Supreme Court: Nude pictures of Nancy Benoit

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by mkrishnan, Mar 3, 2010.

  1. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #1
    This was not an SC decision, but rather a lower court decision that was allowed to stand.

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/01/wrestler.privacy/

     
  2. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #2
    Seems to me that the situation is quite different with those "tabloids" since a person's expectation of "privacy" goes away when you venture out into public places where most of those "tabloid" photos are taken.
     
  3. mkrishnan thread starter Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #3
    I don't read those magazines too much, but I thought those paparazzi photos were often taken with celebrities on private land, private beaches, homes, etc, surreptitiously by people sneaking in, using zoom lenses, etc?

    Moreover, here, the judges don't seem to really view expectation of privacy at the time of the photo as the deciding factor anyways -- that's what concerns me. Their logic is based on the "newsworthiness" of the story, in whether it relates to a topic of public interest or not (e.g., they seem to imply that publication of the photos violates privacy specifically because they do not form a news piece about the murder/suicide).
     
  4. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #4
    Here in California, you can sue those paparazzi !!!

    They aren't allowed to trespass, they can't assault somebody attempting to take their picture and there are also restrictions on using technology;

    (link)

    of course this does lead to a certain amount of lawsuits over who's within their rights given whatever the specific situation is.


    I think this was more about the conflict between the rights of the press to report the "news" versus the rights of the subject of the photos.

    Hustler didn't have proper permission from the model in the pictures so they needed to show some compelling reason why they should be allowed to use these particular photos to illustrate their "news" article without that permission.

    As the judges say;

    maybe if Hustler had cropped out the nekid stuff??? :p


    there was of course the complication of whether the photographer had any rights, but since there's no mention of a model release and so forth, I gather the court must have felt he didn't have any rights in exploiting these pictures....or so it seems
     
  5. Ttownbeast macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 10, 2009
    #5
    Dammit I was expecting some nekkid pics!

    Oh well.

    When you are a celebrity or closely related to one to the point you are put in the lime light don't expect privacy...alive or dead. They can sue Larry Flynt all they want but it won't change anything. Even porno mags are part of the national press and Hustler despite its raunchy nature (which I occasionally partake picking up a copy from the news stand rarely every so often) is not entirely without interesting political articles and human interest pieces.
     

Share This Page