The Guardian and Kate Middleton's breasts
The Guardian confuses the invasion of privacy with freedom of contract
In amongst all the debate and outrage in response to the topless photos of Kate Middleton, one of the stranger contributions has been made by the Guardian’s women's blog. (Editor’s Note: I’m really surprised by this one, Guy!")
The article opens with the statement that the, “British public is up in arms at young women’s breasts being used to sell magazines.”
I for one had not noticed on all the commentary out there, that ‘breasts being used to sell magazines’ was the source of most people’s complaints.
This immediately shows the writer’s confusion as to the reaction of the public to the photos of the Duchess of Cambridge.
The public were outraged that a couple on holiday, enjoying themselves in a private chateau, had pictures taken of them and subsequently published without their consent.
The objection to these pictures would be the same if a photographer had used a long-range lens to try and peek through the windows of Kate’s bathroom.
However, the substance of the article is that The Sun is embroiled in hypocrisy for supporting the Duke and Duchess in their bid to sue the photographer, while displaying their page three model’s breasts as per usual.
Let me be quite clear: there is absolutely no hypocrisy here. In fact, The Sun’s position is by default, a defence of freedom of the individual.
The Sun supports the Duchess for the same reason many of its readers will. An invasion of privacy which has no public interest attached to it should be condemned. However, a young woman who chooses to reveal her breasts to the readers of The Sun, either for money, publicity or both, is doing so voluntarily exercising her freedom of contract.
This is the healthy attitude of a free society, not hypocrisy. The public can see the distinction between voluntary contract and the violation of someone’s privacy on private property.
Brits, by and large, have no problem with breasts being used to sell magazines as we can see from numerous publications such as Loaded, Nuts and Maxim. The reasonable attitude of the tolerant majority in this country is, “if you don’t like it, don’t buy it”.
The article ends “The message it seems, is clear – it's fine to print pictures of half-naked women, as long as they are not heading for the throne”. It reeks of bad journalism and an even poorer grasp of logic.
The message is that the majority of the British public have healthy, non-proscriptive attitudes toward privacy, contract and indeed towards breasts.
Guy Bentley is the editorial assistant at the Commentator
- The curious case of Bogac Ozdemir
- Does socialism work? A classroom experiment
- No deal, or the real deal? Preparing to walk away
- Cutting-edge Food Technology is our best defence against another Wuhan
- Lanistar hits £150m valuation with £15m investment from Milaya Capital on course to becoming £1bn fintech
We are wholly dependent on the kindness of our readers for our continued work. We thank you in advance for any support you can offer.