Jump to content



Photo

Prince Harry naked Vegas photos published by Sun

uk prince harrys willy

  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 +Frank B.

Frank B.

    Member N° 1,302

  • 24,266 posts
  • Joined: 18-September 01
  • Location: Frankfurt, DE
  • OS: OS X 10.10
  • Phone: iPhone 6

Posted 24 August 2012 - 09:27

Prince Harry naked Vegas photos published by Sun

The Sun has become the first British newspaper to publish the photos of a naked Prince Harry taken in Las Vegas.


Its owner News International said it was making the move despite warnings from the Royal Family's lawyers that it would be an invasion of his privacy.

The Sun said the images were widely available around the world, its readers had a right to see them and freedom of the press was being tested.

The pictures emerged from a private weekend the prince spent with friends.

The two photos of the prince and a naked woman in a hotel room are believed to have been taken on a camera phone last Friday.

They first appeared on US website TMZ earlier this week.

In Friday's Sun, under the headline "Heir it is", the paper says: "Pic of naked Harry you've already seen on the internet".

David Dinsmore, managing editor of the Sun, said the paper had thought "long and hard" about publication and added: "For us this is about the freedom of the press.

"This is about the ludicrous situation where a picture can be seen by hundreds of millions of people around the world on the internet but can't be seen in the nation's favourite paper read by eight million people every day.

"This is about our readers getting involved in the discussion with the man who is third in line to the throne - it's as simple as that."

In an editorial, the newspaper said the pictures represented a crucial test of Britain's free press.

'Decision for editors'


St James's Palace had contacted the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) on Wednesday because it said it had concerns about the 27-year-old prince's privacy being intruded upon, in breach of the editors' code of practice.

The palace said it had heard a number of UK newspapers were considering using the pictures, although none had until now.

In reaction to the Sun's decision, a palace spokesman said: "We have made our views on Prince Harry's privacy known. Newspapers regulate themselves, so the publication of the photographs is ultimately a decision for editors to make.

"We have no further comment to make either on the publication of the photographs or on the story itself concerning Prince Harry's private holiday in Las Vegas."

TMZ reported that Harry had been pictured in a group playing "strip billiards".

The Sun said in a statement that in publishing the photos it was not making any moral judgement about the prince's activities.

It said: "He often sails close to the wind for a royal - but he's 27, single and a soldier.

"We like him. We are publishing the photos because we think Sun readers have a right to see them. The reasons for that go beyond this one story."

It added: "There is a clear public interest in publishing the Harry pictures, in order for the debate around them to be fully informed.

'Privacy compromised'


"The photos have potential implications for the prince's image representing Britain around the world. There are questions over his security during the Las Vegas holiday. Questions as to whether his position in the Army might be affected.

"Further, we believe Harry has compromised his own privacy."

The non-publication of the photos by British newspapers despite their publication elsewhere had prompted a debate about the impact the Leveson Inquiry was having on press behaviour.

Former News of the World executive editor Neil Wallis said it showed British newspapers had been "neutered".

The Leveson Inquiry was set up to investigate the practices and ethics of the press following the phone-hacking scandal.

Commons culture, media and sport select committee chairman John Whittingdale said of the Sun's decision: "The fact that [the photos] happened is well known. How the public interest is served by doing this is not clear."

Ex-Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott said the Sun had shown "absolute utter contempt" for the law and the Leveson Inquiry.

Former Sun editor Kelvin Mackenzie said in his opinion the decision to publish the pictures could not have been made without News International boss Rupert Murdoch's consent.

Mr Mackenzie added: "I'm unsure why the establishment hate newspapers so much but what I'd like to see is editors get off their knees and start pushing back against these curtailments in what will eventually, I promise you, lead to the closure of newspapers.

"People should stop worrying about privacy and start worrying about what free speech will mean to this country if the Levesons and the Camerons of this country have their way."

Both the Daily Mirror and the Independent said they had not published the photos because they considered that they breached the prince's privacy.


Source: BBC News


#2 KibosJ

KibosJ

    Neowinian Senior

  • 1,519 posts
  • Joined: 27-January 09
  • Location: Darlington, United Kingdom
  • OS: OS X 10.10 & Windows 8.1 x64
  • Phone: Samsung Galaxy S4 (GT-I9505)

Posted 24 August 2012 - 09:39

Good!!

They don't seem to have any issues breaching anybody elses privacy. Why should they care about Prince Harry, just because he's royalty.

I say they should ALL print the photos. Free Speech my arse.

#3 Haggis

Haggis

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,761 posts
  • Joined: 13-June 07
  • Location: Near Stirling, Scotland
  • OS: Debian 7
  • Phone: Samsung Galaxy S3 LTE (i9305)

Posted 24 August 2012 - 09:42

I dont see why they cant print them

he has done nothing wrong, none was killed/beaten up/no drugs no arrests he is just doing what every other single 27yr old male would do

good on him

would rather have him as king rather than his stuck up brother and father

#4 AwayfromHere

AwayfromHere

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,012 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 12
  • OS: Windows 10 Preview
  • Phone: Sony Xperia Z3

Posted 24 August 2012 - 10:16

^ Because that's exactly how an king should behave right? Oh god.

If you're from an royal family there still are things you need to consider before doing dumb stuff like this, me - I'm an ordinary working class man, I can do dumb **** like this without being on the frontpages, he on the other hand, can't.

#5 ~Johnny

~Johnny

    Earthling

  • 3,293 posts
  • Joined: 10-August 08
  • Location: London, England, Earth, Milky Way

Posted 24 August 2012 - 10:30

^ Because that's exactly how an king should behave right? Oh god.

If you're from an royal family there still are things you need to consider before doing dumb stuff like this, me - I'm an ordinary working class man, I can do dumb **** like this without being on the frontpages, he on the other hand, can't.


But he done this in private from the stories I've read - someone within his personal consort took the pictures on their phone.

I still don't see the need to print them - the only reason the Sun did it was to get more money. Not that I'd ever trust the Sun to respect anyone's privacy anyway, but I'd wish they'd start doing it.

#6 AwayfromHere

AwayfromHere

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,012 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 12
  • OS: Windows 10 Preview
  • Phone: Sony Xperia Z3

Posted 24 August 2012 - 10:35

Oh. In that case I'll take it back. If it really was done in private then sure, it should have kept that way. :)

#7 +FiB3R

FiB3R

    "the sun is definitely rising on a new dawn!"

  • 7,605 posts
  • Joined: 06-November 02
  • Location: SE London
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Enterprise
  • Phone: Lumia 930

Posted 24 August 2012 - 10:45

^ Because that's exactly how an king should behave right? Oh god.

As far as bad behaviour goes, regarding Kings, this doesn't even register on the crazy ****** scale. Idiot for letting pics be taken though.

#8 AwayfromHere

AwayfromHere

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,012 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 12
  • OS: Windows 10 Preview
  • Phone: Sony Xperia Z3

Posted 24 August 2012 - 10:47

As far as bad behaviour goes, regarding Kings, this doesn't even register on the crazy ****** scale. Idiot for letting pics be taken though.


Well I know that, that's why maybe he should learn from other's mistakes? :rofl:

#9 CG-88

CG-88

    ||Modified||

  • 762 posts
  • Joined: 16-July 12
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Lumia 625

Posted 24 August 2012 - 11:58

They were uploaded to a public social website for the whole world to see anyway so what difference is putting them in The Sun going to make really.

He has already tarnished his image with previous antics, even though he has cleaned up his act a bit he is still the but of the royal family jokes.

#10 +Lovell

Lovell

    ,l,(-.-),l,

  • 1,680 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 03
  • Location: Great Britain

Posted 24 August 2012 - 12:02

Everyone has a right to privacy even celebrities.

#11 CG-88

CG-88

    ||Modified||

  • 762 posts
  • Joined: 16-July 12
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Lumia 625

Posted 24 August 2012 - 12:22

Of course they are. But this is a bit different, infact hmmmm maybe I will retract my previous statement.


When will and kate went on honeymoon they asked for privacy and got it, but if a reported took a photo of them during this time then publicised it of course thats breaching privacy.


But with this.....I dont know, Harry posts photos of himself out with people etc, so maybe this is no different, or maybe he didnt know it was uploaded. I'm not sure what to think. I still agree he cant tarnish his name anymore than he already has done.


But anyway The Sun publishing it wont really affect anything as it has alreayd been seen by millions.



#12 Growled

Growled

    Neowinian Senior

  • 41,508 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 08
  • Location: USA

Posted 25 August 2012 - 03:07

They sure don't make royals like they use to.

#13 Hum

Hum

    totally wAcKed

  • 63,572 posts
  • Joined: 05-October 03
  • Location: Odder Space
  • OS: Windows XP, 7

Posted 25 August 2012 - 13:27

I'm not sure we want to see Harry naked. :laugh:

#14 Growled

Growled

    Neowinian Senior

  • 41,508 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 08
  • Location: USA

Posted 26 August 2012 - 00:26

^ I sure the hell don't. :D