Press warned over pictures of naked Prince Harry
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.St James’s Palace today asked British media organisations not to publish pictures of a naked Prince Harry partying in Las Vegas, despite the images being easily available online.
Royal aides confirmed the authenticity of the photographs, which depict the third in line to the throne standing in front of a topless woman, cupping his genitals with his hands. Another picture shows the Prince "bear-hugging" a naked woman from behind.
The pictures, initially published by the US celebrity website TMZ.com, were taken by a fellow reveller while the Prince was reportedly playing "strip billiards" at a party in his VIP suite at the Wynn hotel.
The tabloids were reluctant to publish the images; the nearest any of them came to doing so was The Sun asking one of its staff, Harry Miller, to bare his all in recreating a shot for its front page. Editors might once have argued that the images were already in the public domain, and their new hesitancy was attributed to the inquiry by Lord Leveson, pictured, into press practices following the phone-hacking scandal.
While St James's Palace refused to comment on the pictures, aides informed newspaper editors that the photographs were shot in circumstances where Prince Harry "had a reasonable expectation of privacy". Publication would constitute an "unjustified intrusion" into Harry's privacy, in breach of the Press Complaints Commission Editors' Code of Practice, the Palace said, despite wide availability online. Clause 3 of the code states that it is "unacceptable to photograph individuals in private places without their consent".
The royal commentator Robert Jobson asked: "Are we back to the good old, bad old days of Edward and Mrs Simpson when the whole world reported on affairs but not the UK?"
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments