Max Mosley And The Right To Privacy
I can't help but feel a (more than slight) unease about the way the case between Max Mosley and the News of the World has been played out over the last few weeks, but more so since the verdict in favour of Mosley this week. It was a slightly bizarre case, it must be said, but also, in my opinion, a completely unnecessary case, one that shows just how bad our media are.
I am glad that in the verdict this week, it was noted that Mosley, and others could expect privacy for consensual "sexual activities (albeit unconventional)". Now let me be clear about this: I am no fan of Max Mosley, and I am hardly comfortable with his choice of sexual activities, but at the end of the day, what does it matter? Why, just because people do not like what he is doing, is it ok to pay hookers to hide cameras in what is a private affair and make it public? I do not agree with his choices, but they are perfectly legal, and so, in that respect, his privacy should be respected. He has committed no crime. This is not something that really holds a wide public interest - it is nothing more than a snigger story.
The Daily Mail claimed that the verdict was a good day for the corrupt, and the Sun claims that what matters in your right to know. Why? Why is it so important that I should know about someone else's private life? Even the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, has weighed in on the row, calling the decision a dangerous precedent that will needlessly shackle the press. Of course, he is writing in the News of the World, but I'm sure that doesn't make a difference at all. Nor does the fact that he comes from the Anglican denomination. No, that must be coincidence.
This is a real problem we seem to have. Our press are far too quick to try and assume some kinf of moral high ground, claiming to be exposing the indecent - though perfectly legal - behaviour of others - by using rather suspect means. They gladly moralise on one page about how our society has lost all morality, whilst on the opposing page, have almost completely naked women and have columns such as Dear Deirdre, which seem to be full of the very same things that they moralise about.
Quite why Lord Carey has decided to get involved, I have no idea. What's it to him? Are newspapers our only hope of upholding morality? Of course, he's coming from the viewpoint of "freedom of expression", but what's that? In my understanding, freedom of expression should be allowed without harassment.
We can disagree with what people do, but persecuting them isn't the right way forward. Isn't Britain meant to be known for being a fairly liberal country? There's not much evidence of it from here.
There are currently no comments on this article.