FIA chairman Max Mosley has won £60,000 ($115,200) in compensation from a Sunday newspaper which printed pictures of him taking part in a "sadomasachistic orgy" The News of the World also claimed the orgy had "Nazi overtones", with MOsley as a camp commandant.

Mr. Justice Eady ruled that Mosely could expect privacy, regardless of the inconventional nature of his sexual activities. In his ruling, he said



Today's newspapers have been scalding in their coverage of the decision, not least The Sun, the News of the World's stablemate. The paper said that the judgement would lead to privacy laws creeping in from Europe which would give the rich and powerful a blanket ot hide behind.

In this case, I tend to side with the individual. Although freedom of the press is important in a free society, the privacy of the individual is also important, possibly more so. ALmost every week, the News of the World has headlines about a famous person caught with their trousers down (so to speak), and to me, that just isn't news.

If someone wishes to engage in consensual activites with another, regardless of their fame, they should be free to do so, without the press publishing every detail

Full story: http://tinyurl.com/5pbb8e

Unless Mosley was doing this on the side walk in front of Big Ben, I say he does have a right to privacy here. He certainly had a reasonable expectation of privacy. The article says the hooker taped the orgy in secret. Seems like she knew Mosley was wanting this to be a private affair and that she was looking to make some money by going public with it.

"As the head of the richest sport in the world, with almost 125 million members, Mr Mosley "had an obligation to honour the standards which its vast membership had every right to expect of him", Mr Myler said.

"Taking part in depraved and brutal S&M orgies on a regular basis does not, in our opinion, constitute the fit and proper behaviour to be expected of someone in his hugely influential position."
-BBC News

I disagree. Mosley's responsibility is to motor sports. He was not engaged in motor sports while having his orgy and was not promoting the orgy as a motor sport. His private life is his business.

Here's where it gets slippery. An S&M orgy dressed as a Nazi may not be illegal in England but, what about hiring 5 hookers? My dad had a saying, "It's not illegal if you don't get caught." Well, yes it is. Breaking the law in private is still breaking the law.

The private life of a public figure, in the USA at least, has few protections.

Sports figures, actors, politicians, broadcasters and other people whose names and faces are familiar, fall into that category.

In order to win a lawsuit against an invasion of the public person's privacy, the plaintiff has to show actual malice. Just getting money for some pictures, or exposing someone to ridicule does not rise to that level.

A hooker who took the pictures probably could be accused of greed, but not malice. Malice, towards a public figure, is very hard to prove. Else Limbaugh, O'Reilly etc. would be paying out slander judgments forever.

I'm not sure that attending nazi orgies effects the parts of Mosely's life that the public sees, and I agree that he was not doing anything to defame motor sports, and so in my view gets off the hook.

However, others will argue that sports figures in particular are role models to their young fans, and are held to a somewhat higher standard of behavior. But even then, the guy could get fired, but would not be arrested or charged with any crime.

To quote Wikipedia:



I know Wikipedia is not the best source, but it would seem that as long as Mosley was neither persistant nor kerb crawling, he did not do anything illegal.



I would argue that Mosley is not a sport figure, but more a businessman.

What kind of punishment could be given to someone who takes such pictures and publishes them?

If they aren't photoshopped, they are photos of actual events that took place.

There is no longer any "expectation of privacy" of any sort, and those who don't know that by this time are going to have to find it out the hard way.

So is there a legal case against the photographer and distributor of the pix, or is it just another embarassing incident people will forget by next week?

Mosely did lose his job as the result of this incident, however. And the prostitute did take a camera along with her, which could show premeditation. Of course, she could always take a camera with her on S/M 'assignments,' to provide herself with a sense of safety--but I don't think that was the case here. I think she went to the orgy with the idea of deliberately defaming Mosely.

England has a lot of tabloids. I don't know if the Sun is a tabloid, but tabloids here have certainly been sued and have learned to be very careful with what they print.

Mosley didn't lose his job, and actually won a vote of confidence at an EGM following the breaking of the story.

Both The Sun and the News of the World are tabloid newspapers, run by the same company, the former running Monday to Saturday, the latter being a Sunday only paper.

I suspect that the judgement was made because of the claims of Nazi overtones than because his privacy had been breached. Given his family background, any Nazi reference would be highly damaging to Mosley.

Sorry, Jack, my bad. I read into 'being pressured to resign.'

His real burden is, of course, his father's friendship with the Nazi party during the 1930's. Should the sin's of the father be visited on the son?

Judge Eady seems to have made a very wise decision.

The sins of the father should not be visited on the son, unless of course the son engages in...well, you know...Nazi activity or something like that.

Is an S/M 'orgy' necessarily a 'Nazi activity?'