Only the public interest can justify invasions of privacy
Two weeks ago Max Mosley won his privacy case against the News of the World and received an award of damages in the sum of £60,000 plus costs. The case centered on Mr Mosley’s participation in an S&M session with a German prison theme involving consenting (and paid) adults.
The newspaper had supplied one of the participating women with a hidden video camera. She recorded the session and the newspaper published not only parts of the “shocking video”, but also its take on the session which, it said, had a Nazi theme.
But Mr Justice Eady found no evidence of a Nazi theme and that the newspaper had invaded Mr Mosley’s privacy. Mr Mosley is now bringing a libel action.
Following the judgment, elements of the media became extremely vocal. The central theme of most arguments was that Britain now has a privacy law “by stealth” and that this judgment heralds the end of freedom of speech. For the record, I am not against free speech.
So, what are we to make of this judgment? Is it really game over for the press? And is democracy really at risk? Of course not. The judgment is unremarkable in all but the amount of damages awarded. Even the judge points out that there is nothing “landmark” about it, and that it cannot reasonably be suggested that it will inhibit serious investigative journalism.
So here’s the problem: the scaremongers who filled the airwaves and who appeared in our papers should realise that each time they try to use their freedom-of-expression trump card in support of nothing more than articles involving titillation, celebrity culture or gossip, they do this important freedom a real disservice.
Whether the tabloids like it or not, freedom of expression doesn’t trump everything else. It has to be balanced against other rights such as the right to privacy. We don’t have a privacy law “by stealth”, as many have suggested. Rather the law derives from the Human Rights Act 1998, which Parliament itself enacted.
The Mosley judgment merely followed developing case law, most notably Naomi Campbell’s privacy case against the Daily Mirror, which went all the way to the House of Lords (twice).
The highest court in the land acknowledged in that case that privacy
is equally as important as freedom of expression. Eady J was simply applying the law. It couldn’t be further removed from a law being introduced “by stealth”. Indeed, no one I spoke to in the privacy world before the judgment thought the case would go the other way. That in itself is, in my view, extremely telling.
It’s about time that restrictions were in place. Intrusions into private lives should stop, unless there’s a legitimate public interest in overriding the protection, such as for the exposure of a serious crime.
In Los Angeles this week there’s to be a meeting by a regional task force regarding the activities of the “overly-aggressive paparazzi”, many of whom have caused or at least been involved in car chases, trespass and harassment of individuals. How long is it before someone is seriously injured or even killed? Members of the general public are at risk from such behaviour too.
Not that the paparazzi’s actions can be justified, but they wouldn’t behave in such a way if there was no market for their pictures. Tabloids and magazines that publish such material should make some tough decisions or they too will share in the blame. This type of behaviour rarely occurs in the pursuit of serious journalism or the exposure of a serious crime. Next time someone mentions a risk to freedom of expression I, for one, will be looking behind the scaremongering.
Readers' comments (4)
Dr. F. W. Knox | 11-Aug-2008 9:08 pm
Max Mosley. privacy question
It has been repeatedly stated that this story had no public interest as "nobody knew who Mosley is". We are told, here in N.America, that each Formula 1 race is viewed by an estimated 350 million people. Most of these people, will know the name and position of Mosley and feel strongly that they do not want a pervert as the head of "their" sport. In reading hundreds of comments on a huge number of articles on the matter, most have been condemning of the man.
All this apart from one man, one lawyer, Mr. Eady, who is a purveyor of the law as HE SEES IT. We will see what a jury thinks of it all in the next round. Thank goodness it will be jury this time; at least a judgement of his "peers"
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 12-Aug-2008 1:36 pm
Head of a public institution - public interest
Mr Benaim is naive in his belief that the Mosley judgment will not hamper serious investigative journalism.
In the past politicians cavorting with prostitutes led to resignations for the very real reason that they lay themselves open to blackmail and/or manipulation.
Now if a politician or member of any strategic public institution (such as President of the FIA) is a member of the “BDSM community” for instance, as many blogging Mosley supporters have been referring to themselves throughout this case, they will attempt to use the Mosley judgment to conceal their activities; likewise this could apply to private individuals in occupations involving children.
Newspapers will have to conclude that they are not exposing “a serious crime” and not publish for fear of litigation.
No sitting duck; in an interview given last Tuesday reproduced on ITV.com, Mosely says Lord Stevens warned him before the event and Mosely believes it is likely that a leading figure in FI helped the News of the World set up the sting because Bernie Ecclestone gave him a name in January.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Baffled by B-sh@t | 13-Aug-2008 1:05 pm
I am a member of that 'public' and I have 'interests'
“Not considered to be in the public interest”?
I would suggest that this is unquestionably a blinkered view shared by few others than Mr Justice Eady himself and persons of similar “celebrity” or notable status (to that previously enjoyed by Mr Mosley) choosing of their own volition to abuse or put at risk their positions due to their persuasions(?).
At best, this surely demonstrates a damning example of complete ineptitude on the part of Mr Justice Eady towards having a capacity to identify who the ‘public’ are and having any familiarity whatsoever with their ‘interests.’
Quote; “But Mr Justice Eady found no evidence of a Nazi theme and that the newspaper had invaded Mr Mosley’s privacy”
Call me a cynic, but seemingly quite to the contrary; it has been dutifully recorded that when Mr. Mosley “punished” a half naked woman whom had earlier been subjected to a degrading & humiliating enactment of screening for head-lice, beatings & Germanic verbal abuse (a woman whom was coincidentally clad in striped prisoner uniform seemingly reminiscent of the nature of clothing issued to Jews incarcerated in Auschwitz), he called out the count in a guttural German.
One dominatrix wore a Luftwaffe uniform; another, to whom Mr. Mosley spoke in German, wore a military "guard's" uniform; and a third protested, "But we are the Aryan race, the blondes.”
Excuse my apparent ignorance, but I consider myself to be very much representative of a ‘member of the public’ and cannot make any claim to be personally employed or associated with the Legal Profession. Therefore, my more learned friends, I seek your elucidation. Kindly enlighten me in words of few syllables; in-fact, a simple ‘(a)’ or ‘(b)’ will suffice. What exactly does the “role play” scenario enacted for personal gratification accurately described in the paragraph above actually depict in your opinion?
Is it, (a) a typical Wormwood Scrubs/Holloway-esque ‘normal’ prison environment which one would hope the likes of Mr Justice Eady would be entirely familiar or
(b) A scene depicting torturous activities seemingly conveyed with Nazi-esque overtones?
Even if your interpretation of events leans towards (b); you may further be of the considered opinion, “So what if Mr. Mosley, 68, son of England's fascist leader of the 1930s wishes to conduct himself in this manner; this is not of newsworthy relevance or of interest to anyone but Mr Mosley himself”(?).
Similarly, it may be felt that as he was a relative unknown outside the world of motor sport, Mr Mosley represented unfair game to the media”(?); Really? Max Mosley is in-fact President of the FIA, which consists of 213 national member organisations throughout 125 countries worldwide representing many thousands of individual members.
The FIA are undoubtedly powerful, represent huge wealth and have tentacles within the highest levels of commercialism and their operations operate consistently within the full media gaze.
Max Mosley’s duties as President regularly find him representing not only this huge organisation but also to some extent the UK to the likes of Heads of State and Royalty.
Moreover, as much as being synonymous with the glamour surrounding motor sport, the FIA supposedly represents many seemingly wholesome responsibilities too, such as the likes of nurturing young talent into sport, promotion of road safety and to represent the general interests of motoring organisations and motor
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Baffled by B-sh@t | 13-Aug-2008 5:25 pm
I am a member of that 'public' and I have 'interests' (cont.d)
As a member of the ‘public’, I am not immediately aware of the name of my County’s Police Commissioner; nor am I particularly familiar with the extra-curricular activities of my children’s School Headmaster; likewise the Head of the City Hospital, Leader of the Council, Head of Race Relations, the Head of the German Embassy in London or the likes; but I unashamedly admit that would very much have an active ‘interest’ in being made aware of any such individuals involving themselves in practices similar to those recorded for Max Mosley in order for myself to form a vested opinion .
In this particular case, add to the mix any connotations which may be derived & implied by Max Mosley’s genealogy and surely any claim of this being a report-worthy item to the interest of others outside of Max Mosley himself would be wholly justified?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment