Today on CNN Newsroom

The latest news and information from around the world. Also connect with CNN through social media. We want to hear from you.
September 17th, 2012
08:12 PM ET

More Pics of Kate Wearing Less

CNN's Brooke Baldwin and Roland Martin have a heated discussion about those topless photos of Catherine MIddleton.


Filed under: Anchors • Brooke Baldwin
soundoff (8 Responses)
  1. Name*gary

    She sould known better not to take her top off exposing her breast. What was she thinking about when she done it. I don't feel sorry for her at all.!!!!

    September 17, 2012 at 11:17 pm |
  2. BobSD

    With all due respect, you said "in public". She was not in public. She was on a huge estate, and the photo was taken from over a kilometer away, with a telescope. You said, as soon as a person exits a door, they are responsible. If the photographer had taken pictures with a telescope through the large windows surrounding the deck, then you would think it was wrong? But on the other side of the glass, it was her fault? My point is, that NO ONE could see her with their eyes alone, except the person she chose to be with, her husband. It was only with a telescope that she could be seen. What if you live in a home, with an atrium in the middle, and you want to sun yourself, in the middle of your home, and someone hovers over your home in a helicopter and takes photos of you, then you are to blame because you were not diligent enough to think of that scenario? Just because something can be done, does not make it right, proper or legal to do. This sounds like the mindset that says, if you are pretty, and you wear skimpy clothes, then, since you know there are predators out there, then you should have been more careful if you get raped ... that is the consequences of the risk you took. No it isn't. And privacy, in your yard, or on your deck on an estate, is assumed. And a violation of that is, in fact, against the commonly held norms in French law, and many other places. You didn't "ask for it" by assuming privacy in your private space. The fault lies 100% with the person doing the immoral thing ... invading someone's privacy using technology does not make it the fault of the victim.

    September 17, 2012 at 11:29 pm |
  3. John Tyler Erie, Pa

    Let's get on with real life events that will shape the future of this country. If we ignore the slimy tabloids they will disappear and then people can be exposed to real news that affects their every day lives.

    September 18, 2012 at 9:24 am |
  4. wsb

    Way to wear your misogyny on your sleeve Roland. She went to another country, to a private home and the photog used special lens from almost a mile away. But it's Kate's fault. Suuuuuuuure....

    September 18, 2012 at 9:27 am |
  5. ronvan

    Actually, after watching the video, I have to agree with roland!! Bottom line, these situations are ALL about MONEY!! It is a SHAME that these people have to THINK about every move they make! The fact that these "magazines" will pay TOP DOLLAR for photos like this, and that WE buy them off the shelf, as fast as they get there, only incites the magazines to seek even more!! I guess that SOME would say that for privacy you need to have a "fortified bunker" with NO windows in order to relax!? WE are feeding these stories due to our INTEREST?, in reading and seeing them!
    The answer is simple. DO NOT BUY and this will go away!

    September 20, 2012 at 11:27 am |
  6. wallacedarwin

    There is merit in ur comment,yet even "spoiled" royals have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Still PoppaRomney,the conservative one,would,in good Mormon Bishop's tradition,advise any daughter on "personal responsibility" in keeping covered(a muslim tradition worth emulating?)?
    Where were the servants? & smartphone video is everywhere! Surely Diana&Charlie warned the boys about the hairy threat of paparazzi lust!?

    September 22, 2012 at 8:35 am |
  7. wallacedarwin

    Misanthropy? No one's safe? CelebrityCulture rules? Our rolemodels are those like Oprah, or a bishop in a BigCorpirateReligion with desires for what"can't get u into heaven" & $quarter of a billion in CaymanIsland/Swiss bank accounts & wants being CEO of the freeworld as a hobby?
    Respect technology, or at least Murphy'sLaw of nudity?
    Everyone,including underpaid,would-be celebrity servants have smartphone camcorder/camera capability...soon "right"-thinking activist judges won't need to kill the gnat of a legal right to privacy they have not expunged?
    CaveatGodivor?

    September 22, 2012 at 10:01 am |
  8. Enes

    Hi Aisha,Intresting article, i see your point and what u r saiyng!! but the argument should be how much information is private, u can share some about u online, but keep it to a mimimal.Facebook, its a social website to connect friends and let friends find each other across the globe, now if every person on facebook uses a wrong name, how will ppl find each other, u still need to at least have ur real name and a dat of birth or year.the second point, using an alias or not does not mean the person intend to do something bad, to use an alias is not the only thing u will do to do something bad, lots of technical stuff goes in the background tooR

    October 1, 2012 at 6:01 am |

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.