FirstNationalBastard: Trump was a well known figure in the Republican party show this year. Republicans love blaming victims. The train of thought is fairly clear.
redheededstepchild: So, what I am hearing is it would be ok to put cameras in bathrooms of places famous people go because they shouldn't expect privacy.
Atomic Spunk: I bet Trump has bigger tits than Kate.
Jim_Callahan: FirstNationalBastard: Trump was a well known figure in the Republican party show this year. Republicans love blaming victims. The train of thought is fairly clear.Really? Victims?If people are photographing you naked because they snuck into your bedroom and hid in the closet, sure. If the photographed you topless because you took of your shirt outside in an area that's not a private residence and clearly visible from the highway I'm going to have to live with the weird feeling of saying I'm pretty much with Trump on this one.
redheededstepchild: If you are peeking thru a window from the sidewalk, or a half mile away from a road, or even clinbing a tree to a shot over a wall or fence, or flying a helicopter over, or spying with a satellite, it's still an invasion of privacy. But my opinion or yours won't matter. It's up to the legal system.
liam76: Swiss Colony: liam76:So if I can see you from a public area, and not inside, you think I need your consent to take your picture?Nope. But according to French law you need my consent to publish it. Plus I question whether she could be seen with the naked eye.There is no doubting she was daft for taking her top off. The pictures should not have been published though. It's nothing to do with freedom of speach - there is no way this is in the public interest.I didn't say "seen with naked eye". Telephoto lenses and binoculars are pretty common nowadays. I choose to err on the side of free press ont his one and not limit distance to soem arbitrary standard.Public interest is determined by the public. I may not care, you may not care, but if it sells, it has public interest. When you set some arbitrary line where you can't say or publish X it is a free speech issue.
liam76: redheededstepchild: You're absolutly right. And in france, the laws are written and the courts have desided. Any other country where this photo is printed will also have a chance to deside. And people will continue to be sued. Eventually it becomes a cost/benfit situation. Do I want to pay huge legal fees, and take the risk that I might be breaking the law, or do not print and lose the chance to publish something that would be a huge seller.Which is bad for freedom of press.
SineSwiper: ChrisDe: SockMonkeyHolocaust: Well it is. She's a celebrity and she went to a topless beach. Then instead of saying "It's a set of titties that happen to be royal. Deal with it." the Royal Family went all 9/11 about THE SCANDAL!The days of Queen Victoria going swimming by backing a special coach into a lake and parking a regiment of blind grenadiers around the perimeter is long gone.She did not go to a topless beach.Was it a public beach?
garron: Who is so obsessed with politics that they would take something as stupid as this and turn it into a blank political statement about members of either party?// o_0 at subby
Kell Bartok: [msnbcmedia1.msn.com image 216x298]What Donald Trump topless might look like...
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Jul 28 2017 06:28:46
Runtime: 0.324 sec (324 ms)