some jackass took a photo of that mma fighter and his wife working out naked in their own home.

BuDo wrote:

CrimsonNuker wrote:Even if they did take it from public property, it's still wrong. I mean like the line has to be drawn somewhere. It's more than right or wrong, it's a matter of respect too, and this is just straight up disrespectful. The fact that the papperazzi followed them all the way there, and then literally stalked them from a far, with cameras in their hands just waiting to take some obscure picture, that's just fucked up.

It's like that incident where some jackass took a photo of that mma fighter and his wife working out naked in their own home.

What about levels of responsibility? Some people will argue using that point. Being very famous and not totally ensuring your privacy...When you think about it that could'ave been a sniper's scope instead of a camera lens.

France has a strict privacy law that makes it a criminal offence to publish information on a person's private life without the express permission of the person concerned.