For the British Royal Family

Listening to the news this evening, has me feeling for this family, for several reasons. One of them, the preposterous idea that Kate Middleton has done something scandalous by sunbathing on private property in Provence. What is scandalous is that the paparazzi has invaded her privacy. I feel especially for Prince William. He has to be remembering the tragedy of his own mother's death as she tried to escape a similar invasion. I am glad the family has decided to sue. This kind of violation has to stop, to my thinking. Being a celebrity should not involve the loss of those rights to privacy.

And, in addition, I just heard that the latest of the middle east attacks occurred in Afganistan - at the very base where Prince Harry is stationed and on active duty. Apparently he is safe, but the irony of this whole situation puts the problem of responsibility on the line: The harmfulness of the abuse of "free speech" is heightened by this synchronistic incident.

All rights include responsibility. My dad taught me that when I was a teenager. The photographer who used a long-range lens to take those pictures had a responsibility. He abused his "rights." So did the producer of the film that incited the rage that led to the death of four people including the ambassador who had worked to give the same people their freedom from an oppressive dictator.

This abuse has been around for a long time. Audie Murphy and his family were frequent victims. I first became aware of the problem while I was writing A Myth in Action.

All of this stuff is tempering my long-held belief in the importance of free speech. As I said, every right includes a responsibility, whether it has to do with paparazzi photos, tabloid articles, or films that are designed to incite anger and hatred.

It all comes back to the same place.

Just me.

Ann

9/14/2012

Ann..

I agree it's an invasion of privacyand I would sue

the photoghrapher too ! In the old days of Hollywood they

respected famous people matter of fact the famous and the

reoprters always had each others phone number.Today their

like leeches hanging from trees...I love Prince Wiliam and Kate

to me she's very refined and a lady, she reminds me of Princess

Diana, I hope William becomes the king he would be great...

Cheers..Joe...

Ann,

I hear you and agree. we are being overrun by free speech folks who have no regard for the truth. Very sad.

I m not for or against free speech, but respecting privacy in the age of the Internet is a thing of the past. Don't send an email if you don't want anyone else to read it. Don't do anything that you don't want others to see. I've seen photos of the President, sat at his desk, taken through a window. He was working and the photo did not raise an eyebrow, but what if he had been in one of the private rooms? Security doesn't allow anyone access to take photographs. That is the state of privacy today: if you cannot protect it; it doesn't exist. If the Duchess of Cambridge thought that she could sunbathe topless in privacy, she now knows differently.

Ann, I agree with you about being responsibile for ones actions. At the same time, we know that scandals are what people what to hear and read about. Bad news about someone sells. Usually the most sought after stories involve sex. Why so many are so prudish about the human body escapes me.

As for privacy, as Shelagh pointed out, it no longer exists. Surveillance cameras and Spy Satellites are just another invasion that are with us. Our words are exposed to the world. Technology has taken away our privacy. Get used to it, it exists and I don't think it is going away. Should they attempt to control it, someone will scream "freedom of speech". There are limits, however. Screaming fire in a crowded theatre is one example. Responsibility rests with the individual. Do what you want and be prepared to take the consequences. If you want to walk around nude, that's okay. Be prepared for the consequences. Be prepared for criticism. As I write these words I know that someone will object. Know what? I don't care. I said what I feel and feel free to do so.

People who are famous have a harder time proving a case of slander, libel, or invasion of privacy just because they are famous. That makes then "news," and so-called journalists and photographers can claim freedom of the press/media and use that out to write/photograph/film sensationalist stories, often including outright lies, and the stories get perpetuated. Modern technology makes it easier for the tabloids to get their stories.

In that sense, in my opinion, there is little difference between a photographer taking a picture with a long-range camera, without the knowledge or approval of the individual being photographed, and making money by selling the pictures to "journalists" who get to make money by selling the magazines/newspapers/blogs at the expense of these individuals whose fame makes them "news" fodder, and a filmmaker who puts together a video that incites the kind of hate that leads to peacemakers being murdered, and claims the right to freedom of expression. The acceptance of one leads to the other.

Progress leads to change. We have been discussing the idea that old structures are often artificially upheld and perpetuated when new perspectives, which are more in line with modern knowledge, ought to be allowed to form. Many of our threads here have suggested that old traditions and cultural/religious beliefs need to be set aside or changed to fit our modern society. We have discussed the possibility that our institutions might be out-of-date. We have voiced the idea that we need to take another look at such things as the right to bear arms, etc.

Freedom of expression needs to be on the table as well, and included in these discussions is all I'm saying.

Every right includes a responsibility to enjoy that right in a manner that doesn't infringe on others. That means these rights are essentially limited. Just because we have the technology to do a thing doesn't make it an acceptable thing to do.

Just me being me again.

Ann

Ann, I can't argue with your statement. As for setting limits, who will do that? Will the limits be reasonable and agreeable to all? I doubt it. It comes down to how we accept or reject something. We don't have to go with the flow. We can live our lives the way that we want. Forcing our views on someone else is the problem.
Yes there are other issues that create dissention,i.e., gun control, incitement to rebellion and even war. The recent gaff by our would-be President showed the world what he is. Someone who wants to be the leader of the free world and acts like an idiot is not someone who can lead.

The impending war with Iran is another issue that requires restraint. Drawing a red line is a challenge. The red in the red line to me signifies the blood that will be shed. If these people, whoever they are, want war and want to spill blood, then they should lead the battle and place their lives at risk. Sending young men and women to die for trumped up or for an imagined threat, is for the foolhardy. We had such a President and don't need another one. Hundreds of thousands died due to the war in Iraq based on trumped-up charges. Now we are to be drawn into a war with Iran because they are seen as a threat?

There are no easy answers, are there, Abe. No one wants to go to war with Iran; on the other hand, no one wants Iran to make nuclear weapons, either. There is the dilemma. It is difficult to watch and feel powerless.

There is no way that we can deny that we are all part of one world. That same internet, the technology that allows us to have access to people who are miles away from us - in some instances thousands of miles (ever see the film,Body of Lies?) - is proof of the interconnectedness of all people everywhere. Nationalism is a luxury we can no longer afford.

In the meantime, we can recognize our responsibility and be aware of the inescapable fact that, in this postmodern world, we cannot ignore quantum reality. We are witnessing, in these current events, the power of the butterfly effect. In the same way that a beautiful insect doing its own thing, just flapping its wings, can be the source of a wave of activity that sends a hurricane onto shore just miles from a major population center which happens to lie in its track, our words and actions form ripples that spread out like those formed by a simple pebble falling into an otherwise quiet pond.

In my books, Daniel Redstone sometimes utters these very simple questions: "Who is right? Who is wrong? and Who gets to decide which is which?"

Every time we choose sides in a dilemma such as this current one, we are contributing to the discontent. That is the responsibility we must accept.

Annie

Ann, sometimes we must ask ourselves a tough question.
Would I be willing to die for this cause? If my answer is no, then I don't want anyone else to die for it and I am opposed. Those who are willing to die for a cause, step up and volunteer.

I hear you, Abe. The thing is, since neither of us is in a position to step up, doesn't that make our responsibility in speaking out even greater?

Again, just me.

Ann

Ann,

When one of the members here disclosed information from the private WIP board and posted that information on another forum, I objected strongly; I still do. However, the consensus was that nothing is private on the 'net. Private boards are for private viewing, they are not places where information is kept private. As soon as information is made available on the 'net, it doesn't matter if it's on a private or public board because it automatically goes into the public domain. Whether we think that it is right or not is of no consequence. It's the way it is, and as Abe says, we have to get used to it.

I hear you, Shelagh, and I agree with your position. I totally agree that our words here become public domain, and that we must accept that reality.

That is not the same thing, at least in my head, as taking responsibility and accepting consequences. If anything, it makes them all the more important.

Since that is the way it is, getting used to the reality means we have to put some of our "rights" on the table. If I were to say something on this board that expressed hatred to the point that it incited someone to commit a violent act, it wouldn't excuse my action or responsibility. I could still be held liable - or ought to be.

If I were to take a compromising photo of an individual, without that individual's knowledge, and post it here, wouldn't that individual's rights still be compromised? Whose rights ought to be recognized? Mine or the individual involved?

Ann

Ann, yes it does. Speaking out loudly and strongly is the only weapon we Seniors have. Keeping quite so as not to offend, is the greatest offense.

I've asked myself a question as to whether I would be willing to die for my country. When I was young and enlisted, I felt I was doing my patroitic duty. I didn't have ideological views, but was prepared to follow orders without question. Today I would question and perhaps be court-martialed for refusing to obey orders. Attitudes change. Times have changed. Fighting someone else's battle for economic or political reasons is not something I am willing to do. Fighting for any reason when there is an alternative for saving lives is, in my view, worth lots of patience and shoving the ego where it belongs. Trying to be tough or talking tough is stupid.

Ann, I think this conversation should have been on a different thread. I don't think it has much to do with the British Royal Family. Sorry for the hijacking, Shelagh.

I don't understand, Abe. Shelagh did not originate this thread, I did, so nobody has hijacked it. Please reread my OP.

Ann

We can at least be less upset over the pictures and know that they were an invasion of privacy
or at the very least an invasion of an expectation of privacy.

The fault lies with the photographer not the subject

I think the maker of the anti -Muslim video could have use his talents to a much better end.

Ann, I just meant that our conversation had little if anything to do with the title to the thread. But, as conversations go, one thing leads to another and here we are.

Actually, I covered both points in that OP, so nothing is off topic. And since it is my thread, shouldn't any apology re hijacking include me?

Annie

Another great discussion. I agree with Ann's original post.

The law has not changed as to invasion of privacy in the U.S. simply because technology has (I can't speak for Britain). If one has a reasonable expectation of privacy and someone infringes on it, that is actionable. It does not matter whether someone is a royal or commoner, public or private person. Anyone in a public beach has no expectation of privacy. Anyone in a private area does, if he/she reasonably expects that no one is observing them. I don't know enough about the facts here, but using a telephoto lens to observe someone on private property is a no-no. Not so if one is on public property in plain sight of others.

To respond quickly to something Shelagh said, the fact that something is on the Internet does NOT mean that it is in the public domain. Unless we actively give up our copyright contractually or by a willful act of releasing it into the public domain, we own what we write and, though links can be made to where our writing resides, it cannot be used by others without our permission. I would argue that releasing something in a private forum that is not accessible to the public at large is an invasion of privacy if the person posting it had the expectation that the material would not be released without their consent and if the material is of a private nature (e.g. if a reasonable person would not want it to be repeated). Moreover, it is also a copyright infringement.

Victor,

We don't have laws to protect the ordinary public, but celebrities can "buy" privacy concerning what can and cannot be printed in newspapers: a very unsatisfactory situation. You can read more about the changes in privacy laws here:

http://www.thorntons-law.co.uk/News/News_Articles/Do_we_have_a_right_to_privacy.asp

A high profile Manchester United football superstar, Ryan Giggs, paid for an injunction to stop newspapers printing information about his private life. Turns out he was sleeping with his sister-in-law among other women. The story did come out and was printed in the newspapers. So his attempts to buy privacy came to nought:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/may/23/ryan-giggs-mp-injunction

As far as private beaches go, there is no such thing. My garden belongs more to the creatures who dwell there and survive on everything that grows there than it belongs to me. Owning a stretch of the coastline is human intervention. We don't own anything. We claim territory and try to keep people off with man-made laws. I know that laws are necessary and make for a safer environment for everyone, and help to prevent chaos and mayhem breaking out, but protecting celebrities privacy is not at the top of my wish-list. If the Duchess of Cambridge wanted an all-over suntan so that no "white bits" showed beneath her designer gowns, she should have sunbathed on an elevated terrace away from prying eyes.

I totally get where Shelagh is coming from. The ambiguity is a big part of why I raised my question - and it is a question.

Here is another example - and I freely admit to being biased. Several weeks ago, an Australian actor named Russell Crowe, took a brief vacation from his work to go home and spend some time with his wife and children. (Filming for his current movie was shifting from Iceland to Long Island, NY). He made the choice, after spending a couple of days in privacy, behind the walls of his personally (and due to previous experience) technologically protected home, to take his young sons into the public arena of Sydney so that they could experience a few moments of being "normal" kids. They had lunch at a popular chain restaurant which specializes in healthy "fast" food. As they were walking toward the restaurant, the paparazzi approached. Mr. Crowe explained politely and asked for their consideration. They refused. They not only took pictures of the three as they walked toward the restaurant, they used their high-powered cameras to take more pictures, from outside the restaurant, as the family ate. Mr. Crowe then mentioned the incident on Twitter. He uses his Twitter account as a means of speaking directly to the public because he has had to deal with tabloid reporters who have no compunction over making up stories about him. After the Twitter comment, the pictures appeared, along with an article saying that the actor, who has been working hard for over a year now, to get his physical health back on track after intentionally gaining weight for a movie role, obviously does not have the willpower to stick to his program, as he was seen, and photographed, at a fast-food restaurant, wolfing down a fat-filled burger and fries. The story was picked up by tabloids around the world, and pictures of him eating were published all across the internet. Comments to the articles often verged on hate - a hate that could only be based on envy. These same "news" sources often use old pictures taken at a time when the actor was overweight, and ignoring the known facts, claim that they are proof that the actor is still "fat," and the comments on those articles indicate that there are people who no longer go to his films because they believe the articles are valid news reports. So, not only do they affect his personal life, they affect the attendance at his films, which affects the profits for the producers, which affect his ability to get future roles. (a kind of butterfly effect)

This is a minor thing. The actor laughs this stuff off these days. It took him a while to "get it," but he has reluctantly accepted the fact that being a celebrity makes him "news," and therefore, prime fodder for tabloid journalists. He makes his choices from that standpoint.

And I am not trying to portray Mr. Crowe as an innocent, but even the reports that were based on real circumstances (and there have been some) became so exaggerated that it was difficult for any kind of justice to be decided, and those incidents - with the exaggerations - are often brought back up when the reporters cannot find something new to attack.

As I said earlier, I first came across this reality while I was researching the life of Audie Murphy. Since then, I have noticed how often it happens, and my feelings about the unfairness of the situation have grown. The tragic situation that led to the death of Princess Diana is one example.

It happens; it's real, and the advances in technology make it worse.

Each of us form opinions based on our own experiences. I am asking some questions based on my own perspective.

Good discussions happen when others, like Shelagh and Abe, respond, based on their own observations.

Still just me.

Ann

9/14/2012

You mean I can't on my own patio sun bath nude !
Can you imagine how embarrasing if someone from

photographed me nude , I would be shocked into a

coma !

Cheers..Joe..

Joe,

I for one, would want to be comatose if I saw nude pictures of you on the web!

I wouldn't look at them because I know you would not have authorized them

9/14/2012

You are all funny !



Cheers...........Joe....