Court Finds In Favour Of Mosley

[lupestripe]

For once common sense has prevailed. This court case posed a significant threat to civil liberties and the fact that the court has ruled in favour of Max Mosley protects those liberties for those who dare to live an unconventional lifestyle.

What people do in the privacy of their own houses should be their own business and this verdict has protected us from an increasingly intrusive and nefarious media, one that so often fails to exercise restraint and responsibility.

Mosley wins court case over orgy

Mr Justice Eady said Mosley could expect privacy for consensual "sexual activities (albeit unconventional)" and "...there was no public interest or other justification for the clandestine recording, for the publication of the resulting information and still photographs, or for the placing of the video extracts on the News of the World website - all of this on a massive scale."

Irrespective of Eady not calling this a "landmark" case, it still sets a precedence and proves that civil liberties are still valued by some in this country.

Comments

[crystamartin.livejournal.com]

For those of us who do live alternatively it IS a landmark. For pro-dommes especially it's even more vital.

And a major poke in the eye to the scum sucking tabloids. Take that, shitrags!

[lupestripe.livejournal.com]

I'm trying to work out where the public interest part of this story lies. I can understand the moral issues against prostitution and also the fact that he cheated on his wife of 45 years. Yet these have become secondary issues to the act itself. The fact that it was alleged it was a Nazi style orgy was what prompted publication of this yet it seems to have moved on to cover the whole bdsm scene.

The problem is the S&M side of things which, it is stated by the paper that "Taking part in depraved and brutal S&M orgies on a regular basis does not in our opinion constitute the fit and proper behaviour to be expected of someone in his hugely influential position" says the paper.

This implies that anyone who indulges in S&M is not fit to hold a position of influence. Why is that? I don't understand the link? How can you be untrustworthy if you are into S&M? Indeed, surely S&M implies having more trust in someone rather than less as, particularly if you are a submissive, you are putting your own life/well-being in the hands of someone else. What people do in their own private lives should remain just that and it should have no bearing whatsoever on the reputation of that person outside that sphere.

[lupestripe.livejournal.com]

The damages were punitive. I can understand it from the point of view of cheating on his wife as it could be seen as an action of someone who is untrustworthy from the point of view of his own marriage but even then, that shouldn't impinge on his job. The hiring of prostitutes? Well many companies would sack an employee for that but again, how does it affect his capacity in the role he is paid to fulfill? And as for BDSM, it becomes even more ridiculous...

[avon-deer.livejournal.com]

Too right.

[lupestripe.livejournal.com]

Reading the tabloids today has just boiled my piss even more to be honest.

[schnee.livejournal.com]

Good to hear, yes. That being said:

The newspaper faces an additional bill of around £850,000 after the judge ordered it to pay Mr Mosley's legal fees, estimated at £450,000, on top of its own costs of £400,000.

As they say... if there's one lawyer in town, he goes bankrupt; if there's two lawyers in town, they both get rich.

(And what is it with people calling for the guy's resignation? Are they surprised he's got a sexuality? Certainly they can't be that naive...)

It's called "sleeze"

[alexf0x.livejournal.com]

Even if the judge has ruled in his favor (and rightly too because it was an unjust breach of privacy), the public will still view what he was doing in private as "sleezy", and if you have that tag over your head in the position that he is in, then you are seen as untrustworthy (i.e if he's doing this thing in private, then what else are you doing?) or an embarrassment (even if what he was doing wasn't illegal).

Sleeze is a stinky taint if you’re in a position of that power, and if you have it then your position becomes largely untenable.

Re: It's called "sleeze"

[schnee.livejournal.com]

Yes, but it *shouldn't* be like that.

Re: It's called "sleeze"

[lupestripe.livejournal.com]

Sadly it is, particularly when the tabloids stir things up in the way that they so often do.

Re: It's called "sleeze"

[schnee.livejournal.com]

*noddles* Yeah... :/

Re: It's called "sleeze"

[lupestripe.livejournal.com]

It sucks, I thought we had a free liberal society. Evidently most people are closed minded and this distresses me :(

Re: It's called "sleeze"

[schnee.livejournal.com]

Yeah - it's sad but true. >_>

Re: It's called "sleeze"

[lupestripe.livejournal.com]

The press are saying that this ruling is AGAINST liberty. I think it's FOR common decency. The press shouldn't have the right to invade people's private lives to impugn people who are good at their jobs. Private and public lives are two different spheres and rarely should they be connected.

Re: It's called "sleeze"

[schnee.livejournal.com]

*noddles* Indeed, yes.

FWIW, it *is* a ruling against liberty, but that's not automatically a bad thing; I think this is a classic case of "your right to swing your fist ends where my face starts". People all too often forget that while freedom's important, so's non-interference, and in fact, the former cannot exist without the latter. Nobody would argue it should be legal to randomly beat up people you don't like, even though laws prohibiting that ARE restricting your freedom; this is really the same thing, although the beating-up occurs on an intellectual rather than physical level here.

But then, I'm probably giving them too much credit when I say "forget" - chances are that they're well aware of this and that they're deliberately misrepresenting and oversimplifying in order to bolster their own claims.

Re: It's called "sleeze"

[lupestripe.livejournal.com]

In a forward thinking and liberal society, you have to accept that freedom is a balance and that there is quite clearly a public and a private sphere. I think filming or bugging someone is wrong and indeed it is an illegal act in itself. So why haven't the NotW been prosecuted? They argue it could affect investigative journalism - well yes, it could - but then if this story generally was in the public interest then I don't think most people would have an issue with it.

Liberty is a multi-faceted thing. Should the press have liberty to report what goes on behind closed doors or should I have the liberty to expect that my private life is my own? Considering these newspapers are the very ones that thunder against ID cards, DNA databases and the Government intruding into peoples' private lives by tapping phones and monitoring emails, their stance is entirely hypocritical to me. I have a bigger problem with this than anything else.

Re: It's called "sleeze"

[schnee.livejournal.com]

*noddles* Well said, yes...

[shep-shepherd.livejournal.com]

Back at you, tabloid douchebags.

[lupestripe.livejournal.com]

This will only delay the inevitable not halt it. I'm sure more lurid sex tales of celebrities will ensue.

[alexf0x.livejournal.com]

True there is money to be made in the sex lives of the rich and famous (even if I don't personally care about it).

My only though is would things be different if Mosley *had* be caught performing an illegal sex act, or if the clams that it had really been a SS themed sex orgy were true.

[lupestripe.livejournal.com]

I think that the reason Mosley was caught out was more to do with who is father is than anything else. It's a sad case but mud sticks in the media and, although I know how easy it is to claim spurious rumours as facts, I know how easily it is done. It isn't right but sadly it is reality.

I fear that the tabloids have used his father is to sensationalise the story. I may be wrong but there is no link between BDSM and fascism.

[alexf0x.livejournal.com]

Well yes, the thing about the case has been that 90% of what the media said "was" true, even Mosley *had* to admit that, but the Nazi bit was false.

This was how he was able to take them to court and win, as really the case was won over a libel fact, and not the invasion of privacy.

It may have been seen as sexually deviant behaviour as far as the judge and jury were concerned, but there was no evidence that it was as twisted as the media had been claiming.

It was extra spin to create more sales with a really scandalous story. But don't don't get me wrong even if the story had gone to press without the fabricated SS implications, then it would of still been damaging, but it would not of had the impact. Getting caught in a S&M orgy would get you into the gossip and scandal pages that everybody ignores (save celebrity watchers), an SS themed bondage orgy would get the story elevated towards the front page. That's the difference, and difference with the paparazzi money involved.

As for the links between BDSM and fascism, there is *no* social or political link to Nazi philosophy. However I can see how the domineering look of Nazi, SS and Gestapo uniforms (lots of evil looking, peak caps and leather) has influenced the look and feel of BDSM culture (notably with uniform based play). As a consequences to the untrained it could look like it could imply Nazi culture or philosophy, which we know in reality isn't true.

[lupestripe.livejournal.com]

It was the Nazi bit that was the main crux initially, largely because of who is father was. However, sadly, BDSM is going to have overtones of Nazism to the ignorant majority because they are quite happy to jump to conclusions and demonise anything they don't understand without even thinking about it. That's life I'm afraid, it's the crux of racism, homophobia and sexism - I don't understand it, therefore it must be bad and we must kill it.

It was won over a libel fact but today he has said that he is going to now sue the NotW over libel. I don't know if this is a good thing as the principle here was privacy and that was ultimately what he won over. We will see I guess.

Regarding the shitrags, to be honest I would rather they focussed on celebrity than politics. Millions of people are too easily influenced by these papers on politics and then go out to vote. That is when their influence becomes truly poisonous. As I elluded to in the second article, the Sun is now blaming Europe for this ruling yet there is no connection whatsoever. That is concerning to me.