Great news from Strasbourg where the European Court of Human Rights has thrown out a case brought by Max Mosley, the former head of world motor racing, who was seeking a ruling from judges to force journalists to give people advance warning when they plan to publish juicy stories about their private lives.
Mosley had his long-time addiction to sado-masochistic sex exposed bythe News of the World some years ago and won sixty thousand pounds in compensation over reports that he had indulged in "Nazi-style" orgies. The newspaper got that wrong. There was nothing particularly "Nazi-style" about his old-fashioned upper class preference for group sex with a bit of pain on the side. But his compensation was granted not for inaccuracy or defamation but because the British court recognised there had been "gross intrusion" of his privacy by journalists.
Mosley then went to Europe to try to get the Strasbourg judges to go further and rein in the press whenever they threaten the privacy of people like him. By forcing journalists to tell people affected by their stories before they go to press, he said, individuals would have the opportunity to go to law to prevent publication.
But the court has decided that media are not obliged to warn their victims in advance. If they did in some cases it might limit press freedom by opening the door to mischievous injunctions designed to prevent the people's right to know about the private lives of the rich, powerful and famous.
The case is important, because although journalists are bound by an ethical responsibility to give people an opportunity to answer allegations made against them, they must also have the right to publish stories about powerful people who may use their power to suppres the truth. And the tales of super-injunctions that have been the talk of the Twittering classes recently show how dangerous that can be.
Shoddy journalism gave Mosley an opportunity to try to make his case, and there are many like him in the UK who will use injunctions -- super and not so super -- to protect themselves from legitimate scrutiny. Now the courts have given a clear signal that people who live in the spotlight of publicity and for whom public image is key to their livelihood must accept that they are subject to greater scrutiny than ordinary people. It's the price of fame.
Mosley had his long-time addiction to sado-masochistic sex exposed bythe News of the World some years ago and won sixty thousand pounds in compensation over reports that he had indulged in "Nazi-style" orgies. The newspaper got that wrong. There was nothing particularly "Nazi-style" about his old-fashioned upper class preference for group sex with a bit of pain on the side. But his compensation was granted not for inaccuracy or defamation but because the British court recognised there had been "gross intrusion" of his privacy by journalists.
Mosley then went to Europe to try to get the Strasbourg judges to go further and rein in the press whenever they threaten the privacy of people like him. By forcing journalists to tell people affected by their stories before they go to press, he said, individuals would have the opportunity to go to law to prevent publication.
But the court has decided that media are not obliged to warn their victims in advance. If they did in some cases it might limit press freedom by opening the door to mischievous injunctions designed to prevent the people's right to know about the private lives of the rich, powerful and famous.
The case is important, because although journalists are bound by an ethical responsibility to give people an opportunity to answer allegations made against them, they must also have the right to publish stories about powerful people who may use their power to suppres the truth. And the tales of super-injunctions that have been the talk of the Twittering classes recently show how dangerous that can be.
Shoddy journalism gave Mosley an opportunity to try to make his case, and there are many like him in the UK who will use injunctions -- super and not so super -- to protect themselves from legitimate scrutiny. Now the courts have given a clear signal that people who live in the spotlight of publicity and for whom public image is key to their livelihood must accept that they are subject to greater scrutiny than ordinary people. It's the price of fame.
No comments:
Post a Comment