Kate's topless pictures prove we need to start respecting privacy

As a French court yesterday accused French magazine Closer of "violating the bodily intimacy" of the Duchess, we should re-evaluate how we value privacy.

Share

A French court was asked yesterday to impose fines which could amount to hundreds of thousands of euros on the French edition of Closer magazine if it republishes, or distributes electronically, the topless photographs of the Duchess of Cambridge. The princess was described as a “young woman, and not an object” by a French lawyer representing the royal couple, who further accused the magazine of “violating [her] bodily intimacy”.

Although this is indeed true, it’s not the fact she’s our royal that we should feel outraged about, but the ever-increasing problem that privacy can be breached liberally, and often in the name of ‘ public interest’. Many seem to legitimise publication because they are of people who are already in the public eye, but the definition of public interest is blurring.

Fair enough, don’t do illegal things in public if you don’t want to be papped – like take drugs or accept a bribe. But where’s the line drawn? We’re inundated with reality shows which show people’s traumas. You can see someone eat kangaroo testicles, get punched in the face, go into rehab, have their faeces inspected - and fine, if you’re being paid to appear on the show and you knew what was coming. But why should photographers own the right to embarrassing pictures if they haven’t got the consent of those photographed?

In the case of Kate, there is of, course, a general feeling of outrage that our beautiful princess has been violated. But take away the fame and nobility and she’s just a girl who was photographed sunbathing privately without a top on. It’s perverse. My neighbour used to sunbathe topless, too. Would that make it OK for me and my family to get together to watch her from an upstairs window with a pair of shared binoculars we passed around? Somehow, the addition of a professional camera transforms a peeping Tom into a fearless photo-journalist.

We excuse publication of images in the name of our collective interest, and there is rarely comeuppance for those infringing privacy rights because we simply don’t have the laws to deter people from sharing personal images or videos of others, apart from suing – after the damage has already been done, and the economic gain often far outweighs the breach. In this case, the magazine could be fined up to £36,000, which, compared to the massive increase in sales and exposure they've received, is insignificant.

Some paparazzi are plainly unapologetic parasites. They follow celebrities while they are trying to carry out normal activities with their family (of course some celebs enjoy the attention and even leak their whereabouts to get “spotted”, but not all), and they chase people in their cars – whether children are involved or not.

 

Because demand is there, does that validate the supply?

 

Of course it’s a matter of supply meeting demand. There seems to be an insatiable desire for celebrity images, and the more humiliating the better. But morally, because demand is there, does that validate the supply?

I think a re-evaluation into the realms of what we find acceptable is needed when it comes to prying unabated, before it’s a case of vultures feeding on other people’s shame.

There should be no justification for selling images of someone else’s intimate moments without permission. If they’re caught doing something naughty which compromises their job (for example, as a politician) or contravenes arguments they make/or beliefs they purport to hold, then fine. But sticking a lens up a woman's skirt as she enters a cab, dragging someone’s private sex life through court and publicly reporting  the case, or watching a singer perform oral sex takes if too far.

There seems to be a common attitude that anyone else has a right to photograph a stranger and share it with the world. The Duchess of Cambridge was indeed sunbathing topless – but privately. And the European law states that it is usually unlawful to publish pictures taken in situations where someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy. On a personal level, however comfortable you feel when you think it’s just you and a partner or a friend, it doesn’t equate to wanting the world to see the same view.

With the phone-hacking scandal, we’ve seen how responsibility was relinquished in the quest for a good story, but that lack of accountability can’t remain.

If you have a wide-open window while on the loo, is it your own fault if someone pops a camera in and takes a few pics? If a towel falls down while you’re getting changed at the gym, are you fair game to be snapped? Extreme examples perhaps, but if you can’t stop photographers taking illicit images, then we should at least be properly prohibiting publications from distributing them, with fair legal repercussions if they do.

React Now

Latest stories from i100
Have you tried new the Independent Digital Edition apps?
iJobs Job Widget
iJobs General

Science Teacher

£100 - £110 per day: Randstad Education Group: Key stage 3 and 4 Teacher requi...

RE Teacher

£120 - £162 per day: Randstad Education Hull: Teacher of Religious Education ...

A Level Chemistry Teacher

£120 - £162 per day: Randstad Education Hull: A Level Chemistry Teacher - Humb...

NQT Secondary Teachers

£100 - £130 per day: Randstad Education Hull: Randstad Education is actively r...

Day In a Page

Read Next
 

Letter from the Political Editor: Cameron's unexpected tax pledges give the Tories home advantage

Andrew Grice
President Barack Obama walks with U.S. Secret Service agents to Air Force One at Los Angeles International Airport in Los Angeles, Calif., May 8, 2014.  

Obama's Secret Service has become sloppy with its delusions of Hollywood grandeur

David Usborne
Italian couples fake UK divorce scam on an ‘industrial scale’

Welcome to Maidenhead, the divorce capital of... Italy

A look at the the legal tourists who exploited our liberal dissolution rules
Time to stop running: At the start of Yom Kippur and with anti-Semitism flourishing, one Jew can no longer ignore his identity

Time to stop running

At the start of Yom Kippur and with anti-Semitism flourishing, one Jew can no longer ignore his identity
Tom and Jerry cartoons now carry a 'racial prejudice' warning on Amazon

Tom and Jerry cartoons now carry a 'racial prejudice' warning on Amazon

The vintage series has often been criticised for racial stereotyping
An app for the amorous: Could Good2Go end disputes about sexual consent - without being a passion-killer?

An app for the amorous

Could Good2Go end disputes about sexual consent - without being a passion-killer?
Llansanffraid is now Llansantffraid. Welsh town changes its name, but can you spot the difference?

Llansanffraid is now Llansantffraid

Welsh town changes its name, but can you spot the difference?
Charlotte Riley: At the peak of her powers

Charlotte Riley: At the peak of her powers

After a few early missteps with Chekhov, her acting career has taken her to Hollywood. Next up is a role in the BBC’s gangster drama ‘Peaky Blinders’
She's having a laugh: Britain's female comedians have never had it so good

She's having a laugh

Britain's female comedians have never had it so good, says stand-up Natalie Haynes
Sistine Chapel to ‘sing’ with new LED lights designed to bring Michelangelo’s masterpiece out of the shadows

Let there be light

Sistine Chapel to ‘sing’ with new LEDs designed to bring Michelangelo’s masterpiece out of the shadows
Great British Bake Off, semi-final, review: Richard remains the baker to beat

Tensions rise in Bake Off's pastry week

Richard remains the baker to beat as Chetna begins to flake
Paris Fashion Week, spring/summer 2015: Time travel fashion at Louis Vuitton in Paris

A look to the future

It's time travel fashion at Louis Vuitton in Paris
The 10 best bedspreads

The 10 best bedspreads

Before you up the tog count on your duvet, add an extra layer and a room-changing piece to your bed this autumn
Arsenal vs Galatasaray: Five things we learnt from the Emirates

Arsenal vs Galatasaray

Five things we learnt from the Gunners' Champions League victory at the Emirates
Stuart Lancaster’s long-term deal makes sense – a rarity for a decision taken by the RFU

Lancaster’s long-term deal makes sense – a rarity for a decision taken by the RFU

This deal gives England a head-start to prepare for 2019 World Cup, says Chris Hewett
Ebola outbreak: The children orphaned by the virus – then rejected by surviving relatives over fear of infection

The children orphaned by Ebola...

... then rejected by surviving relatives over fear of infection
Pride: Are censors pandering to homophobia?

Are censors pandering to homophobia?

US film censors have ruled 'Pride' unfit for under-16s, though it contains no sex or violence