More

Roman Polanski Sues French Media

ANGELA DOLAND   01/12/10 11:05 AM ET   AP

Roman Polanski

PARIS — The news snapshot shows Roman Polanski standing at a window, a thin slice of his face visible amid an opening in the curtains. The French paper that printed the photo saw it as a newsworthy depiction of the director's life under house arrest in his Swiss Alpine chalet.

Lawyers for the "Chinatown" director say that the December 2009 photo and many others invaded his privacy as well as his family's, and he and his wife are suing four French publications, two newspapers and two magazines for a total of about euro150,000 ($217,215).

In a hearing Tuesday, Polanski lawyer Marion Gregoire said the suits were an attempt "to put an urgent stop to the media spotlight" on the filmmaker and his family that has intensified in the months since a 32-year-old sex case against him was revived.

Several of the photos at issue depict Polanski's children, Elvis and Morgane – who, as minors, are especially protected by French media law.

"The legal case against Polanski in no way justifies the paparazzi's stalking of his wife and children," Gregoire said.

Invasion of privacy suits by celebrities are common in France, Polanski's permanent residence and the country where he had lived for three decades before he was arrested in September while en route to a Swiss film festival.

Polanski, arrested on a U.S. warrant, spent more than 60 days in detention in a Swiss jail before being transferred to house arrest in his Swiss vacation home on Dec. 4.

Authorities in Switzerland have not yet ruled on whether to extradite Polanski to Los Angeles. He had fled the U.S. in 1978 on the eve of sentencing after pleading guilty to having unlawful sex with a minor in 1977.

In hearings Tuesday, Polanski's lawyer said he has a deeply rooted fear of the media, which she traced back to the stabbing death of his pregnant second wife, Sharon Tate. The actress and four others were murdered by followers of cult figure Charles Manson in 1969.

Polanski has said he was horrified by rumors that swirled in the press before the killers were tracked down – rumors suggesting the victims had bizarre lifestyles and somehow brought the violence upon themselves.

Since then, Gregoire said, "Polanski has feared the media like the plague" and always sought to maintain his privacy.

Gregoire argued that Le Journal du Dimanche weekly newspaper should pay damages of euro10,000 for the photo of Polanski at his window.

The paper's lawyer, Christophe Bigot, held up a photo of a mass of photographers outside Polanski's chalet soon after his house arrest started.

"Can you seriously claim in this context that if you stand at the window you won't get your picture taken?" Bigot retorted. Arguing that the photo was a legitimate depiction of a major international news story, Bigot called the suit unwarranted and asked the judge to order Polanski to pay the newspaper's legal fees.

"The press can and should cover this type of case," Bigot said.

Polanski's lawyer asked for another euro10,000 in damages from Voici magazine for a photo of Polanski's wife, actress-singer Emmanuelle Seigner, walking down a street in Switzerland – a photo that the celebrity-oriented publication called "harmless."

Polanski and his wife are also targeting magazine VSD for a spread that included photos of their children at an airport, demanding a total of euro55,000. VSD's lawyer noted that the photos were taken in public and that the publication blurred the children's faces so they could not be recognized – a common practice in France. Decisions are expected Jan. 19.

A judge also heard a suit against Le Parisien newspaper last week, and that ruling is expected Friday.

In Polanski's sex case, the director was initially accused of raping a 13-year-old girl after plying her with champagne and a Quaalude pill during a 1977 modeling shoot. He was indicted on six felony counts, including rape by use of drugs, child molestation and sodomy, but he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of unlawful sexual intercourse.

He fled to his native France on the eve of sentencing in 1978 after spending 42 days a California prison for a psychiatric evaluation.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST MEDIA

PARIS — The news snapshot shows Roman Polanski standing at a window, a thin slice of his face visible amid an opening in the curtains. The French paper that printed the photo saw it as a newswor...
PARIS — The news snapshot shows Roman Polanski standing at a window, a thin slice of his face visible amid an opening in the curtains. The French paper that printed the photo saw it as a newswor...
Filed by Katherine Thomson  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 269
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
03:05 AM on 01/14/2010
Mr. Polanski has a lot of nerve whining about his "rights" considering.

Perhaps he shoould go back to jail so his wife and children can avoid the limelight he has brought down on himself and those around him and contemplate his "right" to the expectation of privacey.

He's a public figue who is sadly, newsworthy. If he wants privacey he needs to keep the curtains drawn.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LarryA
Rational & Intelligent - obviously a progressive
08:08 PM on 01/14/2010
Well said.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LarryA
Rational & Intelligent - obviously a progressive
08:57 PM on 01/13/2010
The posters here seem to be divided into 4 camps.

There are those who are flat-out defending and supporting Polanski. That is inexcusable and those people should really think about what they are saying.

There are those who believe you should remove emotion from the discussion and let the legal process handle this. While removing emotion about statutory rape is obviously challenging, I applaud these people and agree with them.

There are those who are zealous in their desire to see this man brought to justice (justice - not revenge). Given the horrific nature of what he did, you are completely justified in feeling this way, and I can relate.

Finally, there are those who attack me and others who wish justice to be served while portraying themselves as defenders of truth and justice (while refusing to condemn the illegal actions that the man took). Their position is ludicrous. If you support justice then there would be no reason to attack others who also do, regardless of how emotional they may be. Your irrational hostility is dumbfounding and you are clearly either defending Polanski and ashamed to admit it or you have some kind of anger issues that you need to work on.

I am sure I will be called names by the Polanski supporters and the pseudo justice-seekers, which alas will prove my point.
09:40 PM on 01/13/2010
This is my final comment.

Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:23 PM on 01/13/2010
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:06 PM on 01/13/2010
Just a quick note here-I get sense soard about 50 % of the time here, so some of my responses to certain posts have been deleted. I answered one question four times, and none of the responses made it through.

As an addendum to one of my previous posts: Two wrongs don't make a right, and the end does not justify the means.

Committing an injustice to avenge injustice is not justice.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LarryA
Rational & Intelligent - obviously a progressive
07:07 PM on 01/13/2010
Who is advocating committing any form of injustice?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LarryA
Rational & Intelligent - obviously a progressive
03:23 PM on 01/13/2010
Obviously you cannot reason with Polanski defenders. Not a surprise, as no rational, decent person could defend him.

While the majority believe Polanski should be brought to justic, it astounds me that there are people here defending a man who drugged and raped a child. Unless there are pedophiles posting here, not a person should be defending him. It is inexcusable, and shocking for a supposedly informed and reasonable site.

People defend him (some while claiming to not be) with ridiculous arguments. It was so long ago. The man paid for his crime (living in France and making movies). The victim doesn't want him sentenced. The judge was an egomaniac. This is the norm in Hollywood. Her mother brought her there. It wasn't forced as the drugged up girl didn't fight. The girl had sex before this. Prosecutors are doing this because they are embarassed. On and on…

These arguments are illogical and sickening. None of this changes the fact that Polanski gave drugs to a 13 year old girl, photographed her naked, and had sex with her. Nor the fact that he pled guilty to having sex with her. Or that he fled before sentencing. Or that the prosecutors are within their rights to bring him back. These are facts.

Anybody defending Polanski should take a look in the mirror and think about what kind of person they are. The rest of us know, maybe you should face facts and hopefully change.

This is my final comment.
04:43 PM on 01/13/2010
I don't know how I'll cope with the emptiness.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LarryA
Rational & Intelligent - obviously a progressive
04:53 PM on 01/13/2010
Spoken like a true Polanski supporter.
09:26 PM on 01/13/2010
Maybe you could spend some time at a rape crisis center, and perhaps come to realize just how horrific an act Polanski committed. To a 13 year old girl.

To a 13 year old girl.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:18 PM on 01/13/2010
Speaking in defense of the law and the legal system is not support for the defendant.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LarryA
Rational & Intelligent - obviously a progressive
05:20 PM on 01/13/2010
So then let me hear you say that you think Polanski should be brought back to the country to face the legal system that you claim to speak in defense of.

You will only evade this question I am sure.

Cat got the tongue?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
oregon bird
12:55 PM on 01/13/2010
Just give me money, that's what I want! And then, I'll be set for my next run for freedom -- look out girls, here I come!
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
KIVPossum
Moldova Marsupial
04:26 AM on 01/13/2010
Ship his butt to prison. Leave his children alone. The kids are not responsible for what their dad did.
05:30 PM on 01/13/2010
Agree, not that he cared about the 13 year old he exploited.
03:21 AM on 01/13/2010
This man's nerve continues to amaze me. He's seems to want to have everything both ways. BTW, I'm so tired of the media calling this a "sex case". It is not.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LarryA
Rational & Intelligent - obviously a progressive
11:55 PM on 01/12/2010
Just waiting for all these "other facts" that the Polanski supporters keep citing...

I wonder why it is taking so long
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
quindy
quindy
11:30 PM on 01/12/2010
Before his arrest he and his family were happy to pose for photographers.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LarryA
Rational & Intelligent - obviously a progressive
11:36 PM on 01/12/2010
He also didn't mind taking pictures of under age children himself.
05:30 PM on 01/13/2010
he certainly exploited the media in encouraging people like BHL to defend him - repeatedly.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:58 PM on 01/12/2010
Ok, I get censored about 1/2 the time here on the HP, so I am going to try and nutshell this thing for you:

Posters here do not know the facts of the case or the applicable California law. There are plenty of places online that you can use the Google to find what will allow you to study the unemotional facts and the law in this case.

There were other crimes committed that day, and not just by Polanski. This is not to defend Polanski in any way.

The LA-DA screwed this thing up from the get-go. They continue to screw it up.

If you cannot claim to be anti-rape if you are pro-prison rape.

Justice is a process not an event, and is about punishment not retribution.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LarryA
Rational & Intelligent - obviously a progressive
11:04 PM on 01/12/2010
A well written post. The only problem is that you claim to not be defending Polanski, yet that is exactly what you have been doing.

Since the posters here "do not know the facts", but you do, yet you refuse to state them, your arguments are suspect in motive.

And bringing Polanski back to America to face the justice process and face his punishment is exactly what they are doing.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:18 PM on 01/12/2010
I am not defending Polanski. I do know the facts that are in the public arena. I am not going to regurgitate them here, for the simple reason that they are available elsewhere.

I have no motive other than supporting the truth and justice. Justice is a process, not an event.

The entire Justice System is based on trust. If you can't trust the system, it will break down. The plea bargain system exists so that trials are avoided for all of the reasons that make avoiding trials a good idea. If you can't trust that the state won't renege on a plea bargain, no one would plea bargain and the system would collapse.

As far as bringing Polanski back to face justice, why haven't the DA's been working on this all along? Why now?

The answer is that the DA's office was embarrassed by a documentary film.

If the perpetrator was a trailer dweller from Pacoima, this case would be dispensed with over the phone.
11:23 PM on 01/12/2010
Larry, I like the cut of your jib. It's a yoeman's task, trying to reason with Polanski's supporters. Thank you for your efforts.

I wonder if any of the people that are defending him have daughters. Or sisters. Or even mothers.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DG3
09:41 PM on 01/12/2010
Polanski cares about children NOW?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LarryA
Rational & Intelligent - obviously a progressive
09:45 PM on 01/12/2010
I wonder if he would mind if the photographers taking pictures of his children did to them what he did to that 13 year old.
11:05 PM on 01/12/2010
You are both sick and stupid.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LarryA
Rational & Intelligent - obviously a progressive
11:17 PM on 01/12/2010
Sick and stupid for wanting Polanski to be brought to justice for raping a 13 year old girl? That's a new one.
08:15 PM on 01/12/2010
Drugging someone and sodomizing him or her, regardless of age, is never consensual sex. This was blatant rape.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:53 PM on 01/13/2010
Here is a question for you: If this crime happened the way you say it did, why wasn't the defendant charged that crime?

Forceable rape is just that, regardless of the age of the victim. Perhaps a trip to the California Penal Code, available online using the Google, might be in order.

You can hold the soft-core porn details of the crime, we are all well aware of what happend, just give me good legal reasoning why the very serious crime you allege was not charged.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LarryA
Rational & Intelligent - obviously a progressive
12:59 PM on 01/13/2010
Check your facts.

A grand jury charged him with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under fourteen, and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor. He cut a deal and pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse, a charge which is synonymous under Californian law with statutory rape.

Statuatory rape is rape. Hence the reason the word "rape" is included.

Fact check yourself.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LarryA
Rational & Intelligent - obviously a progressive
08:12 PM on 01/12/2010
I have to say, the fact that there are multiple people on here defending a man who drugged and had sex with a 13 year old girl SICKENS me. What is wrong with people?

There is absolutely NO defense to what he did. None.

I don't want to hear anything else about how he technically pled guilty to having sex with a minor and not child rape, or how the mother should not have left the girl with him. While that may all be true, he is still a grown man who is responsible for his actions. And his actions were to give pills and champagne to a 13 year old girl and have sex with her every which way. That is what happened.

There is NO grey area here. And I'm sorry to sound harsh, but anybody who defends him is a bad person. Plain and simple.
08:37 PM on 01/12/2010
You voice is the voice of reason. Polanski should be in a REAL prison cell.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:31 PM on 01/12/2010
He has been in a real prison cell several times for this crime.
05:33 PM on 01/13/2010
Fanned. Agree completely.
He needs to be brought back to do jail time. he is a rap.ist and a fugitive.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lozange
Aiming around wondrously
06:49 PM on 01/12/2010
Funny how his crime involved a camera, a photo shoot, and pedophiliac material!? What, he can't stand his picture taken? Too tame for him?
06:08 PM on 01/12/2010
All I got to say is Princess Diana and French journalists! He is absolutely right to sue. Paparazzi need to be given boundaries.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LarryA
Rational & Intelligent - obviously a progressive
07:51 PM on 01/12/2010
And shouldn't a grown man have boundaries? Maybe something along the lines of not drugging and having sex with a 13 year old? Just maybe.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:58 PM on 01/12/2010
Love to LarryA.
photo
JenniferWest
FORWARD FOR OBAMA 2012! We Won't Go Back!
04:39 PM on 01/13/2010
So because he's under house arrest and being detained for this crime, anything goes! His family deserves to be harassed? Why don't they just break down the door and take all the pictures they want. Come on the guy deserves it. Your logic hurts my head!
08:39 PM on 01/12/2010
I think Mr. Polanski should be in a REAL PRISON CELL. I also think the paparazzi should leave his wife and children alone.