If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Donald Trump takes the position of all good Republicans, says Kate Middleton only has herself to blame for being photographed topless   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 23
    More: Dumbass, Kate Middleton  
•       •       •

2440 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 19 Sep 2012 at 3:46 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-09-19 08:12:10 AM
3 votes:
Which is a diffrent way of saying "don't hate the player, hate the game." She was on her back porch, at least a half mile from the road. She has every right to legal action. And, if we have any respect for privacy, we should realize the way to get these guys to stop is to make sure no one profits from it.
2012-09-19 07:24:28 AM
3 votes:

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.
2012-09-19 10:16:04 AM
2 votes:
Since he realizes people have no expectation of privacy, then why isn't he clamoring for Romney to release his tax forms for the last 10 years?
2012-09-19 09:19:03 AM
2 votes:
Yeah...welcome to FARK

Where they consistently take normal, common sense quotes, and verbally destroy the person who said them all because of their religious or political views.

Freedom of speech...indeed
2012-09-19 09:06:43 AM
2 votes:
I'm not trying to defend the paparazzi here but if you are the Princess, you are topless and not indoors, then you may have to deal with the consequences... She should have known better.

Lots of women (hot ones too) go topless in Miami's South Beach but they are not photographed by the paparazzi left and right. If Kate was just Kate, then this would have never happened... but she is the Princess and she should expect very little privacy from now on.
2012-09-19 07:46:48 AM
2 votes:

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.


Reductio ad absurdum. Next?

We don't live in the world of My Little Pony. These people exist, and there is no way to stop them from existing, especially if we are to continue to have a free press. Given this, it is far better to act accordingly and plan in a way that sidesteps the problem, rather than continue to bemoan a thing that is not going to go away. Don't curse the darkness; light a candle.
2012-09-19 07:40:04 AM
2 votes:
He's a dick but he kind of has a point. Now there is nothing against sunbathing nude on a private boat, but when you're now married to a prince you should know that people are following you everywhere. Don't be surprised when this happens.
2012-09-19 05:09:18 AM
2 votes:

Atomic Spunk: I bet Trump has bigger tits than Kate.


Bigger yes, nicer, not so much.
2012-09-19 04:01:52 AM
2 votes:
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
2012-09-19 02:09:21 PM
1 votes:

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.


Except she wasn't. She was at a remote French chateau and the photographer was over a kilometer away,
2012-09-19 01:56:02 PM
1 votes:

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.


Actually, no. You're 100% wrong on that.

The eyes/cameras don't emit magical rays of voyeurism through windows or fences.

Here's how it works:

Light comes from the sun/lightbulb, reflects on the object (titties in this case) and then reaches MY eyeballs/camera. It's the person inside the house/fence that is broadcasting the image to the world. Not the other way around.

You don't want to bee seen? Don't be seen. Simple. I masturbate regularly and also walk naked inside my apartment. To my knowledge, no one has ever seen me from outside. Why? I take measures for that to be an unlikely situation.

Also, this bullshiat about "privacy" is overblown and a case of "white people problems". So you think a journalist is going to hang around asking for permission for the pictures he's taking on the street? Also, what happens if I'm covering a war/riot/etc? I need to ask for permission? LOL, of course not.

Of course, getting inside a property and planting cameras/microphones is indeed a violation of privacy.

Also, if waiting outside someone's house and taking pictures of them from outside or when they go out is "illegal", then every FBI Van kind of evidence is illegal too. Oh wait!
2012-09-19 10:54:48 AM
1 votes:

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.


It may be in the public interest to put X-ray lenses on every camera and stare at naked chicks 24 hours a day and post them all to the Nightly News without their consent.. that does not mean it is in the public interest. Her public persona has little to nothing to do with her boobs.
2012-09-19 10:44:45 AM
1 votes:
Her regal rosebuds thus revealed
In puddles DNA congealed
From countless voyeurs, masts erected
By titties smaller than expected.


-- Alexander Pope, "The Duchess of Not So Muchess"
2012-09-19 09:12:56 AM
1 votes:
Sorry, I'm with Donald on this one. It's OK as long as the person ISN'T a royal? From another country at that? Come on...
2012-09-19 09:08:53 AM
1 votes:
I never thought I'd find myself agreeing with Trump on anything but he's right on this one. She was topless outdoors. Whether it was a private home or a public beach is irrelevant. The Fark headlines are full of stories where someone did something in their backyards or, indeed, in their house but within view of a window, got arrested and claimed "but...my privacy" only to be smacked-down by the courts.

Kate's incident is no different. If she doesn't understand by now that anything she does, especially outdoors, will potentially be photographed, then perhaps she shouldn't be royalty.
2012-09-19 08:59:16 AM
1 votes:

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.


No, it keeps people from sneaking into mortuaries to take photos of dead celebs.
2012-09-19 08:28:19 AM
1 votes:

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?


Wasn't a beach at all. An outdoor patio of a private home.
2012-09-19 07:35:52 AM
1 votes:
For once, he may actually have a point. When you don't want a certain type of photo to be taken of you, but you know that every step you take outside your home is followed by a gaggle of paparazzi who will be paid tens of thousands of dollars (or whatever currency is appropriate) if they can manage to take that exact type of photo -perhaps [i]hundreds[/i] of thousands, in this particular case- and will act accordingly, does this not put the onus on you to likewise act accordingly? This is not something most people have to deal with, but it is part of the price of celebrity.
2012-09-19 07:31:15 AM
1 votes:
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.
2012-09-19 04:39:39 AM
1 votes:
I bet Trump has bigger tits than Kate.
2012-09-19 04:11:39 AM
1 votes:

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


Trump was a well known figure in the Republican party show this year. Republicans love blaming victims. The train of thought is fairly clear.
2012-09-19 04:10:23 AM
1 votes:

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


Welcome to Fark?
2012-09-19 03:55:36 AM
1 votes:

Kell Bartok: [msnbcmedia1.msn.com image 216x298]

What Donald Trump topless might look like...


That suits him in a Wilson Fisk/Kingpin kinda way
 
Displayed 23 of 23 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report