Freedom of Speech and Privacy

I see that in the wake of the Mosley judgement, the media has been getting its collective knickers in a knot claiming that today marks a less free press. I’d have a little more respect for them if they took it on the chin and accepted that this was an unwarranted intrusion into someone’s private life for the express purpose of titillation and selling a scummy rag to an indiscriminating public who are prepared to pay for what amounts to soft porn.

The proffered argument being that this means privacy laws by the back door. Generally, I don’t see a need for privacy laws and this judgement confirms that feeling. The law worked as it is supposed to. The News of the World breached Mosley’s privacy and he sought and obtained redress through civil law.

There are those who argue that he brought F1 into disrepute, but there are two points to make on that one; firstly, the activities were private and no one else’s damned business and secondly, the F1 world is so far up its own self-righteous arse that it is doubtful it has a reputation to tarnish.

The BBC asks will the case affect the media?

Instead we have “a privacy law by the back door” – a series of legal judgments that may or may not create precedents on which subsequent legal decisions can be based.

They are based on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Caroline Kean, head of litigation at the media law firm Wiggin, said: “The Human Rights Act introduced a statutory right to respect for one’s private life, home and correspondence and a corresponding right to freedom of expression.”

“Ever since, the courts have been struggling to find the balance between the two.”

I’m not a great fan of the Human Rights act; again, deeming it an unnecessary piece of statute law. But to suggest that this case will create a privacy law is absurd. The press stepped across a line. Oh, sure it’s a fine line they tell us. True enough, as is the Great Wall of China. Look, if these people are so dense they are unable to determine the difference between what is in the public interest and therefore publishable and what the public may find interesting but is in fact no one else’s damned business, then the journalists and editors concerned are in the wrong jobs. There is no need to struggle to find a balance – it is blindingly obvious to anyone with a modicum of common sense.

Rees-Mogg has a whinge in today’s Times. He uses press freedom as a justification. He argues (weirdly) that Mosley cannot expect confidence from, say, a lawyer under new legislation, so should not expect it from a dominatrix.

It seems absurd to argue that he should nevertheless be entitled to a higher degree of confidentiality from the women that he hired to play dominatrix roles in sadomasochistic ventures.

What is absurd, is Rees-Mogg’s conclusion. This has nothing to do with recent legislation on client confidentiality (which I oppose, incidentally). Nor is it about confidentiality in the S&M world. It is about a bunch of sleaze merchants invading a private function and plastering it all over their website and newspaper. They did so in order to sell more copies of their disreputable little rag – not because it was in the public interest. This activity is beyond the pale, it is indefensible.

Any reduction of the ability of the press to investigate and to publish is likely to have serious consequences against the general welfare of society.

This is the canard trotted out by journalists in defence of the indefensible. No one and no judgement is affecting their ability to report truthfully on matters of public interest. They are perfectly at liberty to go after politicians who preach one thing and do another or to hound illicit criminal activity. Mosley was engaging in an activity that was legal and private – it was none of the press’ business. That the more prurient may have got off on letting everyone know how “disgusted” they were – in the most lurid detail possible, of course – is neither here nor there. Nothing in this case affects the ability of the press to engage in legitimate investigative journalism. Simply invading the privacy of celebrities for the benefit of titillating their readers is not legitimate journalism, it is the behaviour of bottom feeders and quite rightly has been judged as such.

In his judgment, Mr Justice Eady followed a line that many English judges might also have followed. He was more worried about a breach of confidentiality than by the proceedings that were disclosed. He virtually abolished the “defence of inequity” that used to give some protection to the disclosure of scandalous but not criminal events. Mr Mosley’s employment of prostitutes to indulge his masochistic fantasies was not criminal, but it was not reputable. It did not deserve the protection of the law.

The judge was absolutely on the button. There should be no “defence of inequity”. What arrant nonsense. In effect; because we disapprove, exposing it is okay. What planet is this man on? Rees-Mogg may find S&M activities iniquitous, but others do not. It absolutely did deserve the protection of the law and while there are idiots like Rees-Mogg about, will continue to do so. Just who the fuck is Rees-Mogg to decide whether activities using paid-for participants are reputable or not?

My only regret is that the damages payment was not significantly more. One year’s turnover might have caused the shareholders to pull the bastards up.