Max Moseley case

[I-S]

And so he won.

Good.

Not because he's FIA head but simply because he was right.

I was surprised and annoyed with a comment on the BBC website from their Media Correspondant that said "[the judgement] means newspapers and broadcasters face a tougher battle to preserve the freedom of the press".

I fail to see how this restricts the freedom of the press. Is the BBC man mistaking journalistic integrity with throwing any allegation you like out there and letting it be decided in court?

I'm disappointed that punitive damages were not awarded because so far there's been little to deter the newspapers from invading people's lives to make a story.

[WITZ66]

Given Mosley's sexual preferences and proclivities, it's easy to see how Schumacher got away with so much skulduggery on the track....

"Didn't see anysing Herr Schumacher, mind you, Fraulein Helga voz examining me for zee nits and zee lice vile Fraulein Sabine voz receiving a sound thrashing viz zee cane and Fraulein Olga voz unable to speak as she voz coaxing zee fluids from zee Mosley nezzer regions. Is gut ya, mmm Schnell Schnell!!!"

[Nick Mann]

PMSL!!

The guy deserves the mick to be taken. If you are well known and monied, then be a bit careful as to who you enjoy your private moments with....

But I agree with Isaac. If the press had printed the truth rather than sensationalising it, then there would have been no issue.

[Turbo_Steve]

As above. I even read the article and all it's sensationalism, and thought "So he likes kinky sex? er.....big deal?"

The best part is that now he's over the initial humiliation, he can get on with having his fun in private without worrying about exposure for some bizzare political end.

I thought the whole article was sensationalist nonsense, frankly......it would have sat a lot better on the pages of a gosip magazine than in a newspaper.

[I-S]

The point is that they shouldn't, and indeed couldn't, print the truth. There was no public interest (as in, no benefit) in the disclosure and the law would have prevented publication under privacy grounds. The nazi story was sensationalism and purported to give legitimacy to the reporting. I'm not suggesting it was deliberately concocted, but rather the result of jumping to conclusions and inadequate research.

The BBC man suggests that this is ok, and that's what the freedom of the press is. I think that the freedom of the press is to print what they can verify to be true (which they couldn't in this case) where there's public interest in doing so. There is no public interest in knowing that steve evans of 43 somewhere road wears lady's underwear on weekends.

[WITZ66]

Don't you need to put "ALLEGEDLY" in there somewhere in case there really is a Steve Evans of 43 Somewhere Road.....:happy:

[Beastlee]

Steve Evans....is that Wildcards /haz

[pitslayer]

from day one i have said, whats the problem with orgies and a bit of roleplay. yes his old man was a bit of **** but doesnt mean he is does it. should of been left where it was, in his bedroom instead of strewn across the papers, its not like anyone cared about it either. most attitudes to it were "so he had a roleplay orgy....lucky bugger!!" /lol

[Turbo_Steve]

I agree Isaac. In fact, mainly I think a Free press has nothing to do with individuals, and a heck of a lot more to do with Corporates and Governments.
We DO have a free press: you can print what you like and usually the worst you'll get is a telling off and instructed to print a retraction, apology, and pay damages. That IS free.

A non-free press is where you try to print something counter to government, royal or coporate policy, and the law agrees that you need to spend a lot more time indoors.