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

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...