JTH, truth is only partly the issue. Do you know for a fact these stories about the footballer are true? How do you know?
Often what's true is quite difficult to determine anyway, and could even be a matter of opinion, e.g. can it be said to be true that a particular act or person is "evil"?
Having taken no interest in the footballer case at all, I couldn't tell you whether it's true or not. Even if I knew it to be true, I couldn't tell you all of the details for a fact. The press prints what people want to read, not necessarily the whole truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
I wouldn't be surprised to find that this story wasn't true. Bigger stories haven't been.
What our law concerns itself with more is whether something is in the public interest to know, not whether it's true or not. Some parts of the Max Mosley story were lies (e.g. the Nazi allegations). Other parts were true (the S&M acts). That doesn't mean the press had a right to print the true stuff. We didn't have a right to know.
In some instances, though, we do have a right to know. In the article I posted earlier (http://www.yourprivacy.co.uk/HumanRightsYour
RightsToPrivacy.html),
its conclusion makes a good job of summarising these instances:
If any person or company is found to be interfering with your right to privacy, they are in breach of the law – unless they can demonstrate the following:
* Their action was in accordance with law – having good legal basis.
* They acted in the interests of the law, national security, health protection, or economic protection of society.
* Their action was ‘necessary’ – it was specifically taken to suit the purpose, and it wasn’t out of proportion (like tapping a telephone line just because someone spent suspiciously long in the staff toilet).