Over at the Groan, Max Mosley and Roy Greenslade discuss the conflict between press freedom and intrusion. This is always going to be a balancing act, yet one that should be achievable using common sense. It shouldn’t take too much working out to decide when a public figure’s private life becomes the object of public interest – as opposed to interesting to the public. So when Greenslade makes this point regarding Mosley’s exposure a couple of years back:
But would you not regard a person of your stature, in the job you were in, as being somebody whose private life needed to be under scrutiny?
The answer is a clear “no”. His personal foibles had no effect on his role in F1, so were no business of anyone else, least of all the prurient readership of the NOTW. Mosley had the money to pursue the paper through the courts – something denied the little people who are damaged by such exposes – and his victory was a good thing. Although it is doubtful that the paper has learned anything from it.
That said, I am reluctant to have privacy laws in place as I can see that the consequences may well outweigh the benefits. We do need a press that is free and we do need investigative journalism that exposes the wrongdoings of people in power and influence. We also need some comeback when they go too far – especially the small people who find their lives and reputations damaged by heedless papers who may, at some indeterminate point in the future publish a grudging retraction buried deep in the paper out of proportion to the original article.
What is amusing is that the comments always bring out the idiot factor.
If you have nothing to be ashamed of, then press freedom holds no fears.
If you do have things to be ashamed of, and get found out, then don’t bleat on about imvasion of privacy.
Sigh… Because, hoddle1, you twat, the press never act maliciously, never get it wrong and never ruin lives and reputations needlessly. And, of course, Mosley’s preferences are deemed by our society to be shameful. Once, homosexuals were similarly deemed to be shameful – such that their actions were illegal. S&M between consenting adults is legal but still frowned upon, so those with the inclination – that they cannot help any more than can homosexuals – have to keep it to themselves, precisely because of judgemental fuckwits like you.
One final thought on this – it was mentioned over at Anna Raccoon’s a few days back, but worth repeating. Never, ever talk to the press. They are not your friends and anything you say will be twisted and used against you. Say nothing. They are going to make it up anyway, they might as well do it without any ammunition from you.
How do you feel about the idea of getting rid of all laws against libel and slander? Now if someone says something bad about you, if you don’t sue they’ll assume you’re guilty. Without the law, with everyone knowing that everyone else can say what they want, the burden of proof will slip back on the accuser.
It’s not privacy laws as such which are the problem – it’s the culture of litigation.
TT – I don’t see that one flying. Assume, for example a red top publishing a list of “known paedos”. Will the mob assume that the paper has got it wrong? Will they pause to see what evidence there is to support the allegation? Or will they march on the accused’s home and torch it?
Libel is a tort and is no less damaging than a tort against the person or property, so rightly there is recourse in law. if someone damages your reputation to the point where it destroys your life or livelihood, then you should be able to sue.
So, while our libel laws do need an overhaul, one of those considerations needs to be access for the little people that the papers casually abuse and throw away in their pursuit of profit.
That said, Mosley is primarily concerned with the invasion of privacy. Should journalists poke about in peoples’ private lives in pursuit of a story? The answer is; sometimes. If we have an MP passing laws on the one hand and breaking those very laws in private, damned right, it is in the public interest. The same with prohibitionists who like a snort in their spare time.
But, Mosley’s sexual preferences were of no concern to anyone. Sure, those who support the paper argue that he was deceiving his wife and family. That is between him and them, nothing to do with the general public – just as his sexual preferences are nothing to do with the general public.