New topic
Printable| Author | Message |
NPGMC members react to the camera scandal For the rest of you Banished Ones who paid their $25 and therefore should be able to take in the hilarity of it all:
*** "So like we have the right 2 violate someone’s space just because they chose a career that places them in the public eye? How dare that guy. Instead of his mother getting all bent out of shape she should have taught him not 2 take pictures of strangers. He doesn’t know Prince. But at least the bodyguard knew it was a camera. If it was The Secret Service, they would have just shot him. What was he going 2 do with that picture anyway? Put it in his family photo album? That’s what u do when u take photos of friends and family, not strangers. Or was he going 2 doctor it up in Photoshop like this pic? This is how Prince earns his living. There r so many things that can jeopardize that. And people like this loser know that. Let Mr. Lee snap a picture of me! As a matter of fact, holiday or no holiday, if some stranger ran up on me and my daughter and just snapped a picture without asking, I’d kick his ***. Let him take a picture of that. He won't b calling the police, he'd b calling a surgeon 2 remove the camera. If took a picture of u without asking or without asking u 2 sign a release first, they couldn’t bring a case against u 4 taking that person’s camera. The first thing the judge would say to that person is, why were u taking pictures of people u don’t know? It’s a violation of that person’s privacy. Sure the bodyguard could have just erased that one picture but he's not being paid 2 figure out the erase feature on someone else's camera that shouldn't have taken the picture in the first place. They r only doing this because Prince is in the public eye and they want 2 ruin him. I think he should have the same rights that we do. And I don’t wanna here "it comes with the territory". No on asks 2 b violated. When other celebrities beat the crap out of the paparazzi 4 violating their space they get called the bad boys of Hollywood. But if Prince, no I take that back because it wasn’t even mentioned that Prince even moved, his security, just takes a camera from someone violating his bosses space, didn't stuff it down the guys throat or anything, oh dear Prince is a very bad person. The whole thing is just BULL. Fitzgerald is just an innocent kid right? But he's seen on TV as a wanna b actor in an X-box commercial. If he was a better actor with a real career and instead of his mom pimpin' him like he's a little sissy she should have been getting him a better agent so he'd have a job based on talent like Prince does and maybe instead of having a $7.00 job at Russell Stover, he'd understand what it's like 2 b thrust into the public eye because of a talent and b a little more respectful of other people's personal space. We have 2 reserve tickets 2 his rehearsal and we can only get in if we show proof of ID, that way Prince at least somewhat knows who we r and he knows that we, as active members, know he's human and not 2 treat him like he's some trinket in a museum. This guy has no right 2 even go near him especially since it was said he had 2 search the net for contact information 4 Prince. What loser would even think that was possible? What kinda moron is he? If Paisley Park is no-longer open 4 public business and his mom just drops in… that's trespassing. This story is a crock and CJ is still living up 2 her name "Billy Jack ***". Prince, give that punk mama's boy back his camera so he can stop whining." *** "you're way too hard on this boy. He's a fan, he took a picture of his super hero. He got his camera stolen, that's just lame. Being taken in pictures in public places IS part of being in the public eye. And it's better to be taken by a fan than a paparazzi. At least its not to make money out of it. But maybe his bodyguard IS making money out of all the stolen cameras? Where do they go anyway?" *** "Ok... It's a new year. I'll try 2 b less defensive. I'm sorry, but it’s not easy. Loss of freedom and loss of respect is a terrible price 2 pay 4 success. No one can ruin my career and my way of earning a living with one single photo. But that can b done 2 a celebrity very easily. And it's just not right." No confusion, no tears. No enemies, no fear. No sorrow, no pain. No ball, no chain.
Sex is not love. Love is not sex. Putting words in other people's mouths will only get you elected. Need more sleep than coke or methamphetamine. | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
theblueangel said: Let Mr. Lee snap a picture of me! As a matter of fact, holiday or no holiday, if some stranger ran up on me and my daughter and just snapped a picture without asking, I’d kick his ***.
--- What loser would even think that was possible? What kinda moron is he? If Paisley Park is no-longer open 4 public business and his mom just drops in… that's trespassing. This story is a crock and CJ is still living up 2 her name "Billy Jack ***". Wow this person (a.k.a. pathetic FAM) is sure full of Christian forgiveness and compassion!   Sounds like they are really full of LOVE4ONEANOTHER over there! 
I love how they write in lame Princebonics, and are so full of indignant, righteous anger in their defence of Prince's honor. They are sooo obviously workin that purple asskissin angle. Hilarious! Prince just hates having his photo taken in public like that because then he has no control over what the pic turns out like, and the possibility that his loyal faMs/sheep might see him with a big juicy zit on his nose or saggy bags under his eyes or an oily T-zone, or something else that's less than perfect. He can't stand the thought of a bad photo shattering his carefully created and maintained image of perfection. lol | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
We live in a society in which our right to privacy is much discussed, misunderstood, and, in many cases, seriously threatened. (Look what happened to Princess Diana)
US Constitution does not outline a specific right to privacy, some privacy rights have been defined via Court decisions. No one could disagree that the protection of privacy is an important issue. US Lawmakers are trying to propose legislation to deal with the new privacy issues that technological innovations have created. It takes time to pass such proposals. These laws must be carefully crafted to insure that privacy is truly guarded. The Right to Privacy delves into many areas, these are a few examples what are being looked at just now in America: Privacy versus Law Enforcement, Privacy and Your Self, Privacy versus The Press, Privacy versus the Voyeur, Privacy in the Workplace, and Privacy and Information. If this storey is true then Mr Nelson has the right to privacy especially in these days this is every humans basic right, he can ask the relevant authorities to ask the person to return the Photograph just taken or delete the said photograph on the spot, yet he has no legal right to take the camera equipment, the Body Guard was just trying to protect Mr Nelson mistakes can be made in haste. If the camera equipment is returned in the condition it was taken and explained the Body Guard was just trying to protect his client then i doubt there would be any further problems. Peace | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
katt said: the Body Guard was just trying to protect Mr Nelson mistakes can be made in haste.
This isn't the first incident where Prince's bodyguards were, let's just say, seemingly guilty of being overly 'enthusiastic' in carrying out their job. I could see if this type of thing only happened once or twice in the course of many years attributing it to "haste" or bad judgement on the bodyguard's behalf, but his bodyguards are notorious for doing stuff like this. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
PrimordialOoze said: Wow this person (a.k.a. pathetic FAM) is sure full of Christian forgiveness and compassion! Sounds like they are really full of LOVE4ONEANOTHER over there!
I love how they write in lame Princebonics, and are so full of indignant, righteous anger in their defence of Prince's honor. They are sooo obviously workin that purple asskissin angle. Hilarious! Ain't it fun? No confusion, no tears. No enemies, no fear. No sorrow, no pain. No ball, no chain.
Sex is not love. Love is not sex. Putting words in other people's mouths will only get you elected. Need more sleep than coke or methamphetamine. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
It ain't over yet... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
He could have asked politely, but the law is such that the kid did not have to delete the picture, surrender the film, stop taking photos, or anything.
A much better situation would have been for the bodyguard to politely ask the kid to not take any more pictures, and thank him for respecting Prince's wishes. Isn't that a little more christian than WHAT THE FUCK WRONG WITH YOU!?? GIMME THAT CAMERA!! *gank* (paraphrased of course) The law is pretty clear on this issue, Kat, and I see that you agree. The kid was in the right, and the bodyguard commited a crime. *shrug* katt said: We live in a society in which our right to privacy is much discussed, misunderstood, and, in many cases, seriously threatened. (Look what happened to Princess Diana)
US Constitution does not outline a specific right to privacy, some privacy rights have been defined via Court decisions. No one could disagree that the protection of privacy is an important issue. US Lawmakers are trying to propose legislation to deal with the new privacy issues that technological innovations have created. It takes time to pass such proposals. These laws must be carefully crafted to insure that privacy is truly guarded. The Right to Privacy delves into many areas, these are a few examples what are being looked at just now in America: Privacy versus Law Enforcement, Privacy and Your Self, Privacy versus The Press, Privacy versus the Voyeur, Privacy in the Workplace, and Privacy and Information. If this storey is true then Mr Nelson has the right to privacy especially in these days this is every humans basic right, he can ask the relevant authorities to ask the person to return the Photograph just taken or delete the said photograph on the spot, yet he has no legal right to take the camera equipment, the Body Guard was just trying to protect Mr Nelson mistakes can be made in haste. If the camera equipment is returned in the condition it was taken and explained the Body Guard was just trying to protect his client then i doubt there would be any further problems. Peace -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Still it's nice to know, when our bodies wear out, we can get another -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Often in the past I have felt as if P thinks that he is above the law. There is Prince`s law and then the law for everyone else; much like Michael Jackson I suppose. Any Prince FAN knows that half of the time Prince is a control freak; and the other half of the time he acts like a spoiled rotten brat. He does have a right to privacy; however once one becomes a celebrity then that right to privacy is greatly restricted. End of story. If he doesn`t like his picture taken, then he can go hide in Paisley Park. Or he can take being a celebrity in stride and take the good AND the bad.
On a secondary note; I wish that would have been me taking that picture and some pea-brained, grape-ape, looking body guard would have tried to take my personal private property. I would have "forcefully" introduced his monkey ass to Mr. Pavement. The assualt charges would have been worth seeing the look of sheer terror on little 98 pound Princes face. And too you NPGMC sheep; do the 6th and 15th letter of the alphabet have any meaning too you??? My DC Direct wishlist: 1) Bane, 2) Prof Zoom, 3) Superman Blue, 4) Kilowag, 5) Parasite | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
katt said: We live in a society in which our right to privacy is much discussed, misunderstood, and, in many cases, seriously threatened. (Look what happened to Princess Diana)
US Constitution does not outline a specific right to privacy, some privacy rights have been defined via Court decisions. No one could disagree that the protection of privacy is an important issue. US Lawmakers are trying to propose legislation to deal with the new privacy issues that technological innovations have created. It takes time to pass such proposals. These laws must be carefully crafted to insure that privacy is truly guarded. The Right to Privacy delves into many areas, these are a few examples what are being looked at just now in America: Privacy versus Law Enforcement, Privacy and Your Self, Privacy versus The Press, Privacy versus the Voyeur, Privacy in the Workplace, and Privacy and Information. If this storey is true then Mr Nelson has the right to privacy especially in these days this is every humans basic right, he can ask the relevant authorities to ask the person to return the Photograph just taken or delete the said photograph on the spot, yet he has no legal right to take the camera equipment, the Body Guard was just trying to protect Mr Nelson mistakes can be made in haste. If the camera equipment is returned in the condition it was taken and explained the Body Guard was just trying to protect his client then i doubt there would be any further problems. Peace The photographer was not invading Prince's privacy. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
The daftest thing of course is that Prince was on camera throughout his entire visit to the airport. CCTV camera, of course. Was his bodyguard going to ask the airport management for those as well? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Dauphin said: He could have asked politely, but the law is such that the kid did not have to delete the picture, surrender the film, stop taking photos, or anything.
A much better situation would have been for the bodyguard to politely ask the kid to not take any more pictures, and thank him for respecting Prince's wishes. Isn't that a little more christian than WHAT THE FUCK WRONG WITH YOU!?? GIMME THAT CAMERA!! *gank* (paraphrased of course) The law is pretty clear on this issue, Kat, and I see that you agree. The kid was in the right, and the bodyguard commited a crime. *shrug* katt said: We live in a society in which our right to privacy is much discussed, misunderstood, and, in many cases, seriously threatened. (Look what happened to Princess Diana)
US Constitution does not outline a specific right to privacy, some privacy rights have been defined via Court decisions. No one could disagree that the protection of privacy is an important issue. US Lawmakers are trying to propose legislation to deal with the new privacy issues that technological innovations have created. It takes time to pass such proposals. These laws must be carefully crafted to insure that privacy is truly guarded. The Right to Privacy delves into many areas, these are a few examples what are being looked at just now in America: Privacy versus Law Enforcement, Privacy and Your Self, Privacy versus The Press, Privacy versus the Voyeur, Privacy in the Workplace, and Privacy and Information. If this storey is true then Mr Nelson has the right to privacy especially in these days this is every humans basic right, he can ask the relevant authorities to ask the person to return the Photograph just taken or delete the said photograph on the spot, yet he has no legal right to take the camera equipment, the Body Guard was just trying to protect Mr Nelson mistakes can be made in haste. If the camera equipment is returned in the condition it was taken and explained the Body Guard was just trying to protect his client then i doubt there would be any further problems. Peace Most relevant authorities e.g.: police, security can and have done in the past asked for photographs returned, this happened in a airport the authorities working in that building can have the legal right to do so, it all depends on each public place policy in the USA. If this story is correct what the Body Guard did was wrong and illegal. If the story is wrong and then the Body Guard’s lawyers could subpoena the reporter, enter a court off law, seek large payment off damaged also have a written apology wrote for all to see in CJ’s column. Peace | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
katt said: Dauphin said: He could have asked politely, but the law is such that the kid did not have to delete the picture, surrender the film, stop taking photos, or anything.
A much better situation would have been for the bodyguard to politely ask the kid to not take any more pictures, and thank him for respecting Prince's wishes. Isn't that a little more christian than WHAT THE FUCK WRONG WITH YOU!?? GIMME THAT CAMERA!! *gank* (paraphrased of course) The law is pretty clear on this issue, Kat, and I see that you agree. The kid was in the right, and the bodyguard commited a crime. *shrug* katt said: We live in a society in which our right to privacy is much discussed, misunderstood, and, in many cases, seriously threatened. (Look what happened to Princess Diana)
US Constitution does not outline a specific right to privacy, some privacy rights have been defined via Court decisions. No one could disagree that the protection of privacy is an important issue. US Lawmakers are trying to propose legislation to deal with the new privacy issues that technological innovations have created. It takes time to pass such proposals. These laws must be carefully crafted to insure that privacy is truly guarded. The Right to Privacy delves into many areas, these are a few examples what are being looked at just now in America: Privacy versus Law Enforcement, Privacy and Your Self, Privacy versus The Press, Privacy versus the Voyeur, Privacy in the Workplace, and Privacy and Information. If this storey is true then Mr Nelson has the right to privacy especially in these days this is every humans basic right, he can ask the relevant authorities to ask the person to return the Photograph just taken or delete the said photograph on the spot, yet he has no legal right to take the camera equipment, the Body Guard was just trying to protect Mr Nelson mistakes can be made in haste. If the camera equipment is returned in the condition it was taken and explained the Body Guard was just trying to protect his client then i doubt there would be any further problems. Peace Most relevant authorities e.g.: police, security can and have done in the past asked for photographs returned, this happened in a airport the authorities working in that building can have the legal right to do so, it all depends on each public place policy in the USA. If this story is correct what the Body Guard did was wrong and illegal. If the story is wrong and then the Body Guard’s lawyers could subpoena the reporter, enter a court off law, seek large payment off damaged also have a written apology wrote for all to see in CJ’s column. Peace katt, prince is a public figure and he was in a public place. just so you know according to applicable laws in the USA the boy did not break any laws by taking prince's picture (although it would have been courteous if he'd asked first) and prince's body guard did violate a law by stealing the camera. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
Katt: you're doing a great job of trying to look at both sides of the issue. You're giving me hope! 
And yes...if the story is incorrect in the facts then we have a whole 'nother ball of wax. :nodnod: katt said: Dauphin said: He could have asked politely, but the law is such that the kid did not have to delete the picture, surrender the film, stop taking photos, or anything.
A much better situation would have been for the bodyguard to politely ask the kid to not take any more pictures, and thank him for respecting Prince's wishes. Isn't that a little more christian than WHAT THE FUCK WRONG WITH YOU!?? GIMME THAT CAMERA!! *gank* (paraphrased of course) The law is pretty clear on this issue, Kat, and I see that you agree. The kid was in the right, and the bodyguard commited a crime. *shrug* katt said: We live in a society in which our right to privacy is much discussed, misunderstood, and, in many cases, seriously threatened. (Look what happened to Princess Diana)
US Constitution does not outline a specific right to privacy, some privacy rights have been defined via Court decisions. No one could disagree that the protection of privacy is an important issue. US Lawmakers are trying to propose legislation to deal with the new privacy issues that technological innovations have created. It takes time to pass such proposals. These laws must be carefully crafted to insure that privacy is truly guarded. The Right to Privacy delves into many areas, these are a few examples what are being looked at just now in America: Privacy versus Law Enforcement, Privacy and Your Self, Privacy versus The Press, Privacy versus the Voyeur, Privacy in the Workplace, and Privacy and Information. If this storey is true then Mr Nelson has the right to privacy especially in these days this is every humans basic right, he can ask the relevant authorities to ask the person to return the Photograph just taken or delete the said photograph on the spot, yet he has no legal right to take the camera equipment, the Body Guard was just trying to protect Mr Nelson mistakes can be made in haste. If the camera equipment is returned in the condition it was taken and explained the Body Guard was just trying to protect his client then i doubt there would be any further problems. Peace Most relevant authorities e.g.: police, security can and have done in the past asked for photographs returned, this happened in a airport the authorities working in that building can have the legal right to do so, it all depends on each public place policy in the USA. If this story is correct what the Body Guard did was wrong and illegal. If the story is wrong and then the Body Guard’s lawyers could subpoena the reporter, enter a court off law, seek large payment off damaged also have a written apology wrote for all to see in CJ’s column. Peace -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Still it's nice to know, when our bodies wear out, we can get another -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
theblueangel said: For the rest of you Banished Ones who paid their $25 and therefore should be able to take in the hilarity of it all:
*** "So like we have the right 2 violate someone’s space just because they chose a career that places them in the public eye? How dare that guy. Instead of his mother getting all bent out of shape she should have taught him not 2 take pictures of strangers. He doesn’t know Prince. But at least the bodyguard knew it was a camera. If it was The Secret Service, they would have just shot him. What was he going 2 do with that picture anyway? Put it in his family photo album? That’s what u do when u take photos of friends and family, not strangers. Or was he going 2 doctor it up in Photoshop like this pic? This is how Prince earns his living. There r so many things that can jeopardize that. And people like this loser know that. Let Mr. Lee snap a picture of me! As a matter of fact, holiday or no holiday, if some stranger ran up on me and my daughter and just snapped a picture without asking, I’d kick his ***. Let him take a picture of that. He won't b calling the police, he'd b calling a surgeon 2 remove the camera. If took a picture of u without asking or without asking u 2 sign a release first, they couldn’t bring a case against u 4 taking that person’s camera. The first thing the judge would say to that person is, why were u taking pictures of people u don’t know? It’s a violation of that person’s privacy. Sure the bodyguard could have just erased that one picture but he's not being paid 2 figure out the erase feature on someone else's camera that shouldn't have taken the picture in the first place. They r only doing this because Prince is in the public eye and they want 2 ruin him. I think he should have the same rights that we do. And I don’t wanna here "it comes with the territory". No on asks 2 b violated. When other celebrities beat the crap out of the paparazzi 4 violating their space they get called the bad boys of Hollywood. But if Prince, no I take that back because it wasn’t even mentioned that Prince even moved, his security, just takes a camera from someone violating his bosses space, didn't stuff it down the guys throat or anything, oh dear Prince is a very bad person. The whole thing is just BULL. Fitzgerald is just an innocent kid right? But he's seen on TV as a wanna b actor in an X-box commercial. If he was a better actor with a real career and instead of his mom pimpin' him like he's a little sissy she should have been getting him a better agent so he'd have a job based on talent like Prince does and maybe instead of having a $7.00 job at Russell Stover, he'd understand what it's like 2 b thrust into the public eye because of a talent and b a little more respectful of other people's personal space. We have 2 reserve tickets 2 his rehearsal and we can only get in if we show proof of ID, that way Prince at least somewhat knows who we r and he knows that we, as active members, know he's human and not 2 treat him like he's some trinket in a museum. This guy has no right 2 even go near him especially since it was said he had 2 search the net for contact information 4 Prince. What loser would even think that was possible? What kinda moron is he? If Paisley Park is no-longer open 4 public business and his mom just drops in… that's trespassing. This story is a crock and CJ is still living up 2 her name "Billy Jack ***". Prince, give that punk mama's boy back his camera so he can stop whining." *** "Ok... It's a new year. I'll try 2 b less defensive. I'm sorry, but it’s not easy. Loss of freedom and loss of respect is a terrible price 2 pay 4 success. No one can ruin my career and my way of earning a living with one single photo. But that can b done 2 a celebrity very easily. And it's just not right." sheer genius!! NOT! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
XxAxX said: katt said: Dauphin said: He could have asked politely, but the law is such that the kid did not have to delete the picture, surrender the film, stop taking photos, or anything.
A much better situation would have been for the bodyguard to politely ask the kid to not take any more pictures, and thank him for respecting Prince's wishes. Isn't that a little more christian than WHAT THE FUCK WRONG WITH YOU!?? GIMME THAT CAMERA!! *gank* (paraphrased of course) The law is pretty clear on this issue, Kat, and I see that you agree. The kid was in the right, and the bodyguard commited a crime. *shrug* katt said: We live in a society in which our right to privacy is much discussed, misunderstood, and, in many cases, seriously threatened. (Look what happened to Princess Diana)
US Constitution does not outline a specific right to privacy, some privacy rights have been defined via Court decisions. No one could disagree that the protection of privacy is an important issue. US Lawmakers are trying to propose legislation to deal with the new privacy issues that technological innovations have created. It takes time to pass such proposals. These laws must be carefully crafted to insure that privacy is truly guarded. The Right to Privacy delves into many areas, these are a few examples what are being looked at just now in America: Privacy versus Law Enforcement, Privacy and Your Self, Privacy versus The Press, Privacy versus the Voyeur, Privacy in the Workplace, and Privacy and Information. If this storey is true then Mr Nelson has the right to privacy especially in these days this is every humans basic right, he can ask the relevant authorities to ask the person to return the Photograph just taken or delete the said photograph on the spot, yet he has no legal right to take the camera equipment, the Body Guard was just trying to protect Mr Nelson mistakes can be made in haste. If the camera equipment is returned in the condition it was taken and explained the Body Guard was just trying to protect his client then i doubt there would be any further problems. Peace Most relevant authorities e.g.: police, security can and have done in the past asked for photographs returned, this happened in a airport the authorities working in that building can have the legal right to do so, it all depends on each public place policy in the USA. If this story is correct what the Body Guard did was wrong and illegal. If the story is wrong and then the Body Guard’s lawyers could subpoena the reporter, enter a court off law, seek large payment off damaged also have a written apology wrote for all to see in CJ’s column. Peace katt, prince is a public figure and he was in a public place. just so you know according to applicable laws in the USA the boy did not break any laws by taking prince's picture (although it would have been courteous if he'd asked first) and prince's body guard did violate a law by stealing the camera. I see both sides, yet remember reporters are there to make stories, u got to look at the big picture not just half as I have said. Recently in the USA a gentleman was taken picture off public places, he was given the right to do so yet because the Vice President was in the area this man was arrested, he was placed in police custody cell for near 5 hours, he was released with no charges yet he had to hand over the film in the camera. The photographer subpoenaed the authorities and he lost. They stated that the Vice President and his family members had the right to privacy and anonymity. These cases can be used in a court of law in the USA to protect there clients. USA law is ever changing they are currently trying to over hall the entire system as i stated before. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Dauphin said: Katt: you're doing a great job of trying to look at both sides of the issue. You're giving me hope!
And yes...if the story is incorrect in the facts then we have a whole 'nother ball of wax. :nodnod: katt said: Dauphin said: He could have asked politely, but the law is such that the kid did not have to delete the picture, surrender the film, stop taking photos, or anything.
A much better situation would have been for the bodyguard to politely ask the kid to not take any more pictures, and thank him for respecting Prince's wishes. Isn't that a little more christian than WHAT THE FUCK WRONG WITH YOU!?? GIMME THAT CAMERA!! *gank* (paraphrased of course) The law is pretty clear on this issue, Kat, and I see that you agree. The kid was in the right, and the bodyguard commited a crime. *shrug* katt said: We live in a society in which our right to privacy is much discussed, misunderstood, and, in many cases, seriously threatened. (Look what happened to Princess Diana)
US Constitution does not outline a specific right to privacy, some privacy rights have been defined via Court decisions. No one could disagree that the protection of privacy is an important issue. US Lawmakers are trying to propose legislation to deal with the new privacy issues that technological innovations have created. It takes time to pass such proposals. These laws must be carefully crafted to insure that privacy is truly guarded. The Right to Privacy delves into many areas, these are a few examples what are being looked at just now in America: Privacy versus Law Enforcement, Privacy and Your Self, Privacy versus The Press, Privacy versus the Voyeur, Privacy in the Workplace, and Privacy and Information. If this storey is true then Mr Nelson has the right to privacy especially in these days this is every humans basic right, he can ask the relevant authorities to ask the person to return the Photograph just taken or delete the said photograph on the spot, yet he has no legal right to take the camera equipment, the Body Guard was just trying to protect Mr Nelson mistakes can be made in haste. If the camera equipment is returned in the condition it was taken and explained the Body Guard was just trying to protect his client then i doubt there would be any further problems. Peace Most relevant authorities e.g.: police, security can and have done in the past asked for photographs returned, this happened in a airport the authorities working in that building can have the legal right to do so, it all depends on each public place policy in the USA. If this story is correct what the Body Guard did was wrong and illegal. If the story is wrong and then the Body Guard’s lawyers could subpoena the reporter, enter a court off law, seek large payment off damaged also have a written apology wrote for all to see in CJ’s column. Peace  it's called sitting on the fence i think | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I agree with D. He should have asked before he took the picture. Folks are now scared to death of everything. I have asked several celeb's for their autograph/pic. Once I found out how much a autograph would go for or a pic of Prince out and about, I am not mad for them saying no. Hell sometimes I don't want to be nice. Let the boy alone ya'll. His has been getting dogged out for a while let him have is tantrum or emotional moment so he can't put out some more music for us! Just one of those days...
Dauphin said: He could have asked politely, but the law is such that the kid did not have to delete the picture, surrender the film, stop taking photos, or anything.
A much better situation would have been for the bodyguard to politely ask the kid to not take any more pictures, and thank him for respecting Prince's wishes. Isn't that a little more christian than WHAT THE FUCK WRONG WITH YOU!?? GIMME THAT CAMERA!! *gank* (paraphrased of course) The law is pretty clear on this issue, Kat, and I see that you agree. The kid was in the right, and the bodyguard commited a crime. *shrug* katt said: We live in a society in which our right to privacy is much discussed, misunderstood, and, in many cases, seriously threatened. (Look what happened to Princess Diana)
US Constitution does not outline a specific right to privacy, some privacy rights have been defined via Court decisions. No one could disagree that the protection of privacy is an important issue. US Lawmakers are trying to propose legislation to deal with the new privacy issues that technological innovations have created. It takes time to pass such proposals. These laws must be carefully crafted to insure that privacy is truly guarded. The Right to Privacy delves into many areas, these are a few examples what are being looked at just now in America: Privacy versus Law Enforcement, Privacy and Your Self, Privacy versus The Press, Privacy versus the Voyeur, Privacy in the Workplace, and Privacy and Information. If this storey is true then Mr Nelson has the right to privacy especially in these days this is every humans basic right, he can ask the relevant authorities to ask the person to return the Photograph just taken or delete the said photograph on the spot, yet he has no legal right to take the camera equipment, the Body Guard was just trying to protect Mr Nelson mistakes can be made in haste. If the camera equipment is returned in the condition it was taken and explained the Body Guard was just trying to protect his client then i doubt there would be any further problems. Peace Wanted: Virtual Sugar Daddy to help me buy stuff on Farmville and move up the ranks. Use of Viagra not authorized. Get your two minutes and go! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Everybody these days is fucked in the head - why shouldn't Prince & his bodyguard get to act the same?
I live across the street from a grade school. Older kids hang around the school in the evenings because its public property & they believe they can do whatever they want there. These teenagers will stand on the sidewalk in front of my house & call me a mother fucking asshole & tell me to shove a dildo up my ass but if I complain they say its their 1st amendment right - freedom of speech. Don't tell them what they can't say. If I stand on my front steps & take photograghs of them you should hear them scream "thats illegal - you can't take my picture without my permission." Well guess what - I can - I'm not breaking the law either. The whole thing is absurd - this holding up the constitution & saying this makes it legal to be rude & disrespectful of people because its my american right. Respect for other peoples space or privacy seem to have just sailed away. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
thedoorkeeper said: Everybody these days is fucked in the head - why shouldn't Prince & his bodyguard get to act the same?
I live across the street from a grade school. Older kids hang around the school in the evenings because its public property & they believe they can do whatever they want there. These teenagers will stand on the sidewalk in front of my house & call me a mother fucking asshole & tell me to shove a dildo up my ass but if I complain they say its their 1st amendment right - freedom of speech. Don't tell them what they can't say. If I stand on my front steps & take photograghs of them you should hear them scream "thats illegal - you can't take my picture without my permission." Well guess what - I can - I'm not breaking the law either. The whole thing is absurd - this holding up the constitution & saying this makes it legal to be rude & disrespectful of people because its my american right. Respect for other peoples space or privacy seem to have just sailed away. The body guard could have simply walked over and said "please stop taking pictures of Prince", or the bodyguards could have stood in front of Prince to get in the way of pictures. Just cuz prince is annoyed by someone taking pics of him doesnt mean his body guards have a right to steal the kids camera. Digital cameras arent cheap either, a decent one runs several hundred bucks. I think its just as fucked in the head for a musician to carry on in such a pompous manner. Why should they spazz out about having someone take a snapshot of them? I've had strangers snap pictures of my friends and I. It caused no trauma to me, and I didn't feel violated by it. And I sure as hell didn't think it would be appropriate for me to demand the persons camera. Thank god most of the general public doesnt walk around thinkin theyre hot shit, and that theyre too special to have their picture taken. [This message was edited Fri Jan 2 9:40:51 PST 2004 by Tom] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Tom said: The body guard could have simply walked over and said "please stop taking pictures of Prince", or the bodyguards could have stood in front of Prince to get in the way of pictures. Just cuz prince is annoyed by someone taking pics of him doesnt mean his body guards have a right to steal the kids camera.
If you ask someone to stop taking your picture & they continue - is that harassment? Couldn't the bodyguard have asked airport security to escort the photographer away because he is harassing his client? If you do something repeatedly that annoys or embarasses someone that is harassment. While the bodyguard took the quick remedy I would think you could get help from airport security if you felt you were being harassed. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
If I were Prince I'd be more worried about that ride on the handicapped scooter pic. Which I hear he endorsed so he is basically kind of (fill in blank) "Climb in my fur." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
thedoorkeeper said: Tom said: The body guard could have simply walked over and said "please stop taking pictures of Prince", or the bodyguards could have stood in front of Prince to get in the way of pictures. Just cuz prince is annoyed by someone taking pics of him doesnt mean his body guards have a right to steal the kids camera.
If you ask someone to stop taking your picture & they continue - is that harassment? Couldn't the bodyguard have asked airport security to escort the photographer away because he is harassing his client? If you do something repeatedly that annoys or embarasses someone that is harassment. While the bodyguard took the quick remedy I would think you could get help from airport security if you felt you were being harassed. If I was sittin on a bench making funny faces at Prince, sticking my tounge out at him and calling him names, I guess that would be harrasment too? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
"Aw no..you cant take my picure"
"oh Im sorry - do you beleive it will take your spirit away?" "nah - you've still got the lense cap on" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
rdhull said: If I were Prince I'd be more worried about that ride on the handicapped scooter pic. Which I hear he endorsed so he is basically kind of (fill in blank)
 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Look at it this way...
The kid will get Prince's personal autograph on a nice juicy out of court settlement to drop the charges. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
katt said: We live in a society in which our right to privacy is much discussed, misunderstood, and, in many cases, seriously threatened. (Look what happened to Princess Diana)
Oh fuck off. Diana was a camera whore who craved attention. © Bart Van Hemelen
This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights. It is not authorized by Prince or the NPG Music Club. You assume all risk for your use. All rights reserved. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
BartVanHemelen said: katt said: We live in a society in which our right to privacy is much discussed, misunderstood, and, in many cases, seriously threatened. (Look what happened to Princess Diana)
Oh fuck off. Diana was a camera whore who craved attention. Grow up Bart, so she was always in the media and in your eyes she deserved what she got This woman was to die by the paparazzi hands wanting pictures, they hounded her even in her final moments of life, she also had to suffer the agony as these paparazzi took photographs while herself and other passengers were dieing, have a conscience for goodness sake. All because of a few pictures,No one deserves this.
Peace . [This message was edited Sat Jan 3 10:13:48 PST 2004 by katt] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
BartVanHemelen said: katt said: We live in a society in which our right to privacy is much discussed, misunderstood, and, in many cases, seriously threatened. (Look what happened to Princess Diana)
Oh fuck off. Diana was a camera whore who craved attention. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
BartVanHemelen said: Oh fuck off. Diana was a camera whore who craved attention.
Sick | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I saw Prince at an afterparty. The club was very small and everyone had a birds eye view of Prince and the NPG. Fans were only 7-10' from him. It was sad cuz they were just standing and looking at him. At one point he picked up his chair, turned it around and faced his back 2 the crowd. It was pathetic how the people were acting. Like he was a monkey in a zoo or something. I felt bad 4 the dude.
His security guard was wrong 4 his actions but how u would feel if u were Prince having 2 deal with people in this manner everyday ur out and about. Wahtever! klick | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
