The Max Moseley Libel Case

[sp1814]

Max Moseley has won his libel claim against the News Of The World:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2452790/Max-Mo sley-wins-%27Nazi%27-SandampM-privacy-case.htm l

Do you think that this is a worrying development and has implications for the freedom of the press/freedom of speech.

Or do you think that just because the public is interested in something, doesn't necessarily mean it's in "the public's interest".

[Oneeyedvic]

This is not and never has been about the public interest.

If I was to have sexual role plays with my wife about being a sex slave (I wish!), then would this mean that I condoned slavery?

Of course not.

He was into some S&M which although not my cup of tea, seemed to be harmless.

The News of the Screws said that they would pay a prostitute �25,000 for this information (although they did only pay her half the amount). Do you think that some people may exaggerate claims for that kind of money?

Why is this in the public interest?

[Gromit]

There was never a libel claim against the News of the World.

He sued them for Intrusion of Privacy.

Regardless of whether you approve of his antics, it was clearly an intrusion. The paper claimed the public interest card but the Judge (there was no Jury) rejected that.

I do not see it as a worrying development. The opposite in fact. The press have a long record of shattering peoples lives and then claiming it is in the public interest, when really it is in the interest of titillating the public and lining their pockets. The recent Robert Murat case springs to mind. Maybe they will be more careful in future.

[jake-the-peg]

Definately the latter.

Newspapers have become disturbingly fast and loose with facts.

In the Moseley case they obviously didn't think that he'd have the nerve to drag his lurid personal life through the courts.

They were wrong.

Personally I think deliberate or recklessly misleading publications should actually be an criminal offense.

[sp1814]

Sorry yes - you're right. This case has nothing to do with libel (was distracted when posting).

Please think of this post as 'The Max Moseley Press Intrusion Case'

[Oneeyedvic]

Of course the trouble is that mud sticks.

Despite the fact that he won his case, he will always be known for having sexual antic as a Nazi concentration camp guard.

Just as Murat will always be viewed with suspicion

[Gromit]

People will always believe what they read in their newspapers which is more fool them.

Unfortunately, the amount of column inches written about Moseley's win will be a fraction of those written detailing his salacious private life.

The News of the World's defence was pathetic, and news before the verdict was that they were expecting to lose.

The award of record damages was because the intrusion of his privacy was compounded by the assertion he was acting the role of torturing a concentration camp victim. The fact that the ladies were in skimpy and stockings, and these were not de rigueur dress in Nazi death camps probably helped the Judge reach his verdict.

[jordielaz]

Weren't the 'ladies' prostitutes though - and therefore illegal?

[Oneeyedvic]

In the UK prostitution is not illegal however soliciting is illegal

[flip_flop]

Gulp - I completely agree with vic, gromit and jake.

The NOTW tries to hold itself up as a campaigning family friendly paper, when in fact it is just a pernicious festering rag.

The whole Paul Jewell thing was just as disgusting, yes, he was playing away from home (excuse the pun), but how is that even remotely newsworthy. Morally he may be a bit iffy indulging in a bit of extra-marital, but that's it.

Nasty nasty 'newspaper'.

[jno]

I've never found myself feeling sympathy with the NOW and I don't now. People's sex lives are their own business, even wacky ones. I wonder if the newspaper itself was in any way guilty of soliciting sex for money when they offered to pay the young lady in question?

[jordielaz]

excuse my ignorance Oneeyedvic, how is it possible to be a prosititue without soliciting being involved

[Oneeyedvic]

If I said, why not go and see Madame X at 123 This Street. She will charge you �1000 for a really good time, Madame X would not be soliciting.

[rojash]

The only problem I have with this is that, if they were willing to pay 25 grand to get the story, then clearly they expected to make considerably more than that in increased profits. Looked at that way, a 60 grand penalty seems grossly inadequate.