I'm sorry, but this is one of the most reprehensible (and laughable) rationalizations I have ever read

cnn.com/2012/09/16/opinion/martin-topless-kate/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

Look, I’m not the least bit insensitive to the shock and horror of the young married couple seeing magazine photos of themselves sunbathing on private property in France. Yet my mama and daddy always taught me that if you don’t want someone to see your private parts, then don’t show them in public for someone to see.

Sometimes I agree with Martin (mostly NOT--------fanatic Obama defender)----but has the man lost his mind here? :confused:

The difference here is…Kate and William were on PRIVATE PROPERTY and were being photographed more than a mile away by a photographer-------------does he understand that? :shrug:

By that logic, if they got photographed through a window having marital relations in their bedroom------hey, they should have known better than to leave the curtains just a crack open. :rolleyes:

Next time, when my expensive watch is taken from me in public…hey, I should have known better than worn it in public and “flashing” it around…sigh…

Folks on the comments section asked the same questions. Really raking him over on this one. :thumbsup:

OTOH…if photogs were to were to snap Obama’s wife sunbathing topless on private property…Martin would hit the roof. Outrage of Outrages!!!:slight_smile:

He also forgets that even some of the British Tabloid VIPs are criticizing this.

This is more proof that our Lord and Savior is coming back soon. When it gets down to THIS kind of disgusting moral relativism…you know the rescue must be near. Through the prayers of the Mother of God, have mercy on us and save us. Amen.

Anyway, just wanted to point out more proof of the degeneracy of our culture. And slightly vent. Discuss if instrested…:thumbsup:

I think the photographer and magazine’s actions are distasteful, and I am unsure what exactly is the news value of the revelation that the lady involved has breasts. I had rather expected that would be the case. But if you wish to be disgusted, I think you will find rather more horrible things easily available, and rather more reprehensible rationalisations will be easy for you to find. I imagine that if I am wrong, and the Lord is considering a return in the near future, it will not be triggered by the childish response to a glimpse of someone important without many clothes on.

While I think the photographer and publishers were way out of line, how can a woman whose brother-in-law (Prince Harry) has LITERALLY just got into heaps of trouble for a nudie photo scandal of his own not have learned how easy it is to be photographed unawares - and to stay the heck away from windows when unclad!

I for one am glad to see the fast and ferocious response of the Palace in trying to prevent the publications of these images, and to prosecute the photographers and editors responsible.
It is most certainly not the fact that the victims in this case are Royals that makes the prosecutions worthwhile… but the fact that the tabloid paparazzi need to learn some respect for private property and the privacy of individuals.
This was not a photo taken on a public beach, it was taken using long lens technology of someone who believed she was in private, doing something that many many people feel they should be able to do in the privacy of their gardens - sunbathing.

Tabloid Journalism and this type of lewd photography of “Celebrities” is a symptom of how sick and permissive our culture has become.
The whole genre of "news"papers and magazines for which these photographers work are inherently immoral.

It isn’t just that they are Royalty, this shows that we as a society are willing to go to extreme lengths to humiliate others. Everyone, including celebs and royalty has a reasonable right to privacy.
Their right to privacy was violated, and it is a shame that anyone would defend the photographers actions on this.
When I am confronted with a situation like this I always wonder - what if that were my sister, my daughter, my friend, or even me?

If they were wearing clothes and sunbathing then the photos would have caused barely a murmur. If she was visible to members of the public (and face it, the photo couldn’t have been taken if she wasn’t) then she probably should have had common sense enough to keep her gear on. :shrug:

It was indeed disgusting what the tabloids did in making public such a picture. Prince William will one day be King, and Kate, his consort. Anything the media can do to tarnish their reputation, they’ll do it. Us in the Commonwealth realms will (IMO) have to now stand up and publicly denounce the actions of the tabloids.

It`s all to do with sales and ultimately: MONEY!!!

As with everyone else here, I think what the photographer did was despicable. And the editors who decided to publish them are as bad. I don’t know if legal action against them will be successful, but I am glad something is being done to push back.

But let’s face it. Given modern technology, there is less and less guarantee of privacy outdoors, even if on private property. The couple should have been aware that photographs from such a distance are possible. If they weren’t aware, then their advisers have fallen down on the job.

Even sunbathing in your gardens isn’t necessarily private. It is easy for anyone to mount a wireless camera on a remote controlled toy helicopter and create a mini-drone for surveillance.

If anyone is outdoors, there is always a chance they will be photographed. Prudence suggests we dress accordingly.

This.

I don’t think that they guy is right and I’m pretty sure that if someone was sneaking around in my neighborhood trying to shoot nudie pictures of people on their own property, they would be arrested and charged as a pervert. However, THIS is the most reprehensible rationalization you’ve ever heard? You must be living under a rock! It’s only seven in the morning and I’ve already heard two rationalizations on the news that are far worse! On the reprehension scale, I give this one a three.

My comment is peripheral, I think. The behavior of the paparazzi is beyond disgusting and I think we’ve all known that for years.

But I wonder if we took an honest poll, how many people here saw the story and went to find the pictures?

If it didn’t sell, there’d be no motive to do it. We get the world we create. Including one where we almost always blame the victim.

I agree, there were way out of line. If she had been on a public topless beach it would be different.

To me there is a difference. Prince Harry was having a party. Everyone there had cell phones. There’s no way he could have had a presumption of privacy. If his security staff had taken all of the cell phones from everyone in attendance then he would. Even without pictures there still would have been a scandal once word of the party got out. Kate, on the other hand, was on private property at a location where she should have been out of the public eye. I doubt she would have taken her top off if she had thought otherwise. I wouldn’t think that someone would use a camera a mile away to take a picture.

It’s a sad world that someone would do that to make a dollar.

Should have been? Perhaps, but common sense could have told her outdoors - pretty much any outdoors - is NOT out of the public eye by a long shot. Google earth and telephoto lenses have made the idea of being private outdoors pretty much a myth for some years now. Numerous members of the royal family - not thinking of Harry as much as of the previous generations of whom Kate would be well aware such as Diana and Fergie - have been caught out way too often for anyone to plead ignorance or unawareness.

Fact is it is common knowledge that being anywhere outside the privacy of your own home leaves you wide open to stuff like this happening if you are a celebrity - and they were not in their own home. There were doubtless lots of staff including security goons hanging around not like she was alone by any stretch, she rarely is completely alone. Even in her own home, much less anywhere else.

I guess I understand that-----------------------next time, she should make sure there is a high wall between the building and any public landmark------and also make sure the building is in the far recesses of the country----away from any civilization. NOT being sarcastic, either.:rolleyes::thumbsup:

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

I’ll take your word for it. I guess I got “carried away,”-----that is all. :stuck_out_tongue:

What were the rationalizations “worse” than this one, pray tell?

Just curious.:thumbsup:

Does she have some sort of pressing medical or other need to wander around topless in the garden for some reason? Is she allegic to swimwear or something? there some sort of inalienable human right for her to be topless that is enshrined in some UN Convention somewhere that I missed?

If you know half a dozen people who have been burned by touching hot irons, you can do one of two things. You can either blame the iron for being hot, or you can learn from their mistakes, realize that however unfair it is you will nevertheless be burned if you attempt to touch a hot iron, exercise a bit of intelligence and avoid doing so.

To be honest, my own mother wanted a peek at the pictures…:rolleyes:

And yes, these kinds of things sell. Titillation (no pun intended) is the order of the day. :smiley:

And yes, once again, “blame the victim.” Sad and tragic.

Actually, I added the sentence that I was not being sarcastic after you posted.

I really do get what you are saying. Believe me. One thing, though--------even good holy people have been known to walk areound in the buff or in the semi-buff once in a while.
Mary of Egypt, anyone? :thumbsup:
William Blake was once caught in his garden with him and his wife totally al fresco----and reading the Bible, too.:stuck_out_tongue:
Even I walk around the house naked once in a while, to be honest. With the curtains drawn, of course.

I just think this is a learning opportunity for the couple-----but still, what the photogs did WAS beyond disgusting and Roland Martin’s rationalization is WAY too much “blame the victim.”

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.