Thu, 23 May 2013
Exploit the power of digital with The Lawyer Acumen
The Lawyer Acumen is a comprehensive online resource giving everyone in the legal market real-time business intelligence on the sector.
Please fill in the form below if you think a comment is unsuitable. Your comments will be sent to our moderator for review.
All fields must be completed.
A barely adequate defence
Check this out, this attorney makes this argument for why the Prince William/Kate Middleton privacy argument would not hold-up in America. And I have never really understood their argument, either. They say that the photographer who photographed Kate Middleton topless should not have taken those photos because she did not know the photos were being taken, nor did she consent to the photos to be taken, and she was on private property. But if I walk out into my front yard naked and somebody takes a photograph of me from the public sidewalk and I am not aware of it, would the U.S. courts really consider that an invasion of my privacy? I am on my own private property and I am not aware that the photograph is being taken...but I am outside. No, U.S. courts would not consider that an invasion of my privacy. Newscasts film peoples' homes and people outside their homes who are still in their yards, all the time. Are those newscasts violating those peoples' privacy because they are filming those people outside their homes but still in their yards? It really comes down to this question: If you are outside, do you really have a valid expectation of privacy, even if you are on private property? Can anywhere outdoors really validly be considered a private place? If a husband and wife were having sex out in their front yard where all the neighbors could see them and somebody called the police on them, the police would arrest them even though they are on their private property. My point is this: Kate Middleton was outdoors when she took her top off. Now, did she consent to being photographed with her top off? Yes, she did. She consented to being photographed by going outdoors. When you go outdoors, that is an automatic consent to whomever may see you to see you and whomever may photograph you to photograph you. Simply because you do not know you are being photographed is no excuse and no defense. If Kate Middleton did not want to be photographed with her top off, she should have stayed indoors. Anyway, here is that attorney's argument that really questions Prince William's and Kate Middleton's privacy claim. (link below):
Subscribe to The Lawyer today and get all the latest news stories, both domestic and global, and analysis of the legal sector.
A subscription includes:
The latest legal news, opinion, analysis, jobs and events. Wherever you are, whenever you need it.
Let us help you with an integrated approach to mobile and online advertising.
Site powered by Webvision