Poor Dear! Mad Max Mosley cries foul in free willie trap

[Jan Klimkowski]

I can only :jumpingjoy:

If the European Court had ruled in favour of Mosley, much genuine investiagative journalism would have rendered either impossible or unviable.

The "Mosley video" may well be part of a particular "conspiracy" as alluded to by David Guyatt above, but the principles at stake in this court ruling are hugely important.

Max Mosley loses European privacy case

Former Formula One boss fails in bid to force newspapers to warn people before publishing stories on their private lives

Read the Max Mosley judgment in full
Mark Sweney guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 10 May 2011 09.40 BST

Max Mosley, the former Formula One boss, lost his legal challenge to force newspapers to warn people before publishing stories exposing their private lives, after a European court ruled on Tuesday that such as system would have a "chilling effect" on the press.

The ruling by the European court of human rights in Strasbourg will mark the last stage in Mosley's campaign for tighter privacy laws following revelations about his sex life in the News of the World.

In 2008 the UK high court awarded him £60,000 damages after ruling that there was no justification for a front-page article and pictures about his meeting with five prostitutes in a London flat.

But Mosley pursued the case to the European court, challenging UK privacy laws that allow publication without giving their targets advanced warning.

The court said on Tuesday that the actions of the News of the World were "open to severe criticism" for publishing not only a print story, but also photographs and video footage obtained through covert recording, "which appears to have been included in the News of the World's coverage merely to titillate the public and increase the embarrassment of the applicant".

However, the court added it has "consistently emphasised the need to look beyond the facts of the [News of the World] case and to consider the broader impact of a pre-notification requirement".

It said such a pre-notification process for newspaper exposés is likely to have a "chilling effect" on the media and that there are "significant doubts" as to the effectiveness of such a system.

"The court is of the view that article 8 does not require a legally binding pre-notification requirement. Accordingly, the court concludes that there has been no violation of article 8 of the convention by the absence of such a requirement in domestic law," the Strasbourg ruling stated.

Article 8 of the European convention on human rights guarantees the right to respect for private life.

Mosley responded to the Strasbourg ruling by indicating that he had not given up in his fight to force newspapers to warn people before publishing stories exposing their private lives. Asked if he had a message for newspaper editors, Mosley said: "It's not over yet."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/may...ivacy-case

Further descriptions of that tape, which I have seen along with tens of thousands of others, can be found here and here and here.