Hugh Pickens writes writes: "Americans had some fun with Prince Harry earlier this week as two nude pictures of the Prince partying in a Las Vegas hotel appeared on internet web site TMZ, but some British subjects did not find the pictures quite as amusing as the Guardian reports that British newspaper editors are bound by the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice, which says that “everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life,” and that “it is unacceptable to photograph individuals in private places without their consent.” That didn't stop Rupert Murdoch's “The Sun” from becoming the first mainstream British newspaper to publish the photographs of a vacationing Prince Harry under the headline “Heir it is!” — a play on Harry’s status as third in line to the throne — showing the 27-year-old prince naked except for a watch and necklace, protecting his modesty with his cupped hands. The newspaper defends its decision to go ahead with publishing the image as being in the interests of a free press. “The Sun is NOT making any moral judgment about Harry’s nude frolics with girls in a Las Vegas hotel; far from it. He often sails close to the wind for a Royal – but he’s 27, single and a soldier. We like him,” the story reads. Media lawyer Mark Stephens criticized the decision by The Sun newspaper to publish nude photographs of Prince Harry as not in the public interest and a blatant publicity stunt.” “This is about the ludicrous situation where a picture can be seen by hundreds of millions of people around the world on the Internet,” responded David Dinsmore, managing editor of The Sun. "but can’t be seen in the nation’s favorite paper read by 8 million people every day.""