Maybe the world I believe is only in my head. Heaven must be a true concept.

AsianBomb777 said:

Hey!!!! Cut that out!

I LOVE THIS PICTURE!!! (Want yo body want yo body want yo body)

madartista said:

co-sign

Haystack said:

Serious said:

I have heard this before. I am new here and missed a lot of this.
Why did Prince sue his fan club bullentin board. And did he sue other fan sites? Why?

Universaluv said:

Wow!! I don't get it. Is it THAT serious that you have to put your hands on someone??

SummerRain said:

What???

SummerRain said:

I think you are grasping for straws trying to defend this. I don't think taking a picture at an airport of a celebrity is stalking. And to say that is really a disservice to those who are truly stalked.
If I was at an airport and had a camera, (and when one is on a trip, one will most likely have a camera) and if I saw Prince there, I would try to take SEVERAL pictures of him. And if his bodyguard walked over and roughed me up taking my camera, I would certainly sue to teach Prince and a bodyguard a lesson; DON'T PUT YOUR HANDS ON PEOPLE without permission!

What I don't get is, I bet most fans if approached with a little common courtesy by Prince or even by bodyguard and told that "Mr Prince is trying to go about his business and you taking pictures is just not cool, could you stop it" I bet MOST fans would apologize profusely, erased the picture and wish Prince to have a good day. That is what most average people do. Instead you have someone snapping a picture of their fave celeb, not trying to tear his clothes off, not racing in his face with a pen for an autograph, but instead keeping a few feet distance (not invading his personal space) and snapping a picture then a bodyguard doing all those things I just said the fan did not do, pull at his clothing and belongings, invading his personal space and taking the kid's belongings. Now WHO SHOULD HAVE OBTAINED A RESTRAINING ORDER???

just Prince being a dick!

Just buy the kid a new camera.....cheez.

Thumparello said:[quote]just Prince being a dick!

Just buy the kid a new camera.....cheez.[/quo

Kinda makes you wonder about his new prespective on life. WWJD, what would Jehovh do? Would he be opposed to some one taking a picture? Prince needs to live his convictions. My Bible says as you sow, so shall you reap.

AsianBomb777 said:

Very Gangsta Glam dont you think?

prodigalfan said:

Thanx 4 posting that video. Stars are human like we are but we will never understand the pressures of superstardom. Thru P's whole career he has stated emphatically that he does'nt like his pic taken unless he says so or agrees 2. I've seen Jack Nichlson do the same thing! Just like drug dealers some papparatzi use teenagers or kids 2 take pics of cellebs. Unless they have video tape from airport security showing an assualt i don't believe any1 just bcuz they said it happened.

Supernova said:

My feelings exactly Supernova!

prodigalfan said:

Whether you agree or not, people have a right to privacy regardless of who they are and where they are. You say Prince's bodyguard took something from this kid without permission, well what in the heck do u suppose this kid took from him without his permission, or do u believe we can treat celebreties however we want because they are rich? I think most americans could learn something from chineese mannerism, and I think this bodyguard gave this kid a taste of his own medicine.

People don't realize that our actions our as traumatizing to celebreties as we claim they traumatize us in situations like this. Mental abuse is equivalent to physical abuse. I hope he wins this case, but if the judge is a fan; he doesn't have a chance .
[This message was edited Mon Jun 21 2:17:03 2004 by SummerRain]

freakyfeet said:

Trevor never assualted that kid, he took his camara. But I bet this kids says he did so that the lawsuit would have some grounds to be pursued.
[This message was edited Mon Jun 21 2:42:49 2004 by SummerRain]

SummerRain said:

oh goodness, if prince thinks having his picture snapped getting off a plane is mental abuse then he needs help, seriously.

and the idea that this bodyguard was giving the kid a "taste of his own medicine" is really worrying. please tell me you don't really believe that. battery in these circumstances is utterly indefensible.

and "people have a right to privacy regardless of who they are and where they are". Sorry, but that's totally inaccurate. Privacy is not, never has been, and never will be an absolute right. End of story - if you think that's wrong, then fine, but it ain't the law.

TheFrog said:

Non physical aggression isn't mental abuse? Please let me know the types of people you socialize with so that i may stay clear from them. Unfortunately, everyone has a right to their opinion.

If privacy isn't a right, why must a warrant be obtained to search your premises or anything you own or possess? Thanx to Bush that right is obliviated. But who cares as long as we are allowed to treat people abusively to get whatever we want from the person we choose to victimize, right?
[This message was edited Mon Jun 21 3:41:35 2004 by SummerRain]

SummerRain said:

well, if you think that taking a picture in these circumstances is mental abuse, then good for you. Clearly you've made your mind up and so it's pointless me trying to convince you of how nonsensical that is.

and as for the comment about the types of people i socialise with - well, that's real mature of you.

i didn't say privacy wasn't a right, i said it wasn't an absolute right and the example of a search warrant proves nothing in those circumstances. there's a world of difference.

TheFrog said:

I didn't say taking a picture was mental abuse, but i did say taking the picture without permission is abuse.

What's the difference between this situation and a person saying no to sex but is forced to have it anyway? Is this different because it's physical abuse, I don't think so.

You might as well agree that freedom isn't a right but a priviledge subject to be violated or revoked at will regardless of the situation.


"Don't, let, the devil make ya, dance, with, the undertaker!" Now playing at NPGMC .

SummerRain said:

Me too: "in those circumstances" - i.e. without permission at the airport. Come on, it's no more mental abuse than blowing a raspberry, probably less so!




Oh.
My.
God.


Nope. Totally different issue. And in any case, 'freedom' too is also not an absolute right - revocable in the interests of public policy, national security etc etc. That's how the world works. Of course it's not revocable regardless of the situation. But i can't see how this is relevant in the slightest to the photo / privacy issue.


"Don't, let, the devil make ya, dance, with, the undertaker!" Now playing at NPGMC .[/quote]

SummerRain said:

YOU JUST COMPARED WHAT HAPPENED TO PRINCE TO RAPE !?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?



Christ, I've seen it all now.

SummerRain said:

you know that for a fact do you ?

so what you're alleging is that Trevor isn't guilty of assault yet he managed to take a camera from the kids hands with no challenge ?

what you're saying is that Trevor is guilty of theft but not assault ?

SummerRain said:

Her death was tragic and avoidable. But it has nothing to do with what I said.

You brought up the Constitution and the rights of celebrities. I told you what U.S. courts have said on that issue.

If you don't like what the courts have said on the issue, then your argument is with them, not with me.

.
[This message was edited Mon Jun 21 8:51:25 2004 by Universaluv]

freakyfeet said:

Assault doesn't require physical contact. Battery requires physical contact.

An assault is a reasonable apprehension (expectation) of some harm that may come to you. Unlike a battery, you must know that an assault is occurring at the time it takes place. A court will look at what happened. A great deal will depend on the reasonableness of your own feelings when threatened. The court will consider whether the closeness of the physical threat should have subjectively upset, frightened, or humiliated you. Words alone usually are not enough to bring a case for assault.

One word:
Twat.

Universaluv said:

I guess no one read my link so here it is again:
The Photographer's Right
To all the "superfans" on here who are siding with Prince, you really should jump ship to save face. This kid not only has the upper hand, but probably has a good case. There is no such thing as public privacy. You're in public; you're game to get your picture taken...PERIOD. No permission is necessary. It is not abuse nor does it violate any laws. In order for this to become a real problem for Prince, the kid would have to have his picture published in a mag or something. Also, just because Prince didn't instruct the bodyguard to take the camera at that moment doesn't mean that he hasn't been trained to do so on a prior occasion. If anyone was abused, it was the kid. His property was taken from him (theft); regardless if he turned the camera in to airport security or not. It was taken - that constitutes theft. A countersuit is going to be a waste of time. The judge may award the kid the $50K in punitive damages alone. He may have even only wanted to sue for his camera back, but once lawyers enter the equation, the $$$ grows to huge proportions instantly. The fact that Prince did nothing to rectify the situation immediately (i.e, fire the bodyguard or tell him to give the camera back) destroys any chances of him being absolved of guilt in the matter. You can't pull that old skool muscle routine in this day and age. Too many lawyers around for that mess. His countersuit is worthless and baseless. After he looses, look out webmasters. I bet he'll go on another wave of website shutdowns. The first to go: That cute little wallpaper website just displayed on another thread! JW my ass!

SummerRain said:

Honey, as someone who has actually been raped, you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

And for the record, there is a picture of me in Rolling Stone that was taken without my permission as well as someone filming us without permission, as we left the screening on March 29th. I was in a public place which means I was fair game. Why did P's bodyguard make a big deal of the guy taking the pic? I don't know. I have to question why the guy didn't go and pick up his camera when he learned it was available. Maybe he wanted his fifteeen seconds of fame. Seeing as none of us were there, it's hard to say.

1) If you know nothing about law, don't expect to be taken seriously when you spout off about what vague rights you believe the Constitution does and doesn't guarantee.

2) Prince needs to relax and realize the scary black box won't steal his soul.