A celebrity demanding privacy is rather like a prostitute demanding intimacy. This is why I generally have no sympathy for celebrities who cry foul when paparazzi shoot or fans bother them in public places.
But even I draw the line when they do so in places where celebrities enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy. This is why I defended Kate Middleton when she filed a criminal complaint against the paparazzi for stalking her like snipers, then shooting her sunbathing topless on the balcony of a private home in France.
My disgust over these pictures has nothing to do with who she is. For, unlike so many others venting royal indignation, I would feel the same way if Angelina Jolie or Julia Roberts were the victim of such a prurient and mercenary invasion of privacy. …
I wish governments around the world would enact laws making it a serious crime to take a picture of any person in a place where that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. And it does not matter if that person is fully nude or fully clothed…
This kind of commercial exploitation of one’s privacy is clearly a form of rape and warrants commensurate punishment. This means serious jail time and fines that would surely bankrupt any paparazzo foolish enough to even shoot such a picture in the first place.
(“Topless Pics of Future Queen Catherine for All to See,” The iPINIONS Journal, September 17, 2012)
No doubt I was also mindful that the paparazzi in this case were probably from the same pack who stalked Princess Diana to her death. But that I defended Kate might be more noteworthy. After all, my visceral antipathy towards all royal personages, perquisites, and prerogatives is well documented – as commentaries like “For Queen Elizabeth, To Abdicate, or Not to Abdicate: That Is NOT the Question,” June 10 2014, and “Australia Bans British Honours. Other Commonwealth Countries Should Too,” November 3, 2015, attest.
In any event, I cheered when French authorities indicted the owner, executive editor, and three photographers involved. This excerpt from “Criminal Charges for Taking Topless Photo of Future Queen Catherine,” April 29, 2013, conveys my glee and hope for punishment that would make such exploitation prohibitive.
__________________
A French lawyer called me a legal ‘ignare’ for asserting that the paparazzi and tabloid responsible for the topless photos of Kate Middleton, which went viral last year, should be prosecuted. I don’t speak French, but I knew what he meant. …
Of course, notwithstanding the Gallic arrogance that defines the French, you’d think Closer’s indignant editor would have gotten fool-proof clearance from lawyers before publishing topless photos of the future queen of England. After all, any fool could see that publishing them was fraught with political and legal liability – despite claims that the paparazzi shot them with telephoto lens, while crouching on a public road 1000 yards away.
In any case, apropos of the schadenfreude tabloids trade in, the irony is not lost on me that these criminal indictments generated almost as much tabloid sensation last week as those topless photos did last year.
All that’s left now is for the French court to convict and penalize Closer so harshly that, even if paparazzi are craven enough to snap compromising pictures of public figures in private places, no tabloid would dare publish them.
__________________
But I despaired two weeks ago, when everyone got off practically scot-free:
A French court ruled on Tuesday that celebrity magazine Closer invaded the privacy of Britain’s Prince William’s wife Kate, the Duchess of Cambridge, when it published topless photos of her in 2012.
The court handed the maximum fine of 45,000 euros ($53,500) to both Laurence Pieau, an editor of Closer’s French edition, and Ernesto Mauri, chief executive of Italian publisher Mondadori, the magazine’s owner.
The damages ordered by the court were well short of the 1.5 million euros sought by the royal couple.
(Reuters, September 5, 2017)
Clearly, this is not the “commensurate punishment” I envisioned, especially given that the court did not sentence anyone to probation, let alone jail. Meanwhile, the pictures at issue probably generated millions in revenues for this publication. In fact, the damages and fines levied in this case comport with the calculation I posited in my September 12 commentary cited above:
The paparazzi who shot the titillating pictures of Kate probably spend more than [the amount of misdemeanor fines] on one day’s supply of digital storage cards. This means that a simple cost-benefit analysis will compel shooting and publishing every time.
Accordingly, paparazzi and tabloids retain every incentive to continue shooting and publishing such intrusive photos, respectively, absorbing fines as the cost of doing business.
Given this, even the Duchess should beware that, no matter where you sunbathe, you could still end up on the cover of a magazine.
Related commentaries:
topless kate…
For Queen Elizabeth…
British honours…