9/18/2012
Buckingham Palace angry with press freedom
The Buckingham Palace is furious with the news that naked photos of Prince William and Kate will be in the printed media. They are threatening to sue the press publishing them.
Funny, what is so funny about a few naked photographs. They were quite decently taken, not pornography stuff or lewd acts. Why so much anger and protest? Having seen those photographs and the video on the Innocence of Muslims, which is worst?
The Western media are claiming press freedom to make that video and make it available as infortainment. What is so bad about a few naked photographs then?
Double standard, different moral values for different people?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
The difference is that one is an invasion of privacy. If those nude photos were taken on the public beach of Nice or Cannes, then it is fair game. However, those were taken with telescopic lenses aimed at a private villa when people were having their private moments.
Would you like a paparazzi to photograph you sunbathing in private in the nude and show the whole world your shriveled sausage?
I agree with the the 1st comment.
Press freedom does not equate to invasion of privacy. Your post is totally irrelevant!!!
One is royalty, one is muslim.
Shrivelled sausage, trying standing beside William.
No press freedom is better. The only naked pictures you see are baby photos in their white diapers.
Agreed, invasion of privacy is not allowed. Blasphemy can.
Prease lah.
Only attractive VIP couples get photographed and exposed by the paparazzi.
You don't see any Singapore VIP couples in Singapore being exposed do you?
I wonder who is being exposed in this case :)
"You don't see any Singapore VIP couples in Singapore being exposed do you?"
The naked opposition with his. Maid?
Redbean's hypocrisy, media hypocrisy or western hypocrisy?
Church hypocrisy?
All organized religions should be banned. Go and read Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion".
Invasion of privacy is the lowest one can ever descend - other than being a politician or a preacher.
You need to have a substantial group of religious people for "sordid exposure" or lurid images to have any impact.
The original sin was conceived by a man with very high sex drive or in today's language, a high achiever lol
old tactics of political opponents. in this case, how to draw unflattering attention on royalty better than invasive scandal and at the same time milking the sex starved public for all its worth ?
I am surprised no one attack RB. RB must be a saint :)
Invasion of human privacy is not acceptable to those with the money and power to sue.
Some want their private life to be exposed, as wide as possible. It is free advertisement and publicity.
Other species cannot do anything even if their territories are invaded and overtaken. Worse is most end up on the dining table.
As for religions, they are imaginations, so no privacy and no human is involved.
You mean is alright to invade the privacy of lesser means? Shall we invade your toilet business? ha
Paparazzi should go and firm their mothers washing chee byes better. Then the press can sell more papers.
WTF is all this nonsense.
Just ignore them and those photos become unsensational and in time no one will care whose grandmother posed naked for much ado about nothing.
This is a real fucked-up business engaged by fucked-up people we call paparazzsi.
MUAHAHAHA
I have hardly deleted anyone's posts here for a bit of vulgarity. Today I have deleted several on this thread and on another thread by the same anonymous blogger using the same hokien terms for the sake of being vulgar.
I don't want my site to be one that allows bloggers to turn it into a pornography site or one where vulgarity becomes a norm.
To the anonymous who posted them, please go to some other blogs that are more suitable to your temperament. Yoy are in the wrong place.
Redbean.
Post a Comment