Kate MIddleton's (aka Princess Cindrella) topless photos

[TheDrop]

No thread about this yet?
Thoughts? Opinions? Uncensored link?

Personally i dont understand why British people don't mind giving some family a shitload of money to do essentially nothing.

[BuDo]

You a$$...came in here expecting something else ^^ ....Shame on me I guess.

[I Am Vegeta]

nope - CP

[Mirosuke]

Personally, I don't understand why do she wants her titties to be tanned.

[BuDo]

And Vegeta saves the day....Well not really...she got a nice ass though....

[Sn4ke_]

pics suck.

[Swindler]

Was expecting fap material.


Dissapoint.

[woutR]

Was expecting fap material.


Dissapoint.

Same here man.
If you wanna post stupid celebrity shit here at least make it worth the trouble. Add links and make sure it's not taken by a Nokia 3310 phone over 10 miles distance.

[*BlackFox]

OMFG... Why can't people leave them alone?

[TheDrop]

tbh I was disappointed at the pics too, ofcourse shes really pretty and has very nice ass

But i was trying to start discussion on privacy rights and freedom of press (going along with that other thread), not a fap thread

The Royal family is suing some French and Italian magazine for publishing the photos,
Apparently the Irish Daily Star is being shut down (by their parent company), and ~70 people losing their jobs for republishing the images,
Some people are calling on the photographer to be arrested..etc.

almost as pathetic as killing someone over a drawing of Muhammad..and this is in the "free" West

[heroo]

No nude pics of queen Elizabeth?

/Disappoint

[*BlackFox]

and this is in the "free"

Imagine... someone took half-naked photo of you and posted them on the news.. lulz

[heroo]

^

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

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

[.curve]

^

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

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

There's already a thread...

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=132159

/trollface

[BuDo]

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...

[CrimsonNuker]

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.

[TheDrop]

Well the thing is, the Closer magazine is used to posting tits of celebrities (apparently). They are way more liberal about that stuff in France than in US i'd guess. So you have to think, why should the British royals (who basically do shit, basically are celebrities) be treated any different.
Also the pic was taken from a long lense camera, but from a public road.

^

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

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

I dont really follow soccer anymore
But Real Madrid 3-2 Man City, talk about mixed feelings. If only Ajax and Dortmund could top that group

[BuDo]

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.

Good point...but what if the paparazzi took those pictures from a public environment (like they are claiming)....They said the pictures were taken from a public roadside...Just with a powerful zoom lens....Does this absolves them from wrong doing?

[CrimsonNuker]

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]

Charges were laid against the French magazine...Court ordered them to cease any further distribution of the photos and hand over the all remaining photographs...They will incur a $12000.00 fine for any further infractions.....

Their sister magazine company in Italy though could care less as they published waves and waves of the photographs as the laws in Italy doesn't affect them in this matter...The Italian publicist said on twitter "Not even a direct call from the queen would stop him". (He had quite the grin as he said this)...kinda funny

Seems like a waste of time what the judge did...It really doesn't have any effect as the pictures are already out and all over the place.

[CrimsonNuker]

I thought they wanted the originals back or something, but yeah the damage has been done. If it were me, I'd find some sort of gratification for having action taken.

[BuDo]

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.

[CrimsonNuker]

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.

If I rented a private resort/island or even a hotel room, I would expect some sort of privacy, away from those prying eyes. There's only so much you can do, you still have to enjoy life, everybody is entitled to that, even celebrities.
If it was a sniper scope, it would be tragic. No words would be able to express how tragic that would be.

[omier]

Well, a sniper could have taken them out anywhere.

[Blindfire]

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.

/sauce

Photographer broke the law. The Royal Family has every right to punish the magazines for publishing illegal photographs.

[TheDrop]

^Canadian suckup

[Tasdik]

^ Lol'd.

Oh and check it, now theres topless Heidi Klum photos..? Best. Week. Ever.

[TheDrop]

^Isnt that the girl that changed her whole look (with plastic surgery) even though she was fine before?