ONTD

dailygleeks
3:33 pm - 09/18/2012

Judge Napolitano Answers: Would Kate Middleton Have Less Privacy in the U.S.?




In case you have somehow managed to not hear about the breaking royal news, the woman in line to be the next Queen of England – Kate Middleton – was photographed topless while on a private vacation with husband Prince William. The photos immediately hit the press and internet.


Today, Judge Andrew Napolitano weighed in on whether or not Middleton could expect to receive more privacy here in the United States than in Europe. According to Napolitano, the answer is not black and white.


“Yes, she could sue for damages here,” he said, adding however that “in the British systems, there are caps on the damages” that she could receive from such legal action – caps that are “pretty reasonable.” In the United States, though — there are no such caps.


Another facet of legal action in America is that while the new royal could go to court to attempt to stop the pics from being published, she would not win.


“Prior restraint in the U.S. is almost unheard of in a situation not invloving a sensitive national security or military secret,” he said.


“She could go to court and ask for a fortune in damages, even a fortune that would dwarf that which her husband has inherited,” said Napolitano. In France and Italy, she wouldn’t even be able to ask for that.


In essence, Napolitano said the argument could be made that Middleton would have less privacy in the U.S. than overseas. However, you could also make the argument that “she intentionally exposed herself in a private place from which she could be viewed from other private and public places,” said the judge. “Therefore, she ought to have known … not to sound crass, but she is an international public figure. There is a public interest in looking at her.”


Source

Leave a Comment
marywebgirl 18th-Sep-2012 07:42 pm (UTC)
Is there caselaw about expectation of privacy on a porch or deck of a private home? I know inside the walls is off limits, and I think the yard is OK.
imaginarysheep 18th-Sep-2012 07:56 pm (UTC)
I just asked my husband this (law student) and he said if the person taking pictures is not law enforcement, and a reasonable person in their situation (in this case Kate's) would have the expectation of privacy, then the person taking the pictures would likely be liable for damages (of course ONTD lawyers can correct me if I'm wrong about this).
bee_xx3 18th-Sep-2012 07:46 pm (UTC)
No.
nin_o_zara 18th-Sep-2012 07:52 pm (UTC)
Well the simple act of taking the pictures would be a criminal offence in the UK. The photographer would face jail and the sex offenders register.

It's unlikely to happen in France, what happened is against privacy laws, but I think that is based more on the publishing of the pictures than the taking of them. And apparently the photographer is protected by the same laws.

It's a bit difficult to comapare the US to the whole of Europe. Like the ruling in France today only applies in France. It is more the message that is being sent than the actual money.
ch33rylips 18th-Sep-2012 07:57 pm (UTC)
Maybe in LA the pap laws prevent them from taking pics of celebs in their homes now and that includes their backyards.
xdecadentx 18th-Sep-2012 08:01 pm (UTC)
Yeah the ones that are taken from helicopters of people's backyards and shit freak me out.
xdecadentx 18th-Sep-2012 07:58 pm (UTC)
“she intentionally exposed herself in a private place from which she could be viewed from other private and public places...Therefore, she ought to have known"



Edited at 2012-09-18 08:00 pm (UTC)
finchroxxx 18th-Sep-2012 08:03 pm (UTC)
God forbid she didn't think that miles away up on a hill someone would put a telephoto lens the size of a toddler over the forest around where she was staying.

HOW DARE SHE! She should have known better!!!!
finchroxxx 18th-Sep-2012 08:00 pm (UTC)


I mean really. In what world should this be legal? I understand that living life in the public eye means a lack of privacy in public...

But if this bitch can't let 'dem royal titties breathe, and get her fuck on with her prince in a privet chateau then how is she supposed to produce an heir?


Haters gonna hate.

Edited at 2012-09-18 08:01 pm (UTC)
rewrittentime 18th-Sep-2012 08:20 pm (UTC)
omg I love this comment.
yurasama_love 18th-Sep-2012 09:54 pm (UTC)
Perfect comment.
ohsofierce_x3 20th-Sep-2012 09:57 pm (UTC)
Perfect comment, saving this gif.

WERQ THEM RIGID HIPS ENGLAND.
devochkazhenya 18th-Sep-2012 08:00 pm (UTC)
wow I feel really bad for her. All she was doing was tanning or w/e with her husband and some jackass invaded their privacy. Its not like she was on a public beach for all the world to see
foxylov3r 18th-Sep-2012 08:23 pm (UTC)
No, but it's a different situation. Royalty in general through the american press is the same way they treat celebs. In the UK there's a "i rub your back you rub mine" with royalty and the press. They get access if the palace gets to filter negative stories. That won't work here, the media isn't going to protect someone or give someone privacy because they got married to someone who came out of the right lovebox. Your famous=/=you don't have privacy like the average person, is it entirely fair? nope, but they're sitting on piles of money+ they're famous so who cares lol. I do feel bad for her, and it's not OK for them to do what they did but in this day and age with how the media is I wouldn't let my guard down in her position for a second.

/csb

Edited at 2012-09-18 08:25 pm (UTC)
emesieremonde 18th-Sep-2012 09:26 pm (UTC)
ikoawtc
miss_real 19th-Sep-2012 08:02 am (UTC)
Also after what happened to Diana the British press agreed to show her sons more respect/privacy because of this. It's a shame French papa don't have any Diana guilt.
foxylov3r 19th-Sep-2012 02:00 pm (UTC)
That's true and in this particular situation with Kate I totally agree. However in general, William has a rep for bullying the press. Anytime someone says something negative about Kate he sends his people to talk to the writer, one writer in particular at the DailyMail was pissed about it.

He wants privacy and that's OK but he's also a future King and can't expect it all the time that's just not how it is, he will always be a public figure. Will is someone who wants to be normal yet wants to enjoy the perks of having 5 vacations in the span of 8 months. He's taking advantage of the situation as much as the press and that's going to bite him in the ass when the press turns on him, Royals NEED the media on their side.
insomniachobs 18th-Sep-2012 09:46 pm (UTC)
The bigger problem to me is that in most jurisdictions, almost all the remedies involve locking the stable door after the horse has raced off into the sunset. Some places award more money than others, but the real damage is in the pictures/story being out there and you can't undo that even if you get an injunction after because it's all over the net. You have to be able to halt publication before not after and that's really difficult and expensive to do.

The tabs know what they're up to - they just keep the stories quiet long enough that the celeb in question won't have time to prevent publishing. And of course the money they make more than outweighs the costs of when some celebs try to sue. Even in places like France where it's patently illegal, it pays to do it.
Leave a comment
This page was loaded May 26th 2013, 9:36 am GMT.