Prince Harry photos

[Alan Burke]

Why does it really matter if a youngster has a clothes-free party with some friends ? He certainly isn't the first person to have done it and it all occured in private with everyone there being quite willing to be involved.

The Sun have now decided to publish the photos as though it is some big news story with the usual excuse that "it is the public interest". However, are the public really that interested - will thousands of people be flocking to buy the paper just because of the photos ? I doubt it. The Sun also says it is a matter of the "freedom of the press" to publish the photos, but what about the freedom of the individual to have such a private get-together as long as they are breaking any laws ?

And why is it that many tabloids often fill their pages with staged photos of scantily-clad females, yet when anyone is seen in a similar situation of their own accord (ie topless on a beach), the same newspapers rush to publish the photos as though the person involved has caused some great upset to the whole of mankind ?

The press have often called for the Royal Family to be more in tune with the public at large, yet when any of them do something that other mere mortals are often associated with, the press are the first to criticise them.

[Rob Thompson]

I think the point was less that the event in and of itself is a news story, and more a protest against the strange situation of the tabloids having been restricted from publishing the photos despite the fact that the photos were freely available on the internet.

[Roger de Coverly]

The Sun also says it is a matter of the "freedom of the press" to publish the photos, but what about the freedom of the individual to have such a private get-together as long as they are breaking any laws ?
.

You have to "know your history" to see where they are coming from. The new King in 1936, after the death of King George V, had a relationship with an American who had been divorced twice. The British press were not allowed to report this, even though it was widely reported outside the UK.

[Alan Burke]

But why does the party even need to be reported in the first place ? The lad hasn't done anything illegal.

[Richard Bates]

The Sun's argument is actually nonsense - their headline is "Pics of Harry you've already seen on the internet". If their readers have "already seen them" then why the need to publish again? The only reason can be that their readers haven't actually seen them, whether they were able to or not. In reality they seem pretty harmless. Fergie and toe sucking they are not. (I suppose if anything this (basically harmless) is a justification for publishing. Basically harmless photographs are probably better not left to the imagination in the circumstances).

[Kevin Thurlow]

"Freedom of the Press" sometimes seems to mean freedom to hack into somebody's phone. At least these aren't intrusive photos taken covertly, but I don't see any honest reason to publish the photos again. Presumably the Sun's management is getting revenge as it's been having a hard time with the police and Parliament. Although the Leveson enquiry has been a bit soft on them at times.