Prince Harry’s latest drunken escapade is now laid out for hundreds of millions to see in all of his naked glory . . . except for people in England. The Royal family moved quickly to effectively bar British newspapers from publishing the photos under the English libel laws, which I have criticized in the past as both draconian and restrictive of free speech. Now the Sun is bucking the effective order from the palace and now running the photos. In the meantime, millions of Brits were able to see the photos barred in newspapers but simply turning on their computers.
‘Prince Harry Naked’ has been googled over 70 million times – pictures showing the prince holding the royal jewels and cavorting with an equally naked woman in a game of strip pool.
The naughty moments of royals hold little fascination with me — even less than do royals generally. However, the English continue to impose highly restrictive rules on the media. First there is the Official Secrets law that is absurdly broad and effectively makes journalist freedoms discretionary in areas touching on the governmental interests. Then there is a host of laws allowing exceptionally broad prior restraint rules and blasphemy and hate crime prosecutions. However, it is the libel law that probably has the greatest chilling effect — extremely pro-plaintiff rules that threaten to ruin both individuals and media outlets with both damages and the English rule compelling the payment of the opposing party’s legal fees and costs.
The pictures from Harry’s wild ride in Las Vegas are the latest example of how the libel laws are used by the wealthy to limit the press and bar information to the public. Here you have a randy, juvenile prince infamous for public acts of embarrassing debauchery. Yet, the palace insists that disclosure of photos taken at a large party are private matters for the prince.
Once again, the Internet shows how government limitations can be circumvented by the Internet — an ironic timing since the government is still surrounding the embassy with Julian Assange inside to arrest him and extradite him in a case that is widely viewed as retaliation for his disclosing claimed classified information.
England is now ground zero for the threat to free speech in the West from ever-widening blasphemy prosecutions to hate speech laws to libel actions. Perhaps the absurdities of the most recent limitations will trigger a reexamination of these law by our English cousins.
Source: Daily Mail
83 thoughts on “Shielding The Crown Jewels: British Royal Family Blocks Publication of Randy Harry Photos in England While Hundreds of Millions See Them On The Internet”
Maybe the neighbors ??
Luna[tic]??? Or just narcissistic, “Look @ me.”
I don’t have a cat………….
did your cat start walking on your keyboard?????
I do find it right to claim that billions would opinion like I, as you are a part of a secluded western / democratically/ liberated mind setting crowd, that think that the worlds 7 billion inhabits think like say: you ? god forbid, no they don’t.
And I don’t give a toot for the hypocrites, who claim they have the right to stop their child running wild from being exposed, to something he himself asked for.
Good luck in raising your daughter, where being invited to a naked booze/drug party is part of growing up and experiencing life as animals. No brains, no morals, no God no sins, no parents to answer to, no dignity.
I would probably refrain from speaking for BILLIONS of others…. as MOST of the comments on pretty much EVERY site I have read, was that he deserves his privacy and that the photographs should not have been taken… and that it was NOBODY”S Business….
also, a poll found that it endeared MORE people than OFFENDED…..
NOTICE…. it said he is SINGLE…..
LONDON (AFP) – More than two-thirds of adults in Britain thought Prince Harry cavorting naked with women at a Las Vegas party was acceptable behaviour, according to a poll out on Sunday.
The YouGov survey in The Sunday Times newspaper found that 68 per cent thought the third in line to the throne’s antics were acceptable for a young, single man having fun on a private holiday, with 22 per cent saying it was not.
Some 75 per cent still had a positive view of the 27-year-old army helicopter pilot.
While the two images of Harry are widely available on the Internet and abroad, only The Sun newspaper has published them in Britain, saying it was striking a blow for press freedom.
You are kidding right ?
anyway, in my opinion and billions others, it does make a person UN-trust-worthy. He even had a girlfriend back home ! out of eye, out of heart. ! UN-trust worthy indeed, he disgraced the world. Las Vegas or no Las Vegas.
As if the address permits this behavior. I’ve been to Las Vegas more than 20 times, and never had the urge to disgrace myself or my family, but had the best times of our life each and every time, no drinks no drugs no gambling, just plain old enjoyment of the great place it is.Harry is a Prince, because his father Charles is a prince, and WHAT a prince is he. I’m telling you, no manners in that family ! Never had been !
being that in the first few days of this coming out, there was NO mention of a Girl Friend…. so, It is of my opinion is that they were seeing each other, but, NOT committed…
and I’m sorry, I just don’t have a puritanical view of nudity….
there are PLENTY of dishonest people in the world that have NOT been photographed nude… So, I think it is a bad place to start judging somebody that “THOUGHT” they were in a private moment….
You never said what made Clinton, and HILLARY…. FDR…. and JFK such disasters?????
OK… Clinton had an affair…. so what…. so do many other men…. he was a GREAT President…. and did a LOT for the American people….
WE have NO idea what he and his wife have going on….. so, really their PERSONAL life is NOBODY’s business….
JFK…. ???? he did a LOT for the civil rights movement….
there was a time, when men fooled around….
again…. that was HIS and Jacqueline’s Business….
we have NO idea what went on between the two of them…..
FDR…. how was he a disaster???
Hillary???? How was Hillary a DISASTER????
Is that the Royal previously known as Prince?
Comments are closed.