Max Mosley Case

[Adrian II]

Anone else following this? I find it fascinating for various reasons.

1. Mosley obviously has a right to have his privacy respected. What do you think: even if the News of the World had been right and the orgy had involved Nazi roleplay, did the paper have the right (let alone duty) to report it?

2. The News of the World obviously had no other purpose in publishing the story than to hurt Mosley in his personal life and shame him into retiring as Formula One boss. And now he's fighting back. I hope Mosley wins. But Mosley is bringing his case under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which stipulates the "right to respect for private and family life". How far should this article be stretched?

Not too long ago, a story such as that of Mosley's orgy wouldn't have made the media at all, neither written nor electronic media. Were we worse off in those days; was the freedom of the press curtailed to an inacceptable degree?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Anone else following this?

I'm afraid I am not. I do find it odd that Mosley's fascist leaning only ever became a problem after an alleged sexual fascination with fascism.

[Geoffrey S]

Funnily enough saw this on the BBC site today and considered posting it. It's a curious case - I find his behaviour distasteful, but it shouldn't have been any 'journalist's business in the first place, let alone mine.

As for the chap's fascist tendencies, that's his right. Far as I can tell, what leanings he has have been well-concealed for the last decades at least, certainly of no public nuisance or any reason to draw attention to his politics.

[Adrian II]

I'm afraid I am not. I do find it odd that Mosley's fascist leaning only ever became a problem after an alleged sexual fascination with fascism.

Yes, everything about this case is odd. Mosley is certainly an unpalalable character. That is why his case is a litmus test for freedom of the press issues.

During the Geert Wilders/Fitna affair I regarded his case as a similar litmus test. Everyone would defend the right of a Voltaire to speak freely. But should we acknowledge the same right in the case of Voltaire's retarded nephew? I think we should.

In Mosley's case, I think we should respect the man's privacy even if his private life is disgusting, and even if his views are offensive to many. It is a litmus test of how strong the legal system really is when it comes to defending peoples' privacy.

By the way, Mosley has become a Conservative and even tried to stand for Parliament in the 1980's; the fascist leaning is no longer in evidence.

[Tribesman]

Its a funny story , he is into S&M but is complaining about the humiliation , does that mean he is only into part of it ?
If there is nothing wrong with the son of a nazi playing games with prostitutes with a third reich theme and people in stripy outfits then he has nothing to be ashamed of , its his own business he should be proud and flaunt it .
Its funny with the BMW and Mercedes exchange though , apparently they didn't like jews either so should not have called for his resignation .

[Adrian II]

Yeah well, the News of the World isn't exactly a hotbed of revolutionary Marxism either, is it? It's another of Rupert's rags right? That got me thinking whether there might be any business interests behind this article and the pics.

Formula One interests to be precise.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Even if he did, in fact, roleplay in that manner, it's his private life and he did nothing illegal. The press should off, plain and simple.

[Devastatin Dave]

Even if he did, in fact, roleplay in that manner, it's his private life and he did nothing illegal. The press should off, plain and simple.

The press has every right to print the story. I agree with Tribsey, if the dude digs humiliation, isn't it a bit silly to be sueing because of being humiliated? I mean come on, she should read the story while someone poops on him while having a rubber ball shoved in his mouth.. AND LIKE IT!!! Yes, you like it when Daddy humiliates you in the press, yes you do, yes you do!!!

[Tribesman]

That got me thinking whether there might be any business interests behind this article and the pics.

Business interests ?

Formula One interests to be precise.

No never , well by never I mean only if they were to become a little annoyed if Max was to do something like bringing his whipping crew on tour with him and claiming it as expenses

But hey he wouldn't fly his whores out to Monaco would he ?
Surely he would just use the local ones .

Oh dear has Max been on the fiddle , naughty Max needs spanking..."but we are the aryan race"....or perhaps a good kicking woud be in order

[Adrian II]

Business interests ?

Yes, business interests. As in: Formula One racing is a world-wide billion dollar motorcar, marketing, merchandising, sponsoring, advertisement and tv business, the funding of which is a mystery to every government and even to most participants.

I mean come on, she should read the story while someone poops on him while having a rubber ball shoved in his mouth.. AND LIKE IT!!!

And thank you Professor Devastatin for a fascinating exposé on press freedom in the light of article 8 ECHR.

Even if he did, in fact, roleplay in that manner, it's his private life and he did nothing illegal. The press should off, plain and simple.

I agree.

Some members seem unable to look beyond the merits of the person and grasp the legal and political merits of the case, no? If you think it's okay for the press to ruin Mosley's life for a laugh, don't be surprised if they ruin yours for someone else's laugh.

In fact I'm already on your case, Tribesy. Boy, those pics of you in lace-up boots and women's underwear look fine.

[HoreTore]

Breach of privacy, I say. This information has absolutely no real value to us.

Scandal journalists should be given a neckshot, IMO. They're the greatest threat to democracy these days. The true opium for the masses.

[KukriKhan]

At stake, if I read correctly, is his job, yes? Didn't he ask for and get a 'vote of confidence', after the alleged orgy?

: shrug : He's not an elected official, and no tax dollars are involved that I can see; so the story is about some rich guy's bedroom antics. Not news. Rather: scandal. Over here that kind of story would be covered by The National Enquirer, the supermarket-sold gossip and scandal sheet, with a reputation for about 5% accuracy.

[Fragony]

Breach of privacy, I say. This information has absolutely no real value to us.

Hear hear. Guy has a fetish. So bloody what couldn't care less, whorenalists like this should get an anal probe with GPS tracking see how they like being watched.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The press has every right to print the story.

The press does not have every right to humiliate someone (America has these laws too, I'm sure), and that's all that article was.

[ICantSpellDawg]

That article reduced my opinion of fascists. I want the ideological fascism (minus the massive killing of the jews), not that SA orgie crap. Or the SS ritual of consumating marriage in ancient cemetaries. Go back to San Fran or Manhattan.

Thought crimes, crimes against the state for showing nazi paraphernalia, crimes against my right to engage in sado-masochistic nazi sex parties and not have anyone find out. Europe has a disease and should be quarantined before it spreads.

[Adrian II]

Europe has a disease and should be quarantined before it spreads.

You mean to say Europe has privacy legislation and its extent is debatable. Sure, I don't feel entirely comfortable with any sort of legistation that curbs the freedom of the press, but if it protects my freedom from the press there may be something to it.

My best guess is that art. 8 will eventually cover the private life of people who are in the public eye for whatever reason, unless said private life is demonstrably at odds with their public function. I think it will not be restricted to people in public office only, but extended to all people with some sort of public role, including for instance movie stars. Tough luck for my esteemed colleagues the paparazzi.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You mean to say Europe has privacy legislation and its extent is debatable. Sure, I don't feel entirely comfortable with any sort of legistation that curbs the freedom of the press, but if it protects my freedom from the press there may be something to it.

My best guess is that art. 8 will eventually cover the private life of people who are in the public eye for whatever reason, unless said private life is demonstrably at odds with their public function. I think it will not be restricted to people in public office only, but extended to all people with some sort of public role, including for instance movie stars. Tough luck for my esteemed colleagues the paparazzi.

This is a similar argument to illegitimate search and seizure clauses in the U.S. When a police officer pulls over a car for having a tail light out, opens the trunk without cause and finds kilos of Coke and heroin - the bad guys go free. While they are technically off the hook from a legal perspective, their credibility is shot to crap and people should be angered and disgusted. This guy, even though he is legally right, is a despicable fiend who should be given a scarlet letter.

Some people get confused into thinking that, because the press is liable they start to defend the actions of the degenerate. Sounds absurd, but it happens so often it is comical.

[Adrian II]

Some people get confused into thinking that, because the press is liable they start to defend the actions of the degenerate.

Maybe some people do.

All I do is defend everyone's right to privacy.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Maybe some people do.

All I do is defend everyone's right to privacy.

I've always believed that you are a fair and bright guy. It is, however tempting to champion the acts after a long enough period of protecting the actor.

I agree that the idea that the press can publish your personal details is abhorent, but so are the mans actions.

[Adrian II]

I agree that the idea that the press can publish your personal details is abhorent, but so are the mans actions.

The latter does not justify the former.

By the way I don't think his actions are abhorrent at all, just mildly ridiculous.

[Fragony]

I agree that the idea that the press can publish your personal details is abhorent, but so are the mans actions.

What's wrong with it, he's a grown-up man, nobody was forced to do anything (and before you guys start no that isn't quite as clear with 11 year olds and retards on the gayparade), so he has slightly odd sexual customs. If he likes that stuff what's it to me. Good for him.

[ICantSpellDawg]

What's wrong with it, he's a grown-up man, nobody was forced to do anything (and before you guys start no that isn't quite as clear with 11 year olds and retards on the gayparade), so he has slightly odd sexual customs. If he likes that stuff what's it to me. Good for him.

"Good for him" is where i disagree. You are qualifying his actions as good. Just because it isn't illegal doesn't mean it is good.

[Fragony]

"Good for him" is where i disagree. You are qualifying his actions as good. Just because it isn't illegal doesn't mean it is good.

Just a fetish, completily harmless.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Just a fetish, completily harmless.

Harmless? There was bleeding involved in his sado-masochistic nazi orgy. What does harm mean to you? You arn't technically "harming" anyone when you cheat on your wife. Sure, you may have hurt her trust, but so would smoking if you had agreed not to do it. Maybe it is her old fashioned idea about monogamy that hurt her own feelings?

I would call the man a degenerate and exclude him from whatever I legally could. I still don't understand what "good for him" means. Adrian - this is what I'm talking about when we start defending the act itself as "good for him".

Of course he can legally do it - but he is scum.

[English assassin]

There's an old quote, I forget from which case, to the effect that the public interest is not the same as what the public are interested in.

The British press are (in part) a bunch of vicious whose own business doings or private lives would not stand up for a moment to the scrutiny they subejct others too.

There is quite obviously no justification for this story whatsoever. He broke no law. (Laughably, the News of the Screws is apparently suggesting he was coniving in a criminal assault,... on himself. Thank god we have such fearless champions to expose wrongdoing.) He paid the prostitutes, so his business ethics seem OK (certainly higher than the prostitute who secretly recorded proceedings to sell to the paper). I'd be very surprised if he has ever said in public that he supports family values and is opposed to nazi themed orgies. So on what possible basis can this story be said to be in the public interest?

People who worry about consensual activities going on in someone else's bedroom need to grow up.

Unfortunately though this is not how British law works and I suspect he may lose.

Not too long ago, a story such as that of Mosley's orgy wouldn't have made the media at all,

I reckon it would in the UK.

[Adrian II]

Adrian - this is what I'm talking about when we start defending the act itself as "good for him".

Meaning it's his own business. And spare us the indignation about S&M, it is soo yestermillennium. Same for his wife: who knows what goes on between the two of them, it's none of the media's business either if they have fallen out or whatever.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Meaning it's his own business. And spare us the indignation about S&M, it is soo yestermillennium. Same for his wife: who knows what goes on between the two of them, it's none of the media's business either if they have fallen out or whatever.

You can form a black and white judgment of it and I expect that you have.

He is a badguy. I don't trust men who do the things that he does. Maybe I shouldn't know about it because the press did something wrong, but I do now and can judge his actions as immoral and... Wrong - ie; not right, bad, etc. You can rationalize it as a good thing but I don't suffer from the same affliction.

[atheotes]

Invasion of privacy... what he does in his private life (as long as it doesnt harm others...here it looks like they were all consenting adults) is his own business

[English assassin]

I don't trust men who do the things that he does.

Ah, the old John Redwood line "A man who can betray his wife can betray his country".

Actually, no. Because, guess what, wives aren't countries. And the fact that a man likes to be spanked by prostitutes speaking German tells you nothing about his trustworthiness in other contexts.

Desperately, desperately, some people want the world to conform to their little narrative of good guys and bad guys. And it just doesn't. So they cling to the simple, easy to grasp rule, because its just too scary to face up to the complexity of real life.

Ironically there is only one black and white judgement here and its not AII's.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Ah, the old John Redwood line "A man who can betray his wife can betray his country".

Actually, no. Because, guess what, wives aren't countries. And the fact that a man likes to be spanked by prostitutes speaking German tells you nothing about his trustworthiness in other contexts.

Desperately, desperately, some people want the world to conform to their little narrative of good guys and bad guys. And it just doesn't. So they cling to the simple, easy to grasp rule, because its just too scary to face up to the complexity of real life.

Ironically there is only one black and white judgement here and its not AII's.

Corruption exposed tends to be the tip of the iceberg. The iceberg being a death of morals and a contempt for decency. Think of his actions as red flags into his personality.

Is there such a thing as rotten and fresh fruit? There are places that you can keep fruit to keep it edible for long periods of time and other places that will rot the fruit and make it poisonous. Max lives in a brown paper bag.