UK press was banned from publishing
pictures of naked Prince Harry by the royal family. The royal family lawyers
threatened legal action and St James’s Palace warned that the pictures were a
gross invasion of the young royal's privacy.
The pictures were released online by TMZ on Wednesday and no
British TV station or newspaper touched it until The Sun defied all warnings
and published the photos on their cover yesterday, saying it was ridiculous to
be banned from publishing a photo over 70 million people have already seen
Were they right to publish it? Their explanations for publishing
the photo when you continue...
TODAY The Sun is publishing the naked Prince Harry party pictures our readers have been prevented from seeing in print.
We are doing so despite warnings from the Royal Family’s lawyers —
and we’ll explain why.
Before we do, let’s be clear on one thing.
The Sun is NOT
making any moral judgement about Harry’s nude frolics with girls in a Las Vegas hotel. Far from
it. 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.
The images were
first published on the web three days ago. But the Palace’s lawyers, via the
Press Complaints Commission, warned the UK’s newspapers against printing
them, claiming they would breach Harry’s privacy and the PCC Code.
Since then the
entire UK
media — print, online and TV — has reported on them and told readers and
viewers how to find them on TMZ.com, the website that first published them, and
on countless other sites that followed suit.
That coverage
put those pictures a mouse-click away from anyone in the 77 per cent of British
households with internet access.
Millions duly
found them on sites from Canada
to New Zealand.
By yesterday, the photographs were indisputably in the public domain everywhere
in the world.
That generated a
legitimate public debate about the behaviour of the man who is third in line to
the throne and increasingly taking on official duties, as he did most recently
at the Olympics’ closing ceremony.
Yet as that
debate went on in homes, factories, offices and pubs, the Press were still
effectively banned from using the pictures.
The many
millions of people who get their news in print, or have no web access, could
not take a full part in that national conversation because they could not see
the images.
The Royal
Family’s lawyers claim there is no public interest in The Sun running the
photos. This is a favourite mantra of those who wish to muzzle the world’s most
vibrant newspapers, here in Britain
— stuffily declaring that a story has “no public interest”, as though it were
an unassailable fact.
But there is a
clear public interest in publishing the Harry pictures, in order for the debate
around them to be fully informed. 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.
These are not
pictures of him and a girlfriend at Balmoral. The Prince was in Vegas, the
party capital of a country with strong freedom-of-speech laws, frolicking in
the pool before inviting strangers to his hotel room for a game of strip
billiards.
No comments:
Post a Comment