Clooney To Sue Paparazzi For Photographing Underage Topless Girl In His House

tmz.com:

George Clooney is gearing up for a legal war in Italy -- claiming invasive paparazzi climbed over the wall of his Italian home and shot a topless photo of a 13-year-old girl changing in one of his guest rooms.

The photographer also took shots of Clooney and his girlfriend Elisabetta Canalis enjoying private moments in the yard of his estate.

Read the whole story: tmz.com

Comments

[Antifascist-08]

Another misleading headline, but a good article about privacy issues.

What a world we live in. I hope he wins his law suit- big time.

[kappa08]

bring the pain Georgie...

[Cakey4814]

The way this headline is worded you'd think Clooney had an underage girl stripping for his benefit..come on HuffPo; is this your title or that sleeze TMZ?

[ccpostman]

Why are you using the trash diggers TMZ for a source???

Lets bring our IQs down a few pegs.

[harriettubman]

I hope Clooney is not another no limits and no boundaries Hollywood type. Please don't be.

[wmholt]

If you read the story, it was a 13 year-old girl changing clothes in the privacy of her bedroom. Not as sensational as the headline would suggest. Clooney was with his girlfriend at the time.

[mercury613]

Have you ever actually been to Los Angeles? Have you ever known anyone in the entertainment industry?

Judging from the cluelessness of your statements, I'm guessing not.

[kappa08]

..unbelievable

[ArjenBoatsma]

What was an underage topless girl doing in his house?

Obviously, Clooney was having Berlusconi over for drinks ...

[JhNyc]

Sometimes peole take off one top in order to change into another. Even underage people have been known to do it.

[Antifascist-08]

Exactly. So now it is wrong to change into a swimsuit where a Pop might be hiding outside the window. I used to own a pool? We had kids over. Who doesn't?

Thank God we weren't celebrities. This is sick.

[SharonaMonk]

Seriously, if the story was that he was actually WITH that girl, the headline would have been a LOT different. In that regard the headline is very vague, which is really the big first clue...

[SharonaMonk]

The paps are dis.gus.ting beings. It should be legal to be.at them to a p.ulp if they are anywhere near your person. I consider them lesser than co.ck.ro.ac.hes, really.

[JaneQCitizen]

You get 'em, George! Sue the paps, plus the mags and any blogs that run pap photos.

[Thessayist]

Where was the security when all of this was happening?
Deal with the security first.
http://www.thessayist.com

[Antifascist-08]

Oh yes, we should all have security if we have a swimming pool.

OK, I get the point that you think Clooney should have had more security. Why? Because he is rich and should know that Paps will be lurking around his house at all times?

maybe you also believe that the price of fame is absolutely no privacy.

these jerks are trespassing and peeping and taking pictures. There are laws against this.

[Canuck3]

As usual.... There is a disturbing pattern here that makes me wonder about this site. It's confusing because in so many ways it's a responsible site. I don't get it.

[ReelBusy]

Please explain your half thought fully.

A pap violated a girls privacy in an attempt to get exclusive photos of Clooney and his lady.
Whats not to get?
Idiot.

[SharonaMonk]

I think it's the way the headline is worded, though I am only guessing because this one is no where near as bad as others I see here. lol.

[wmholt]

It was not Clooney's lady they photographed.

[llisa]

Isn't there a law against looking in people's windows--and surely there is one against climbing a wall, looking in a window, and photographing children while they are dressing in the privacy of a house.

Shouldn't this be a matter for the police? From what I read, it looks like peeping in windows is a misdemeanor, but distribution of the semi-nude photo (of a child!!) obtained by peeping in the window on a private property is a felony.

Also, I know that non-famous people can get restraining orders against people who keep following them. Can famous people do that against persistent paparazzi?

[llisa]

And wouldn't this be considered distribution of child porn? I haven't seen the photo, and I don't know what constitutes child porn. But, I would think selling any nude or partly nude photos of a child would be illegal.

[RobertHenryEller]

Yes, it is.

[wmholt]

Wholeheartedly agree.

[24kgold]

Sue their A$s3s, Just because you are a celebrity, you still should have privacy in your own home because they pay a h311 of lot of taxes to have the same rights as everyone else. Fame shouldn't make your personal life irrelevant.

[bismillah001]

Just get some dogs, dude. A doberman or two would be work great :)

Ha! Paparazzi? We don't even get MAIL delivered to my house anymore.

[GunneraGirl]

he looks kinda omar sharif-ish in that photo.

[Yeah-Me]

Hot.. Isn't it?

[beautyontheinside]

like a fine wine he gets better with age..